Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 144 145 146 147
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will avoid any discussion of POTUS - this is not the place for it. I do object to software designers imposing their political thoughts on an assumed neutral website though. And I would do so if ‘Clinton’ was thought to be a swear word.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't often have AK of the Trump suit - mind you in a Victor Mollo Story Papa doubles HHs 6NT holding AK of one suit and KQ of another (and on lead) - you can guess the result.

This is ludicrus! The POTUS has now been defined as ‘potentially objectionable content’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course in normal circumstances only ONE of a pair can make a Lightner double - but both co-operate on this. Which must make it twice as good.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer wins the Q, cashes AK of Diamonds (West unblocks), AK of Hearts and then plays AKJX of clubs. West wins, cashes the Q and Gives East 3 diamond tricks - that's 5 off.

Anything worse is probaly not ‘normal’
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can keep part of Lightner - a double asking for a specific suit (usually Dummy's suit) in an uncompetitive Auction.

Terence Reese once expressed the opinion that overall Lightner doubles had not shown a net gain. The risks are:-

1) You give partner his trick/ ruff - but there is no 2nd trick
2) Opponents run to 6NT or another suit and partner would have led the suit requested anyway.
3) Declarer places the cards as a result - and makes the contract when otherwise he would have gone off.

I play it (BTW) - not that it has come up, but I would have thought sacrifice/ non sacrifice is a choice to be made more often than a Lightner double would be needed.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if you know partner is going to rebid hearts and not diamonds.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you get yelled at in the future, just say “6-off”. That should pull your partner up.

“Always act in accordance with the dictates of your consicence my boy - and chance the consequences” - Pirates of Penzance.

If you have an agreement to open all 12-point hands then you must both have the discipline to remember that occasionally partner will have a rubbish 12 count. You partner forgot this. (although I think that once you realise 4 has no chance you had better stop the x-ruff.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) You aren't a player or tournament official So you are a spectator (76D) and Law 76 applies - in particular 76C1

1. A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area only when requested to do so by the Director.

So: if you do what is right (as opposed to what is legal) then the Director should discipline you - and then deal with the infraction. I suppose you could ask the director if you could have a word with him outside.

(The playing area includes toilets/ restrooms/ restaurants etc.)
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although as a playing TD in a teams event, I overheard one player (in a different match) say “That's a major penalty card” — and went to investigate.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this could be open to interpretation.

“3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.”

I think that ‘concealing’, like the other verbs is an active rather than passive action - so that you actually have to do something e.g. try and hide the card behind another
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law was amended = see 68C

…. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.

This is presumably a ‘does’ rule. (Establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) - although a PP can presumably be still issued.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 D 3 Members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Any relevant information about style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where appropriate, disclosed on the system card. - EBU Blue Book

The thing about this is that it is likely that both players will have an agreement on many hands that they will qualify for a pre-empt.

I see nothing wrong with “1NT = 15-17. Partner is more aggressive in upgrading borderline hands than I am.” Since both players will open a 15HCP hand with 1NT. What I would object to is : “1NT = 12-18. I will have the upper range and my partner the lower”, since then there is no overlap“

There is discussion in ‘comparable calls’ that a hand showing 1 card less in the suit and a King more or less in high card points is the maximum deviation allowed for a call to be similar. Perhaps we can look at ”differences in style" on a similar basis?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) North's 2 call seems eminently reasonable - an aceless hand with a good suit is ideal for pre-emption.
2) So it is South's decision. He knows that 4 will go one or two off (7 losers opposite a typical 8 or 9 for a weak 2). The question is: Will 4 make? He can see 1 probable trump trick, one possible trick (Spade) but there is no guarantee that opponents have a 4-4 heart fit etc.

4 makes (deep finesse). If spades were 2-0 then it would make more easily.

Personally I think it is a close decision - so : no blame. The only query is that South MIGHT have ‘walked the dog’ to see if opponents bid 4 - he has the master suit after all.
April 13
John Portwood edited this comment April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I would hope that the director would read the rule and explain ti the beginner what he had done wrong and why he was being ruled against. Once learnt the player will hopefully not forget the lesson.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually the footnote to page 95 includes the phrase “for the class of player involved” - so the rule makers definitely intended to target the ability of beginners and expert alike.

Thus we have cases where a claim made by ‘Anne Expert’ without a statement may be allowed, but the same claim by “Bee Novice” wouldn't.

So whilst I originally voted “TD was wrong”, I need to know what team event was this. If this was the 8th division in a county league then I would agree with my vote - if it was Nickell Vs Fleisher or the equivalent then I would probably change my mind.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Claiming correctly saves significant time. And it’s not that difficult.”

Fixed it for you.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes BUT those plays aren't ‘normal’ for the class of player concerned. And I am interested in what is the definition of ‘Normal’. It includes ‘careless or inferior’ in the laws.

A non-statement claim is never #punished# - the player has prejudiced his rights as any doubtful points will be ruled against him (which is a very high bar, but we can quantum tunnel through it)

The thing about this claim is that one of the first things we learn is to cash high cards in short suits first - then we learn the exceptions. To a very, very VERY good player taking the safety play is self-evident and maybe anything else is not normal i.e. abnormal.

At the end of the day, the basic rule applies. When you claim follow correct procedure and make a statement on how you will play the hand.

Playing Kings under Aces is obviously not normal. Just because a play is legal does not mean there is any chance that they would be taken.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a significant probability of finding a suit split:-

QX opposite XXXXX when if the Queen was suspected to be offside you would have to play for it.

Yes the a-priori odds are much lower than a 50% chance of a finesse - but isn't that merely the definition of ‘inferior’? Or should we assume that, for an expert, choosing a line of play that can be calculated to be 57% successful when there is one that is 58% successful is not ‘normal’?

In this case declarer has a 100% successful winning line (running the club to the 9) and another line that a-priori is 98% successful (winning the Queen). Is that gap enough to make the alternative play ‘not normal’?
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't know the auction. You obviously aren't going to lead from a Queen against 7NT! So the choice is the long club suit or the short spades. If you have a long suit, partner is short so is less likely to hold a key card that wouldn't have shown up anyway.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an infraction (failure to make a statement) so the TD should be called.
April 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 144 145 146 147
.

Bottom Home Top