Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Torrey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My error. The box now shows the correct auction.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The text says the 7 was second best. Partner has K73 or Q73.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I face similar situations from time to time. Robb makes an excellent suggestion, but one that might not be available always.

The director in this position should tell his opponents at the start of the hand (or as soon as he becomes aware of it). In this case, you can say that you saw bidding, but no cards. I would typically say that I will bid and play only as long as I can make unpolluted decisions. If this becomes impossible, assign A+ to your opponents, A to your side. Tell the opponents that if they have a problem after the hand is played, you encourage them to bring it up.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My unpublished approach takes your last option: transfers start with 2. 2 can be bid with hands interested in notrump, where we may want to put the overcaller on lead, and 2 is the bid with clubs. You can't get to 2 this way, but the possibility of a natural 2NT between the transfer and 3 compensates for the higher level.

I have not played this under fire, but it seemed to work well in simulation exercises.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct! To have an adjustment there must be an infraction. In this case the infraction might be Misinformation (MI). There is MI if the explanation is incorrect with respect to the pair's agreements. The explanation said Drury and the agreement IS Drury, so there was no MI. Case closed.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure of the definition, but it feels right to say that a play in which you score your long trumps by ruffing instead of drawing trump is an elopement. (It's a kind of “dummy reversal” in which trumps are never drawn.) Say your trumps are AKxxx and you have aces in side suits with entries to the dummy. If you manage to score your small trumps by ruffing, that is an elopement. Typically, the defense is left with redundant trumps and side-suit winners. In this understanding, an elopement involves more than one small trump scored by ruffing.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would suggest that non-bridgeplayers would have no way to know this from the Hool rules on the net. Since non-bridgeplayrs are a big part of the population you would like to reach, the rules should be clarified.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to play Hool with my (non-bridge-playing) family, but the rules as stated seem incomplete. Two questions:

when bids are compared, do the suits have rank? (Is 3 a higher bid then 3?)

How much must you bid to earn a game bonus?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess if you disagreed about the length of the club or diamond suit you bid, it would be a minor disagreement.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East played the jack at trick 1.

West was the director and East was the guaranteed partner (not an experienced player). It was the first round, and North-South could have heard them agree to play DONT (but can't be assumed to be paying attention to that discussion).
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My original error, now corrected. Good catch, Gary. Sorry, others who answered.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner had

AT2
KJTx
JT9x
xx

The low-heart leaders have it right. When the hand was played, your hand actually returned a diamond, then discarded the two low hearts on the run of the clubs, allowing the contract to make.

Some comments note that if declarer has a major ace then the defense needs to lead that suit. Quite so! Partner's discard shows awareness of this.

Waiting to win the third club was probably a good thing, allowing partner to make a useful signal.

I don't regard this as a challenging problem, but I think it is a good illustration of the possibilities and issues in cooperative defense.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right! And if Eash had QJ instead, it would be right to lead the Q before the fourth spade, for the same reason.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The information about scoring method would probably be relevant (but only to a human?). It was BBO's Just Play Bridge, where there is no comparison to other tables and the objective as far as I can tell is to accumulate raw net points as rapidly as possible.

I was West and decided that I was more interested in what the robot East would do if left on play than I was in making sure of setting 2NT. My reward was the chance to post this poll.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Max, but I have to admit that I would not penalize West even if I suspected cleverness.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose West calls the Director. Away from the table, he asks whether he is permitted to ask partner if his bid was intended. The Director says, “No.” When they return to the table, East says that he intended to bid 4.

The Director should allow the correction. Is a penalty warranted against West?
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The March ACBL Bulletin has an article promoting Active Ethics. If Active Ethics are optional, we should not need such an article.

The first point of the article advocates the principle of full disclosure. This is required and therefore not part of Active Ethics. The article also advocates a friendly demeanor and a good pace of play, which are also part of the Laws. The only non-Law item is the paragraph advising us that players who have not nailed down all their agreements are not Actively Ethical.

The presence of this article in the Bulletin would seem to put a taint on players who practice ethical play according to the Laws.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Ed on South's comment. In addition, South's bid is questionable. What was he sacrificing against?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know the NS pair. They are steady but not tricky, and I absolutely believe their statement about playing high-low with two, and why they did so.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I sell designated entries and this avoids having to move the 1NS and 2NS that were sold early in the process to pairs that wanted a stationary entry.”

Translation:

I sell 1NS and 2NS to early arrivers who do not want to move, or cannot. If I have a hesitation movement with 1 as the pivot and 2 as the phantom, 1NS is a moving pair and 2NS is a phantom, so I will have to move the original 1NS and 2NS pairs to other (stationary) locations, and find a NS pair for table 1 who will be able to move. Having table N-1 as the pivot and N as the phantom, I just have to ask the late-arriving NS pair at N-1 to move, and table N is probably already a half table.

In the original sentence, “to pairs that…” was intended to modify “sold” and not “move”. Maybe a comma after “process” would have helped. Probably not.
April 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
.

Bottom Home Top