Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Esko Pikataival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two issues here:
a) what is the EW agreement
b) was there damage

If EW agreement is “strong”, East can upgrade and make the 2 bid without the hcp/controls required by the partnership agreement. As this hand is the threshold case in the EBU regulations, this upgrade would be on its way to become an established partnership agreement not fitting for the “strong” definition. In case they would do the upgrade again, IMO, they should not be allowed to call the opening “strong” any more.

In case the EW agreement includes the hands like this for 2, the explanation was misinformation as EW were not playing the opening as “strong”. Now it's the question of damage.

Personally, I would not differentiate “strong” and “strong or lots of tricks” for my overcall decision, especially, as the “strong” might be 12 hcp with 5 controls. In addition, there would still be the leap of faith for the vul vs. nv 7 level sac. However, the current laws would suggest a poll and a decision based on the poll.

IMO, the SB was correct calling the director, because either there was misinformation (irregularity) or deviation from agreements. (No, I don't like it and I would not have done it.)
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the defenders disagree, the one to play after the irregularity (card from the wrong hand) makes the decision
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have you defined if pass is forcing? In my partnerships, LRoB is forcing to 3M meaning that we would not be in force. X by partner would have been transferable values and pass just tells that 5 seems neither making nor 2-way shot.

Facing a typical 1 opening, I would be happy to defend and collect 300/500 against whatever we had.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are actually four “colors”, sometimes/somewhere expressed as red, amber, white and green (V/NV, V/V, NV/NV NV/V).

Playing matchpoints, I would probably pass against vulnerable opponents and would certainly bid 1NT on NV/NV and possibly also V/NV.

Playing IMPs, I might bid 1NT vulnerable and NV/NV and would certainly pass NV/V.

However, the decision is very close and I'm ok with passing in all scenarios.
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 2/1 context, I prefer to play 1-(-p)-1-(1)-X as showing hearts without reversing values. If the advancer is going to jump raise spades, it helps if one of our side has made a call to deny/guarantee 4 hearts.
Nov. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bridge reason to play different systems depending on position would be the declarer position. The defensive bidders would like to put the 1NT opener on lead as often as possible.

The venerable BTCNTD (the Blue Team Club No Trump Defense) had transfers in 2nd position and Landy with natural overcalls in the 4th. However, the BTCNTD did not stood the test of time as bidding with shape and showing this shape became more dominant.

Once you have conventional methods to show one suiters and two suiters, there isn't enough space to tune the system to make declarer on lead. In many of the systems it's more probable that the overcaller ends up declaring but it's quite arbitrary.

In Landy, advancer either takes preference or bids 2. In DONT, advancer either passes or relays for the 2nd suit. In Cappelletti, 2 transfers the declaring but 2M probably makes the overcaller the declarer.

One could probably build a better mouse trap, but it seems that there are not enough incentives to create one: a conventional system is always about some pros and some cons.
Nov. 23
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intuitively I would consider that factoring boards when there are missing/surplus scores due to the movement and using Neuberg when there are multiple score groups due to misboarding, averages, or equivalent would be correct.

Why?

When there are multiple score groups, there is always the doubt: would I have scored a top/bottom, if they could have played the board as it was intended? Neuberg takes this doubt into the model and adjusts the scores accordingly.

When the movement dictates different number of scores, the board has been played in full as planned. There are no what ifs so the board can be factored to the same value as the other boards.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same denomination rule applies if the substitute call shows the same denomination the IB specified. In this case the substitution is not according to 27B1(a) if they have some NT defense specifying 2NT as conventional; however if they have no NT defense and 2NT has no specific meaning in their system, I would allow it. Like I stated, there are two big ifs in my statement.

Currently it's not about conventional or natural but what do the bids promise.

The most likely scenario is, however, that 1NT can be substituted by any legal call except X and partner is barred.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that law 27B (insufficient bid not accepted) has four different options and the first one of those has two different options.

27B1(a) categorically allows the substitution with the lowest bid specifying the same denomination as the insufficient bid specified without rectification (but the score is adjusted if the NO side was damaged).

There is no need to summon the comparable call law in case the 27B1(a) takes place.

27B3 prohibits X as a substitution unless it matches 27B1.

If the director was confident that 1NT was not conventional and was sure that there is no comparable call for 1NT, AFAIU, the director got it almost right as the law requires 2NT as substitution for no rectification (instead of any legal number of NT).

There are, though, two big ifs in my statement above.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a reason for the following Bols tip: “With 12 trumps, play for the drop.”
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With EW cold for 5, I wouldn't be so worried about making this or not. However, I would draw two rounds of trumps ending in hand and then lead the low spade. If West takes, I can claim. If West ducks, then comes the thinking time.

The vulnerability suggests that South is bidding to make. From West's perspective his 5512 is about what he had shown and his AK and A suggests more defense than a typical Michaels. The possesion of K is, IMO, neither here nor there in the evaluation.

What about RHO? What would his interpretation of X be? With “Jxx, Qxxxx, xxxxx, -” passing would be sensible only, if RHO interpreted the X as penalties instead of transferable values. RHO might be more likely to pass the ambiguous X with “Jxx, Qxxxx, Kxxxx, -”

As the K is not a big factor in the bidding, I would turn my attention to the defense. With the K, West would know for practically sure that South needs the K for opening and for 5 bidding. Without the K, West could not be sure.

Without the K, there would be two ways to defeat the contract: either cash two hearts and a spade or two spades and a heart. Without K, the A is a logical play for trick 2. With the K, there are two ways to defeat the contract: either cash two hearts and a spade or cash a heart, get a diamond and cash a spade. With that holding, the K is the logical play for trick 2.

If I could rely LHO to think along those lines, I would steal the trick and then bang down the A for an overtrick. If I had some previous knowledge that LHO is not the type of player to play with 52 cards, I would probably take the 5 to 1 finesse in diamonds.

(As LHO can see two clubs in his hand, there is no way partner's potential A could go away, as even with two spade tricks, declarer has at most 8 clubs and two spades)
Oct. 15
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is typically a matter of partnership tuning. You can use this hand (or something even more suitable) as a yardstick to define what type of junk you open or not (and also in what situations you would open or not).

For me this would be a clear opener, because we open 9-11 BAL without any quality requirements.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like entry shifting squeeze with requirement to balance the entry shifting matrix one way or another.

Having e.g. a suit with AQTxx vs Kxxxx and taking the first round finesse with the 10 to handle Jxx onside and then cash the A and follow with the Q for an entry shifting squeeze.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are four special cases of GWODZINSKY viz.
AT62, J73, Q84 K95
K95, AT62, J73, Q84
Q84, K95, AT62, J73
J73, Q84, K95, AT62

If you ever get one, call the director.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me the values required for reverse with 6-5 are significantly lower than with 5-4. In my (casual partnerships) system notes there is an explicit statement that 13 working hcp with intermediates is enough e.g. x AKT9x x AQTxxx.

So that might put me to the “None of these options…” column…
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The catch created by the EBU regulation is that by not alerting, North has vouched:
a) North-South have an agreement of the meaning of 3
b) South has promised long spades

With the stipulations above, South made a misbid and needs to suffer the consequences. The root cause was not the MI but failure to see the X.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an authoritative statement that pass or correct call is treated as natural
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that there's one piece of information missing viz. did North alert 3. If he did not, by the same EBU regulations, he vouched that North-South have an agreement about the meaning of 3 over X=T/O.

If North did not alert, the root cause would be that South did not see the X and made a misbid (promising seven spades instead of the singleton he had).

In case North alerted and either did or was prepared to explain that there is no agreement and it either shows long spades or short spades in a strong hand, I would conclude that under the the EBU regulations the ruling did in fact make sense.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the EBU alert regulation regarding calls with no agreement?
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe the tournaments should be organized in such countries, which grant visas to people with different political opinions, different religion or different skin color. Shouldn't this be one of the options?
Sept. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top