Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Esko Pikataival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that I would take the dull line of trying to find either A or K onside.

My plan is to win the first diamond, cash AKJ of clubs (unblocking the 9) and then play a spade to the K. If they take 5 spade tricks (unlikely), then take the next board.

If the K loses and I'm still in the run, I'll take the finesse.

I need to win the first diamond to be able to lose four spade tricks.

If the K wins, I'll take the finesse next (only in matchpoints).
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I made the card showing X, one of the options was that partner would leave it in. The card showing X also declared the ownership of the hand.

AFAIU, partner did not pull to sac but pulled to make. So my pass tells that I might have the goodies required for 5 but I cannot be sure. The final mistake is left for the partner, who can decide if he has bid everything in his hand or if there's something to spare.

X would be a strong suggestion to defend (but I still have the cards I already showed with the X).

I treat a pass as forcing, if the caddie knows it's forcing. In this situation I consider this pretty clear.

I also seem to be in the minority with strong opinions but this is not the first time in my life.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finland

Seeded KO teams trials in all categories.

Mixed trial results (in Finnish)
http://www.bridgefinland.com/bilbo/results.php?tid=2200
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to one auction commentary, pass of 4 X denied a diamond control.

Yes, F refers to something, which should not be named; a convention showing 4 spades and 5/6 hearts in a limited opening hand.

The auction timed well for Grue, as Levin displayed some slam interest with a club control and thereafter denied a diamond control. West's hand became in that light much better than the initial (IMO, heavy) 3 raise.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know for sure but my gut feeling is that F-convention has something to do here. If EW play F, 1 promises 5 or more.

Once East shows a club control and nothing in diamonds, Grue can count 13 tricks against AQ and A either with running clubs and hearts or two diamond ruffs in case East has a small singleton club (5 spades, 2 ruffs, A and 5 hearts). Facing AQxxx Axx xxxx x the grand slam is not so great but but makes with 3-2 spades and reasonable breaks elsewhere.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It becomes a partnership agreement per law 40C if it is repeated.
See my comment below.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to raise two issues from this incident:
a) undisclosed partnership agreement
b) partnership agreement against the system policy

At least in my jurisdiction, a repeated psyche becomes a partnership agreement and must be disclosed.

In this case, I would assume, that an agreement that 1 opening is either 10-15 or 0-4 would be against the system policy.

Here is law 40C1 to back this up:

Deviation from System and Psychic Action
A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation (but see B2(a)(v) above). Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

The referenced Law 40 B2(a)(v) gives regulating authority mandate to restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.
Nov. 28
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes no sense to psyche the 1NT overcall for the following three reasons a) vulnerability b) RHO already opened with a limited opening bid c) partner is unlimited.

The overcall might be made with an upgraded 14 like AQx xx KQT9xx Kx but I would expect full 15 with a good minor.

Partner's pull suggests either a psyche or a bad hand but somewhere in the opening context. IMO, partner should open 3 if holding a total psyche with long spades (like JTxxxx xx xxx xx) and 2 with something looking like a weak two.

I would bid 4 expecting that to make. We might have a slam but I don't see any reasonable ways to get there. I think that partner's opening has put us in a better position compared to the other table where the bidding might have started pass 1NT.
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The short answer is yes. The long answer is that most sane people respect and understand the seriousness of the issue and it is unlikely that this would happen.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on all of the above I should discard the 7. The reason is that then I would not be able to lead a club requested by the declarer when my careless partner plays a club when declarer leads a spade up.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming that North is not completely desperate, s/he is bidding to make. There is a certain convention available in case North holds something like AKQJ AKQJxxx x x so one should assume that it is not the case. How about AKQJ AKQJxxx Kx void? This is possible but unlikely. AKQJ AKQJxxx void xx is a possibility. Anyway, A is a bit counterintuitive but a sane North is not assuming a cover card outside clubs from partner. If North ruffs the A, dummy's tricks should be unreachable (considering my heart holding). If North has gambled on clubs, partner might show out and get a ruff as the clubs at this vulnerability might be KQJxxx vs xx.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Edited:
That scenario might take place if RHO has xxx in clubs and xx in spades and QTxx in hearts or singleton heart and xxx in spades. After the failed club finesse, you cash the K, a high club from dummy and discard a spade on the A. If hearts are 3-2, you can set up the suit with a ruff and enjoy them with a club entry. If East has QTxx in hearts you need to go back to the ruffing finesse. Then you can play spades and ruff the fourth spade if the A is still in the West hand.

If East ruffs the A, that is with the last trump so you can take the spade ruffing finesse without ruff threat. If East discards a spade on the A, then you are in a trouble.

If West returns a trump after winning the K, you cannot set up the hearts due to the blockage but then you can take the ruffing finesse in spades without worries (and before that you should cash A and ruff a heart to test if Qx falls).
Sept. 30
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws are clear and contradictory in this kind of situation. Law 20 allows you to ask. However law 16 warns that asking may create UI.

Law 20 also explicitly forbids asking to help partner or to elicit an incorrect explanation.

In an ideal case, you could just stealthily glimpse the convention card.

When the cc is not available, I would normally ask, because I would be planning my opening lead and defense during the auction. Also, the “Please, explain”, is quite neutral and, IMO, displays just general interest of the board.

In case the opponents create an UI situation out of the ask, IMO, it is solely their problem and the TD should solve it as a normal UI problem.

So, IMO, you are not constrained from asking assuming you plan to do something bridge related with the information (see law 20G2).
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John Portwood

A slam try is a two way street. Once East makes a slam try, West has authorization to drive to slam with fitting cards; otherwise East should not have made the try.

In some sequences the “slam try” is, from East's perspective, forcing to 6 and looking for 7.

So taking both points above into account, West can take control but needs to show East if all key cards are present. In case a key card is missing, West is authorized to go to slam with suitable values.

Assume the auction starts 1NT-2-2-4 as an auto splinter. If West has for his 12-14 NT a maximum with 3 small clubs, he has the right cards or otherwise East was too optimistic. In a sequence like this, West needs to take care that a slam is reached.

In this auction, after 4, West needs to drive to slam unless there are two key cards missing (very unlikely, but worth checking).

After RCKB 4NT, West must continue with 5NT to show that all the key cards are present. East can see that grand is good in case West holds QJxx xx AKx Axxx; he should continue with 6 to show the K. However, West can see that 6 is enough as there seems to be a likely diamond loser.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West should have bid the slam, but as it went, East should have bid 5 instead of 5.

Once West hears a 55 slam try without a diamond control, he can be pretty sure that the worst case scenario is to take the finesse for a fast diamond pitch. So after 4, West should drive to slam.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16A2: “Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.”

This does not allow undisclosed partnership agreements but allows players to use judgement based on their estimate of their own score. IMO, the wording also implies that it is ok to do this estimate together between hands.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Venn diagram for comparable calls:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/memmu1/piv/bridge/comparable_call.png

The following case shows the marginally comparable call:
Offender passes on partner's turn to call. Partner opens 1 and offender bids 1NT (marginally comparable). In most cases the call stays comparable, but the boundary gets exceeded if e.g. opener bids 2 and responder continues with 3. Without the POOT, the 3 call might contain a hand suitable for initial 3 preempt. POOT rules this out.
Aug. 10
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge World August 2018 Swiss match spoiler alert!




Similar squeeze was presented in one of the problems in Bridge World August 2018 Swiss match; it was a defensive problem and as in all vice squeezes, the defense is to keep winners and throw losers i.e. keep a long card in a different suit.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, the squeeze belongs to the vice family. Reverse vice sounds like a proper designation. My understanding of vice is that the stuff between the low menace and the high menace gets crushed.
Aug. 9
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This looks like vice to me. Give West QJ and South the K of hearts the position would be essentially the same as in vice except the two card menace would be reversed.

The basic matching vice position would be
…..
…..Q9
…..
…..T
………
JT…….A86
………
A……..
…..2
…..2
…..
…..J

West needs bulkier hearts; otherwise this would be just a finesse position.
Aug. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top