Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 ... 590 591 592 593
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone has now. :-)
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once wrote up 54 pages of system notes. No idea where they are now. :-)
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the dog ate them.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does if your LHO has Qxx. And even if it doesn't it's still 2.5 losers.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's pathetic. :-(
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Exactly why this sequence can't require an alert Ian”

Because some people are clueless? How does that improve things?
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I got one of my partners to agree, after I taught him how to properly evaluate his hand, to change our opening 1NT range to “good 14 to bad 18”. That lasted about two weeks, during which he consistently announced “15 to 17” in spite of the change. So I gave up. :-(
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, the question is what is the historical situation. Did the bid come into widespread use after Ewen wrote about it in 1973? No. So “historical usage” would be that this is an unusual agreement. If that's the case, it requires an alert — everywhere, including the places where it's now common.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always liked the story I heard about an English player who, asked to explain his partner's 1NT opening, said “he has twelve to fourteen cards”. :-)
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That hand, as I see it, has two quick tricks and three and a half losers.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is properly attributed to Ugh the Caveman.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you rule that declarer called for the king, then the king wins the first trick, as third hand played the queen. He doesn't get to retract that play (Law 47). If you rule that declarer called for the spot, then third hand wins the first two tricks. You say that the latter achieves equity, but does it? It appears to me that third hand may have simply not bothered to be sure what card was called, and not paid attention to dummy's action. If that's so, he made a mistake. Why should the director fix it for him?

The question of fact that must be answered here is “for which card did declarer call?” Law 85A1 says “In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.” In this case, I would be inclined to lean towards the declaring side, especially since dummy moved the king, however slightly (I might suggest to him that he should make such moves more obvious). The form of your poll leads me to conclude that you believe the king was played, btw. Anyway, If you're satisfied that declarer played the king, he wins the trick. Play on. If you're satisfied that he called for the low card, third hand wins the trick with the Queen. If you can't determine the facts to your satisfaction you “make a ruling that will permit play to continue” and inform both sides of their right to appeal (Law 85B, Law 83).
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, no. When bidding boxes are in use, spoken bidding is verboten, unless you have a medical problem that precludes using the box.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The DC treatment actually has bridge merit.

BTW, clubs can do what they want, but in a tournament, if something requires an alert in some benighted part of the continent (like Rochester, NY) then it requires an alert everywhere. notwithstanding that everyone in say DC knows what it means.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“They may also have simply decided that since they're rewriting the Alert Procedures anyway, they're not going to bother tweaking the old one, even when it's just simple errors like this.”

Yeah. In spite of the fact that they told me they were gonna see it got fixed “asap”.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about the international symbol for radiation? Or bio-hazard? :-)
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have an idea. Let's remove everything from the bidding box except the pass cards. Games will be a lot shorter, and we won't have any arguments about what the contract was, or whether it was doubled or redoubled. :-)
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do readers think this is a good change or a bad change, and how is a strong 2C regulated in the USA?

Bad, and ACBL regs have already been mentioned upthread. “Strong means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means”. Sheesh.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ran across this hand in a sectional some years ago: AKQJxxxx Jxx - Jx. At my table RHO opened with a weak 2 and his LHO jumped to five. At the other table, my team mate in first seat didn't like her AQxxxx so she passed. Opponent holding my cards above opened 2 and got to 4, which our team mates, expecting greater high card strength, misdefended. The director was unsympathetic: “It's almost a psych, but not quite.” That's when I discovered that the word “strong” in the ACBL system regs means “whatever the player making the bid thinks it means.” Stupid regulation, y'ask me.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is why we can't have nice things. :-(
17 hours ago
1 2 3 4 ... 590 591 592 593
.

Bottom Home Top