Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Credit to China and Europe for not simply conceding when they saw our NPC and team!

Congratulations to T-USA, China for the individual, Europe for a solid showing and also many, many thanks to the organizers for staging this event and keeping it moving forward.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry is correct. It is also the reason that limit raises, such as 1M-3M cannot be 3-point raises. No room to work it out. One can define a L/R as 10-11 or 11-12 depending on opening bid style. But 10-12 becomes random.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There were a few minus scores in unknown contracts.”

Probably 7-1 when they started with two rounds of trumps.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You make this half the time - just swap the E & W hands.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual polling should perhaps be whether we think silly definitions by the ACBL require and alert.

Pretty certain that anyone who plays “SF” when holding Jxxx/K9xxx/AQ/Qx is going to float the 1NT response and not rebid 2.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here we go again.

Since a material either conducts electricity or not, then I guess semiconductors do not exist and by extension neither do personal computers.

Semi-pregnant is the first trimester.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume in some situations “pass” could be a CC. After all, they do call it “comparable call”. (P.S. I agree with Kieran above about this case, this is just a thought experiment. Thought experiments are useful before actually deciding whether to make new regulations.)

The player and TD return to the table after a lengthy discussion of the system and options, because after all, who cares about time? Pass now replaces the insufficient bid of 2 at the table.

Is this a comparable call pass that allows opener to act again, or a non-comparable call pass that subsequently bars opener? The players at the table would need to be informed which, and anyone in their right mind would know that CC “pass” now means “I was not going to pass”. However, this info is now AI as our learned lawmakers believe that L16C does not apply here and specifically negate its application in L23B.

In theory, there should not be UI ASSUMING the substituted call is actually comparable. (That this theory seems incorrect might be evidence for the falsification of CC theory.)

In L23C the lawmakers pen this:

“If following the substitution of a comparable call (see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)) the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different…”

(Note: I had to change the braces, above)

However, L23C - which apparently grants random powers to the TD without any general process or methodology to address situations that would be theoretically impossible to arise IF the assumption underlying CC principles were valid - specifically cites 27B1 which once again SPECIFICALLY NEGATES application of L16C when the CC pass is replaced. Therefore our law authorizes information of the legally substituted CC to all players.

How can a TD change the outcome if a player acted upon info which was specifically authorized? THAT was not the infraction, was it?

Am I the only one who finds it odd that our laws made more sense back when bridge players were younger and taking only the illegal drugs? Just some anecdotal data that suggests modern pharmacology might have more adverse effects than advertised.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re: Self-serving stuff from Stevo

The truth is everyone has a stake in the outcome. The “unlikely to be personally affected” stipulation is correct only if another small shovel of dirt on the grave of tournament bridge in the USA does not matter to the voter.

The whole “who benefits”, “didn't play the whole event”, “but now event is less prestigious” is beside the point. The whole point -and only point - is to promote bridge and get butts in chairs. Everything else is incidental.

How exactly does tournament attendance and/or enthusiasm gain when players KO'd from a major event find their disappointment compounded because they now have to wait TWO DAYS to enter another NABC event? The only way I would now enter some run-of-the-mill regional event for next day and then repeat that silliness the following is if I had been hired for the whole tourney and we had to find some event to play.

I do not make many NABCs. But when I do, I am there for the big events. I seldom enter a regional event. What is the point? I'd rather cheer myself up with time off an do something in Frisco. Heck, if I wanted to play cards, I can find a poker room nearby. But the powers-that-be actually imagine that the Soloway QF teams are going to want to enter the Cure Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Wed-Thu Knockout Teams.

Who thinks this crap up? These teams are going to really enter that event, and then all get placed in the same B1 so that we can now determine who sucked the worst in the Soloway Quarter-Finals? Hey, if I get KO'd in the first round, I still need to find some event to play for 3-sessions. Maybe I can score a side-game title! (The city is really going to beckon now.)

The shorthand for people know know nothing about promoting events is this: just assume that whatever the ACBL is doing serves some narrow group of yappy, whiny people and is contrary to broader interests and goals.

Like selling entries.

But hey, how is a few entries going to cover all that money they lost in Hawaii?

BTW, anyone out there who thinks the ACBL caters to top-level players is delusional. . The ACBL does not have a clue. Really.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I selected the first option. I am not entirely happy with the exact wording of the modifiers - but then Martin's English is infinity better that my Swedish. (Ja, jag vill ha mer köttbullar and something I got slapped for is pretty much my limit.)

The explanation might have been worded differently, but I do not see anything to complain about on either a legal or moral level. (Not that it might not stop bridge players from complaining. “The room is too hot”, “The room is too cold”. . .“)

Actually, I think that describing 1NT as a ”transfer“ could cause confusion. 1NT simply shows 8+ HCP and 5+ Hearts. It does not request a transfer, does it?

Perhaps a clearer explanation of 2 might be: ”ALL 10-12 balanced hands, opener has between 2 to 5 hearts." The actually explanation does not explicitly rule out that there could be hands that had other options. However, if the inference is super-strong given opener might bid 2 with as many as 5-card support.

That opener could have 5-card heart support would not be something I would assume without that information since in some styles it might have been opened 1.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In English, “semi” sounds as if it could be a subset of the main group. (Hence the question.)

However, if one drew a Venn diagram of all the balanced hands (0-1 distribution point) and all the semi-balanced hands (2 dis pt) there is no overlap.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What, doesn't everyone go sock-shoe, sock-shoe?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks John, I had not thought 2NT might be made. I just wondered what the worst possible dummy/distribution could be.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was it really THAT?!
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something else. The two options they do not get are 3+1 and 3NT plus a lot. (Yes it can be set, but probably not).

Is anyone else surprised the slow double was correctly interpreted as “I really don't have spades?” Or maybe the “BIT is not demonstrative” crowd decided not to run that nonsense here.

Edit add: Wow, shocked at the voting for table result stands. I guess the BIND crowd will never go away.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some good answers - Avon's glass is full and Barry's glass is completely empty and cracked extremes.

The hard part of this problem is that it was a Regional pair game. At the club, half the field achieves the par of +110 on the auction:

2-2; 2-P

E is - / K109854 / Axxx / Kxx
W is 987652 / x / KQx / Axx
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It must be me (again). But spending money on a hotel room in Las Vegas just seems fundamentally wrong :)
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm. Interesting hand for certain.

I have often thought being able to divine the layout based on the assessment of the ops is a much better skill than being able to calculate the slight difference between reasonable lines.

Lets start with what happened. The top expert bid 3. This could sometimes be a 6-bagger. But East might have doubled or thought about doubling 4 with Hxx/xxx. What E also did not do is overcall 1.

Is West the sort that will really step out of line to generate action - for example preempt with a hand the field will simply overcall 2? If not, it seems East has some values. Yet East did not bark. If the clubs are 7-2, it seems the spades might well be 3-4. Otherwise a likely spade overcall. Or is the client passing white @ MP with KQxxx xxx Qxx Qx -maybe. So the problem is knowing how the pro might handle the client (teach or be gung-ho). And is the client a noob who passes 1-level overcalls, or likes to bid?

If clubs are 7-2 and spades 3-4, you will get a bad red suit break. Which one?

If the hearts are 1-4, then ruff, A/A then low heart to Q to make. (assuming not AKQ10 on left, I think). If the diamonds are 1-4, you need to play ruff, A then low diamond to ten.

The problem is that I do not see a line that caters to either red suit being 4-1. What works for one bad red suit break goes down for the other bad suit break. If both red suits break, you can either make 11 or fail miserably trying for the OT.

It would be easier playing this on a spade lead, I think. West might have tracked a stiff diamond. So play for stiff heart.

If one is not sure of which way to go, state of game might come into play. I think most players will see ruff, A, heart to Q and diamond up. If it is wrong, you will have company. Less obvious is ruff, A, low diamond. If diamonds are 1-4 you have a top. A bottom if not.

It seems I ruff, play A, 8 from E. If I think East is the sort who always gives partner count, then it could be from QJ8x. If I think E is playing a low card from that holding, I play a heart to Q.

If I cross to Q and it now goes 4-9, I have to think about whether E was giving count in trumps and still try for 11 tricks.

I don't think there is an optimal sequence. Other than starting with A, look at the spots and back your judgment of the ops.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second part is a very good question. The first part seems like an underbid because if they do lead K from AK systemically, it likely makes a lot of difference. I also know some pairs that lead A from AK but K from AK when planning a singleton switch.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bonjour M. Damiani,

You might not recall me, but I was the driver for you, Joan and Ernesto down to Philadelphia. Just to give you a heads-up, I am also pretty much the only person on this whole site who believes in the IOC affiliation. However, from the unintended consequences department, I was horrified by the WBF disciplinary action taken against Geir Helgemo. Most of the WADA list is irrelevant to our sport, but perhaps not to many players' general health given the ever increasing average age of our participants.

Is there anyone at the WBF actually thinking about these issues? It is also not uncommon to be granted a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). I was stupefied that the WBF felt compelled to treat this as an anti-doping rules violation instead of an adverse analytical finding.

While I support bridge and the Olympic ideal, why should I continue to support an organization like the WBF that would go after its own member in such an officious manner?

(If it was clomiphene that made Geir the player he is, I am getting a prescription tomorrow.)

Good luck in the well, I do admire your courage.

Best regards and thank you in advance for any light you can shed on this matter.
April 16
David Yates edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are missing my vote: don't know how I used to remember the cards, I just did.

Nowadays it is a newspaper/book column visualization. Sometimes the print is annoyingly small. . .
April 16
.

Bottom Home Top