Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 215 216 217 218
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whatever % is necessary to produce several instances of the same facts and circumstances, only with various “peer groups” so that we can have completely different rulings and score adjustments.

But I do need to be there when the TD has to explain: “your score adjustment was not as favorable because your peers are pretty dumb.”

Or perhaps vice versa. Maybe someday in NCAAF when an o-lineman moves early we can hear the ref announce: “False start on #53. There is no yardage marked off because he is here on a full athletic scholarship.”
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While the A is on the table it is always AI. Suppose declarer demands a spade lead, partner returns the ace to his hand and plays a different card. Now the ace is UI. Whether partner holds that card is based on bridge logic, though somehow everyone seems to “figure it out”.

Since “Information derived from a penalty card..” is AI to all players as long as it is on the table, I can plan the defense knowing partner has the A. Suppose the auction started Prec 1-1D with the weak hand declaring NT having shown 6-7 HCP.

I could presumably count his hand knowing partner held the A and defend accordingly as long as the A was on the table. However, if a spade shift was demanded and the A went back in, partner taking a finesse against dummy, that defender is not supposed to construct the defense knowing partner has the A and therefore what declarer must hold for his 6-7 HCP.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact that partner has the A is AI. That partner is unreliable is neither AI, UI nor surprising.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am bidding 3 regardless.

However, it might be better without the announcement than with. Some players (have no idea who West is) become randomly incentivized to bid over “could be short” announcement. Apparently failing to realize that it still could be 5 or 6.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred, I always like to bid, but some cards would be nice. I think you accidentally left out the hand.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone, hopefully.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get to pen a dear John letter :)

Dear John (A. & L. et al)

Statutes are sometimes subject to different readings. There are established maxims for determining which interpretation is proper. Your interpretation of 50E3 violates the principle of surpluses and redundancies. Statutes are not to be interpreted in such a way that provisions or passages become superfluous or unnecessary. The principle is that the regulation is supposed to mean something.

50E1 makes all info regarding that card authorized while it is a penalty card “…on the table”.

There is no point to writing 50E3 attaching UI to only the partner when that card is played based on your interpretation, if it is by your reading, somehow now authorized. (There has to be UI, so what is it?) Nor is there any point to making a distinction between a played and unplayed penalty card based on your reading. Yet the lawmakers clearly endeavored to do so.

The reason an unplayed penalty card is AI is because I am allowed to defend knowing that the penalty card might become an issue. Thus, I might want to try to let partner to win a trick so he has to lead the penalty card as opposed to me perhaps being required to lead or not lead the suit.

The reason they made this distinction and attached UI “once a penalty card has been played…” is to avoid otherwise unsolvable – and quite unfair - UI issues which could no arise.

To understand the issue, the “BIT is not demonstrable” crowd is going to have to understand that while YOU might not be able to tell if my wife is upset, I sure can. I could easily tell as West whether many Easts are happy or not about having to lead the 2. With some – a new or a pickup partner – perhaps I could not.

If East is happy, 2 asks for the normal club. With not particularly happy, East wants a diamond. So if E-W can read each other's body language – many can easily, while others have no clue – is this not an unfair situation? Once the 2 comes back, I don't think there is any reason one way or another to guess diamond or club. (There isn't, but to make everyone happy, take away the J and rethink).

By stipulating UI attaches to the 2 being forced, we can regulate UI that would otherwise create an uneven playing field – i.e. benefits to pairs introducing and then using subtle UI.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 58 was a typo.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It means partner has a deep-seated animosity towards you.

Basic rule of bidding (translated by moi, from the original Goren): If your partner does not know what the bid means, you made the wrong bid.

Bidding is about reaching a reasonable contract. It is not about showing how smart you are. But if you believe that matters, please be smart enough not to throw your partner a curve ball.

D.B. has a reasonable torture hand for spades and Patrick thinks it is a splinter support for diamonds. Kit and Frances have no idea. I am in their camp. I will bid over 4 only because it is usually right to bid over weird bids. Instead of science, we now have wild-assed guessing. My partner will probably say that X and then suit shows values, he was max for the first pass so he wanted to cue to force game. Over 3 he was afraid 3 would be looking for NT or support diamonds, so he wanted to show he had a suit. I can hear it now: “we don't play 1-4 as splinter, why is it a splinter now?”

I have hundreds of pages of notes of relays and lots of cool stuff. But at the end of the day, if it is not in the notes, it should NEVER come up at the table.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well. . . I might have cue bid with that hand and I will bid 4 now if partner passes 3.

I think bidding the same values twice punishes partner for helping compete with nominal values, a stiff and Hxx. You could have had a real hand for 2 you know.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure this is entirely correct. L58E1 states that the info is authorized to all players while the card is on the table. However, L58E3 states: “Once a penalty card has been played, information derived from the circumstances under which it was created is unauthorized for the partner of the player who had the card.”

I think once we translate this into English, it means that the fact there is a penalty card on the table is AI, but when that card is played the accompanying info is UI.

My reading of the laws is West must return a club.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Give me 16 teams in the top bracket”

As long as you are fantasizing, how about we schedule Alfredo Versace for your finals opponent? (Sometimes dreams do come true:)

I agree 100% in principle with what you wrote. A full KO is the best and most enjoyable event in bridge. Unfortunately, the full regional KOs seem to be going (or have gone) the way of the 16-board segment.

Or District (#3) has not run KOs - just the compacts (ugh) - in at least five years :(

I think the problem is how thin bridge has become at the top. The ACBL has been maintaining membership levels, more or less, by recruiting retirees. Fifty to sixty years ago, it was college aged kids getting involved. People played for decades and many became fair, if not name players. Traditionally, there was always a fairly large group of experienced players. These players aged out and we have been filling the ranks with people who will never have the time, inclination, experience and/or ability to be competitive in B-1.

Sure, we have added some stars coming up through the junior program. But the fact that we know them all by name attests to the few numbers. What has not been replaced over the last 30 years or more is the pretty good players who can give the very good players at least a contest. Unless by some miracle the demographics change, the situation will become only more disparate.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Par.a.dox (noun) A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

I have heard lots of opponent's bidding explanations that - while not well founded - did turn out to be the true, absurd agreements. So yes, bridge paradoxes do exist.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might occur to me to open the East hand, it would never occur to me to double - especially since partner could not open in 3rd and the colors are wrong.

Notice the diamond bidders were raised, led the ace and got an ave result. The passers/doublers were 1/4 on another lead.

The real anomaly is 25 N/S pairs scoring 450. Some needs to call the Subtractor.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this belongs in Andy's “Auction Whacking” thread.

It is customary in the US for the TD to obtain the obligatory declaration from North that: “I was always bidding 7”. South usually denies taking additional time even if the kibs died of boredom while waiting for a call.

My guess is that this will most likely be ruled back to 7-X but it is impossible to say without actual facts and hands.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bracket constructions become difficult and potentially quarrelsome when moving teams between lower brackets. If your team moves from 3 to 2, they may need to move a team down from 2 to 3 to keep the numbers equal. Players in 3 might object to making their bracket (supposedly, anyway) “tougher”.

Yes, this happens when your team moves from 3 to 1, but you might not select that only option since your preference is moving from 3 to 2.

As far as the MP awards, there never has been a relationship with reality.

Suppose B1 consists of seven 16K teams plus Nickell. (288K or so). The ave is 40K, This means 2nd place gets paid handsomely. In fact, more than 1st place sans team Nickell. This happened a couple years ago at our Saratoga Regional. Rich DeMartino's team had a ton of MP and they calculated that 2nd place earned more than had that team finished 1st without DeMartino in the field.

Yet either way, it is at least the same performance in terms of teams you defeated. And arguably much easier to beat two 16K teams and then lose to a big name team, then it is to score three consecutive wins over peers.

There is no rational for believing that adding an extra weak team or two to the “natural” bracket size makes that bracket easier. Nor do I believe it makes it harder. If we start with 10 or 11 in 3-ways or an initial RR,the ability to finish in the money in a KO is going to be dictated by the strength of the top teams just below the money positions, not the field average.

In my universe, the KO should be the premier event. The O/A awards determined as as a function of the strength of the top of each bracket. (Yes, big name teams get paid for being big names, but we want them here!) I would provide bonus awards in addition to the match win for lower-ranked teams defeating higher-ranked teams based on the disparity of points and the length of the match.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You planned to pull partner's in-tempo double to 4H…”

Actually, I did not. Since I thought 3 was making and 4-X was off just one, I already bid 4 over 3.

Also, what you planned to do no longer matters since defending is a logical alternative. Players often make statements such as this and it has no relevance to the issue. Save everyone the time and aggravation of the TD call and pass.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the real life version of The Wizard of Oz:

“What have you learned, Dorothy?”

“Nothing.”

When partner BITs, the UI is an irregularity. What you were going to do has nothing to do with anything. YOU no longer get to choose. You can thank your partner for that. It is the same as if partner led a spade out of turn. If declarer tells you not to lead a spade, it does not matter that you had AKQJ10. You no longer get to select a spade.

However, in the BIT case, if it was so certain, the authorities let you get away with partner's hesitations. We are nicer to those who frequently commit infractions than we are to those who accidentally commit one. Why, I do not know. (Mayberry would point out that we also see more tempo problems than leads out of turn.)

For the “I was always bidding the slam” crowd, that does not matter. You CAN, however, always bid the slam with ANY partner who follows the proprieties. But that did not happen here. The legal term (I could be wrong, check with Ray) is “$ht out of luck”. Unfortunate, since North tempo-ed his hand perfectly. The original hesitation showed shape but not points. The non-bit 4 showed a good fit. The BIT over 4 showed pieces but not enough to cue.

Perfectly hesitated!

“I was always bidding the slam”. But the field does not do that. And NOW you get the worse LA when the field (or players consulted) deem considering pass a LA. I was one of two pairs to reach 7NT at MP with 40 combined points. Ten pairs did not. My partner and I once claimed 13 of the 19 available tricks in 7NT in a team match and the OT (A players)was in 6.

And here on Bridgwinners, nearly 2 of 5 polled don't want to be in this reasonable slam. https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/atb-missed-slam-2-pwlm8d9h93/ Certainly as reasonable as what the “I was always bidding” contingent can expect.

Stop telling me about how “obvious” it was to bid the slam. It is more likely to succeed given the BITs than without and that is the issue. If you and your partner cannot reach an “obvious” slam without BIT, then guess what? You get the worse LA. What becomes obvious is this slam is quite a BIT better now that advancer has so accurately defined his hand. Yep, better by quite a few BITs.

The other side of the coin is that tempo pairs screw you every time they know not to go when they exhibit quick tempo. Insta-pass over 3. S-L-O-W 4. Fast 5 over 4 and now they wont go. But you cannot call the TD and force them to bid the bad slam, can you? What is your case? “They didn't hesitate over 4.” Yeah, that will work.

Since the tempo pairs screw you every time they maintain tempo, the only solution is to tag them when they commit the BIT irregularity that you can quantify. It is not a solution because PLAYERS NEVER LEARN, but at least watching David Burn pound the wooden stake in is something.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even easier is if players would learn to bid in tempo. However, since all of humanity seems to think that the rules should be constructed around themselves and not around an objective standard we seek to support, I doubt this rather simple idea will take hold any time soon.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not often one can correct D. Burn on procedural minutiae, but actual current practice in bridge follows the standard procedure elsewhere of conducting as many polls as necessary to obtain the desired result.
Jan. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 215 216 217 218
.

Bottom Home Top