Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is the forcing 1nt alertable where youplay?
And, to be fair, questioner probably wants to know what dummy's bid showed to help them work out declarer's hand. So probably should let that ride (for two reasons?)
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JL has not suggested this, but one reason to ask such a question is to see whether South would expect this hand from the 2 diamond bid, thus you know what South based his bid on, and therefore have more inkling as to South's hand. This might be an automatic response to the surprise on dummy's appearance - then the “haughty” reply might throw your thinking down different pathways.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained as I had no idea what the explanation meant.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought you good players would be keen to get the chance to go head-to-head with these guys on a level playing-field. Cos they won't be able to do their stuff this time, will they?
Like meeting up with the bully when he doesn't have his mates.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just for interest. Another aspect of playing and directing at same time.
At the time I was running a “grading system”, I noted that one of our directors, playing with the same partner, had a grading performance around 150 points lower when he was also directing.

For EBU members, that's about 4.5 points (4.5% worse in MP scoring)
For chess players, that's about a 150 point drop in ELO.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To give us an idea of The way the grading works, would the average pair in this event be “expected” to score 67.14% in a match-point tournament made up of them plus average players in the country?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi
Thanks for this. My initial confusion was caused by an intervening “bid” by Bud Hinkley, that I thought you were referring to (Blast these confusing overcalls!).
This sounds very tricky, as you will have to decide whether the offending team team will find the perfect bids to deal with the intrusive overcall, or whether they will just fall short. Might lead to an expert pair getting a better result than a mediocre pair - if one allows for that, as discussed elsewhere.
Thanks again.
:)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HK:
It does indeed, and your definition seems based backwards from what you want to say. Am having trouble following this.

“If you say that pass shows 0-10 points”. No, I (one) didn't. A pass shows (arguably) 0-10 points, AND no feature that would make this an opening hand. It probably denies AKQxxxxxxxxx x - -. You are only looking at points, one aspect of the hand. You might as well say that “pass” denies twelve spades, therefore any bid not showing twelve spades is a subset. It ain't.
Paragraph three makes no sense.
The fourth paragraph seems to come up with a very good explanatory paraphrase of the law….then dismisses it.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HJ: Cannot understand your last post. It seemed at one stage to suggest that equity was restored if you get to what would have happened if the OVERCALL had not taken place, but then I got lost in the brackets.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HJ: Genuine apologies. It looks as if you genuinely do not know the difference between a subset and an intersecting set.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you pretend not to understand the difference between a subset and an intersecting set. I know you know the difference. You are simply happy to ignore this so that your “simple” approach is consistent. It may well be a good idea to simplify it thus, but it does not make a weak jumpshift a subset of a pass for the very reasons you state, then ignore.
The subset idea is, the in fact, a good one. Any subset should be acceptable, and it works.
The problem is with the “or similar” in the entirely different category. The vagueness of this is the nub of the problem. If this was omitted, the comparable call concept would be quite straightforward - but would, I agree, lose some flexibility and ability to get to the “equitable” result in some cases.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And this fits in with TD not having to look at hand.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seconded
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the TD need to see East's hand before suggesting comparable calls? Perhaps knowing their methods should be enough to tell him what calls are comparable. Then he can tell South the same thing, and not be giving him any information about East's hand.
Thus, without looking at hand, TD can come to the conclusion that East can bid 3 hearts on basis of its being the same suit at lowest level biddable. But not double, as he may then have 5spades and four hearts, but his insufficient bid has told partner he hasn't - so the IB gives extra info. It actually makes ths decision easier as the TD is not sidetracked by the fact that East does not have 5 spades.
So, 3h is the only possible comparable bid. And you can tell everyone.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HJ: You seem to be missing the point, and feel that the bidding space the offender lost from the intervening 3 clubs is in some way something he is entitled to get back. Yes it is a disadvantage not being able to tell if the 3 heart bid means four or five, but the point is that the offender COULD NOT MAKE THE 3 HEART BID to include the possibility of having only four if he had not first “offended”.
Partner's pre-emptive bid is designed to use up space. If we are to allow the opponents to make a 4-or-5 hearts, non-forcing 3 heart bid by first using an insufficient bid then saying 3 hearts, we have lost the plot.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JL: I agree. In no way can the laws be meant to allow “offender” to simply pick the legal bid the TD tells him, and partner carries on basing his bids on offenders insufficient bid.
I believe if they behave in this way, either 23C or 27D (… I think) would be invoked by the TD and the score adjusted. Partner's behaviour would be “acceptable”, just the score adjusted. So, HJ, he only “might be able to keep the score”, I believe, if the TD does not do the best job.
And if they continued with this “system” - ("I pick the first bid the TD suggests, partner, and you carry on with whatever my first bid would normally mean over no interference), I am sure that gets them in long-term trouble.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AB: Not at all. Hadn't taken anything badly from your comment. I watch trials to increase interest when the Europeans come. Will watch English pair with more warmth if have earlier seen them beat up other Englanders. :)
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah. Thank you. Had assumed that originally, then turned on machine…. silly of me.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And a Scot. Though the format seems very bizarre. Are they paired up with an unconnected pair to form a team, then dependent on these “strangers”' performance for an IMPs score?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RS:
Six diamonds doubled
Hearts fall like cherry petals
A bridge bid too far
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
.

Bottom Home Top