Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David:
I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I am well aware of the intent of the alert procedure along with concepts of AI, UA, MI, etc.
Along with squirming, staring, and “other body language”, you forgot to add trying to cop a glance at ones' own convention card. At least the OP didn't report that west slammed the 5 card on the table and then glared at his partner: I've seen that happen.
I am in no way trying to condone west's actions over 4H: I am trying to understand it. I believe that all players who know better would take their medicine (whatever it turns out to be) and move on. And I agree with you about preventing such types of actions in the future, nipping it in the bud so-to-speak, is primary. And, if this was a player who clearly knew or should have known better, well……………
So I am wondering if it's possible that west didn't know better for some reason, possibly insufficient education and/ or lack of experience. And I believe that educating the player as well as the reasons for any rulings and other consequences is something that the TD is supposed to do. As for consequences such as PPs, I would hope that the TD would be able to take all factors into account when making an assessment of a PP if permitted.
I mention the latter because it reminds me of a situation that occurred a number of years ago at the summer nabcs in Providence, RI in a stratified open pairs game. There was a hand where the director was called to the table after an opponent had used a conventional bid over a 1NT opening bid that had not yet been approved/ authorized by the acbl (it now is). The TD did not adjust any scores but he did assign a PP to the pair who had used this convention. They were a bit upset and did not understand why they were being penalized after having recently taken lessons to learn the convention. The person who made the initial conventional had no idea that he had committed a violation. So educate the person/people, explain the infraction, why it's an infraction, and if a consequence is mandated by the laws, explain that, too. I felt that discretion could have been used in issuing a PP on this occasion. Or don't the laws permit for the director to use discretion re PPs once given all of the facts? (I question whether making harsh PPs when the people who committed an infraction didn't understand in the first place is a good idea and, per laws, an absolute? To do so would be a good way to drive someone away from the game.)
Oct. 21, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
same for me…was just curious about the rest of your structure. just trying to find out how different people are playing things
Oct. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
so, after west had “reviewed the auction.. and given all explanations”, do procedures permit south to ask east if east agrees with west's explanation? Or would that, then potentially generate UI some how?
Oct. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
omg, the above two comments seem quite harsh to me. “Acting like children? Really, Punishing west by putting him in the corner? What's up with that? In the words of the late Elijah Cummings (and others), ”C'mon, man“.
I am curious. Was the actual knowldge/skill/ experience levels of the e/w players ever determined. Just because it was a ”National Event“ (what nation?), is it possible the the west player's actions might have been due to insufficient knowledge/ familiarity with rules and procedures related to such situations? Not everyone has the knowledge, experience, sophistication of many of those posting on BW. Is it possible that one or both of the e/w pair here are more in need of education (hopefully provided by the TD) rather than of punishment? Maybe this person was ”playing up".
Just because someone has qualified for an acbl rating of life master (whatever color), that doesn't mean that the person has comprehension of all 129 pages of the acbl laws of duplicate bridge?
Should that be an additional requrement? I'd love to hear the arguments pro and con on that one. I suspect most people rely on and accept the director to handle any issues at the table without having to go learn every law and subsection like so many of you appear to know.
Oct. 20, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 questions for David C, please
1) is your response structure as described tthe new normal? It is different than the one I learned way back when (and not what my regular partner prefers).
2) If 3 followed by 4 implies alm interest, what do you do with 5s and just a FG? Jump to 4/bid what you think you can make? Something else?
(btw, the treatment suggested by JA would seem to be a viable way to potentially resolve the second question, (and the treatment of 2N-3C-4D as 4-6 sounds good at first look) but i am also interested if that is how DC and other differentiate between GF 5+, and 5+ with slam interest?
TIA,
DHL
Oct. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
interesting. in my rodwell files book 2011, squeezes are pp 42-52, Ch 2.
perhaps you meant Part 1?
only book i ever got signed by author- cherished
addressing the title question: loser on loser is not in the Glossary at the end of the book ( just hand losers), and i don't see any chapter or section of any chapter with a title of loser-on-loser.
Oct. 19, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve- i saw it and understood. it just reminded me of a particular hand that always amuses me when i think about it.
RR - thx
re announcing the fewest possible - that's what i thought, just wasn't sure
Oct. 19, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I retract the idea that the 4 bid could ever conceivably be based on long weak s as I so wrongly speculated above. Such a hand would never just bid 3 when 3 supposedly shows good majors. Ignore my brian freeze there.
Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve: I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who reverses to 2 on 3316. Ah, but did partner pass and let you play it there as happened to me, see above. As it was BBO, pick-up, she just disappeared but not before informing me that I was unintelligent or some similar compliment.
Still begs the question of, if the reverse can be in a suit that could shorter than 3 cards in length, what is the best way to alert this? “alert, could be short?” “Alert, could be fewer than 4”??
Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a procedural question, given all of this discussion and debate about how many s the 2 reverse promises (and SteveM's hand where he mentioned possibly making a j/s to 3 holding 3361).
Is the 2 reverse or any reverse that might show fewer than 4 cards in the suit alertable in acbl-land? (I am starting to think the answer could be yes.) If yes, what might be the best way to word the alert?
I ask because, although artificial reverses might be more common in more expert circles, it might be consdered as less common if not unexpected among less skilled or experienced players. As to how to alert when the reverse or jump-shift might be made on a singleton, I defer to your more expert advice.
(And, fwiw, on a side note: I actually once did reverse into 2 once on a stiff ace after a 1 - 1- ? auction with a very good 3316 hand (not good enough for 2 opening, and experienced the distinct pleasure of partner passing my reverse and, therefore, having to play 2. Did I learn any lessons from that? No! If I could ever actually remember even most of the cards it would have made for an interesting bidding poll.)
Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF: thx. it certainly doesn't value out at 10 but, even so, a 3-2 break and a lead and you win the race to 9 tricks. not sure if i would have opened it or not vul. our opps were also playing minis/ basically the same system. and rho had already crushed us twice with bidding problems (we had few agreements yet) via DONT 2 (majors) overcalls of the minis, and I wasn't going quietly on this one! Not vul and it becomes more interesting.
Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a couple questions: may i correctly assume that 1) declarer won the 1st trick with the !Q (2 tricks), and 2) partner held off winning the Q until necessary, suggesting that declarer started with 6 s (5 tricks?)? and I can't do much about the suit.
Oct. 18, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just curious.
Did the person claiming indicate awareness that his/ her ruffing the trick would constitute a revoke?
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it's in the bidding. East reportedly dealt and passed.
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. A well-known/ highly regarded mentor/ teacher on BBO has also advocated virtually always bidding stayman with any 4-4 major hand in response to 1NT. He asserted that the odds favor the 1NT bidder having at least one 4-card major and, if not, you can always play 2C-2D-2H as pass/correct and find a decent partscore. And i am finding that more often than not, both of you are correct.
I've wondered (just curious), though, if anyone has done any sims or crunched numbers in an attempt to quantify approximately how high or strong these odds really are and what they found? very high, just a bit more than 50%?, etc.? (The question of going anti-field and potneital risks, especially at mps, is another issue for another time unless someone wishes to comment on it.)
Please do not at all interpret the above as questioning anyone's long-time expert experience and advice, especialy the author of this OP, which is probably much more valuable than statistics anyway (Call it clinical judgment).
Oct. 18, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I posted this hand to see if people had a method of inviting 3N with a balanced hand given the wide tendency to play some form of lebensohl, transfer or not, or if the hand is too strong for just an invite. If not invitational bid, would the majority just bash 3N or was there a reasonable or logical althernative other than pass (which struck me as being rather pessimistic). I don't play mini's very often, just with a couple of people very infrequently.
At the table, like the majority so far, I, too bid 3NT. I thought it to be too good for just an invite if one existed. It might well have made had rho had at least 2s and no initial lead. Then bringing in 4 tricks would have quite likely unless the 2 bidder was only 4-4 in the majors.
Partner's hand was almost as mini as could be: JT6, KQ, Q764, Q985. (At least it included the beer card). Even then, 3NT had plays.
rho's had was AQ84, AT542, T, 732 / lho was K72, T87, J982, J64. The bad break killed 3N even with a lead.
Letting north/south play in 2 or 2x would not have been so great. Given the balanced major suit breaks, if declarer gets the suit right, 2 makes. At worst it's -1
Oct. 18, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not being a TD nor that familiar with all the laws, yet I dare to inquire.
Regardless of the fact that the e/w partnership agreement was that 3 showed majors, if west forgot and bid his hand believing that his bid was natural (long s):
Despite all of the alerts (UI & MI), would it not be incumbent on west to base any further bids that are in accordance and consistent with what he believed his initial 3 bid meant as well as with partnership agreements/methods regarding responses/ rebids to a natural 3 bid? (If the 3 bid was interpreted by west as being a lead director, should than not, too, be alerted? If natural, is it passable in their system as west understood it?)
Would failure to do so, even in light of partner's alert, constitute taking advantage of the UI and MI, at least in the case of the 4 bid, especially if 3 is passable in their methods?
as for 5…………..I have no clue what the 4 bid should mean if 3 is supposedly natural from west's point of view. Is that passable? Maybe very long s that east decided was not an opening preempt in their methods? Then I could see passing 4 as LA. I would think that direktor would have to establish their preeempting style, etc.
I hope I have worded my questions clearly.
Oy
Oct. 18, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
don't mind 4-4 per se but, please, at least let me have my honors concentrated in my two suits (ie switch K to s and then maybe if not more likely).
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
even if you play kickback?
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess some of this might depend on where you got your information. I learned that 3 level dbls were penalty if 3M-1 was still available as a game try. On the other hand, I have a partner who plays that all immediate doubles are game-try doubles and all suits below 3M are natural game tries. Imo, it more like pick one method and go with it, just know which is which.
fwiw, never liked the term maximal. Game-try doubles are more descriptive.
Oct. 17, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top