Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom,

I can’t always bid in tempo. Sometimes I can’t play in tempo either.

When I break tempo, I understand that my partner will have to live with the consequences, and there could be a ruling against us.

Nobody is assuming cheating when there is a ruling, or at least nobody should be. We do our best, and sometimes there is information transmitted by our tempo, and sometimes that may mean we lose a ruling.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom,

Do you think it is fair that players who have trouble remembering their system (whether it is a complex relay system is not) get to think more in difficult situations than players who don’t have trouble remembering their system (perhaps because they elected to play a simpler system, or put in the effort to be able to play their relay system smoothly)?

Nobody is suggesting that everyone will bid in tempo all the time. But when one doesn’t bid in tempo - even for very good reason - we should make sure that your partner is not better placed to get things right than if you did bid in tempo, with close calls (bids suggested by the UI, where a LA is available) going against you.

I think “correspondence bridge” where you have all the time you want would be an interesting game, and I think I would be much better at it than I am at regular bridge. Also there would be no tempo issues. But that is not the game we play.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it should be clear to keep a club but I was thinking about threatening to establish spades so I first thought of N keeping 3 spades to match dummy… then later so saw the same line also worked when N shortened his spades to keep a club or two. While still learning my intuition sometimes takes me in weird directions. (Obviously there are entry problems with establishing spades, but here sometimes the opponents will solve them for you).
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sathya,

Do you really want me to spoil it for you?

Remember declarer has two trumps remaining at that point :)
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table my partner played 4H from E and did get the spade lead and club switch so should really have been held to 11 tricks but for some discarding confusion.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry I was tired :)
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Richard, you have cataloged and named quite a variety of squeezes!

If (in the needlessly complex line I first saw) declarer has no club to concede from the trumpless hand and instead needs to ruff a spade with his last trump to concede a club, relying on the winning defender to get him back to his good diamond and spade, I guess that would be a steppingstone establishment triple squeeze?
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gonzalo I should not respond so late at night, but the position is makable. From that 7 card position on the 6th trump declarer should pitch a spade from hand so that N has to pitch a club. Now diamond, diamond pitching a spade from dummy, spade ruff, concede a club pitching a diamond and whomever wins the club has to put you back in dummy (with either a spade or diamond depending on who it is).

I thought that was a really cool position, but of course it’s unnecessary because declarer can simply keep a club.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually since S has the T nothing bad can happen leading any diamond but leading back the J seemed like the clearest example of why there was no endplay.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a kickback fan because of the accidents so don’t take this as general support for kickback.

Do you think there is some systemic reason why kickback wrong sides more contracts?

If you think it’s important that the preempt hand not declare, it would be easy to come up with “transfer preempt KC” where you skipped the trump suit as a response step. This might work better playing kickback because you would get the extra space back.

Edit: removed mixup. I should go to sleep!
May 18
Max Schireson edited this comment May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, that is simpler than the line I saw!

I had the silly notion of pitching dummy’s club, thinking that another spade is more useful.

You can still make with KJx - AKQx - in dummy and one more trump in hand but it is much more complicated, in particular when N keeps 2 clubs in the 7 card ending. Now you cash one more trump (on which N must come down to one club) pitching a diamond, two diamonds pitching a spade, ruff a spade and exit a club; depending on which pitching a spade and the defense will have to put you in dummy.

Much cleaner to keep the club, thanks.

Edit: corrected
May 18
Max Schireson edited this comment May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should add that the actual solution is both much harder and much more interesting than that!
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
W doesn’t have the diamond intermediates; from that position N can just exit the DJ and his 9 will eventually take a trick.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,

What if they don’t think they “play it in a specific way”, they have just never discussed reverses so they both think that means they don’t have any special agreement that they promise extra values, and thus assume they can be made on a minimum hand. Thus “not playing reverses”, and nothing to put on their card.

There are many cases where what seems normal to a rank beginner is not normal to a more experienced player, but the rank beginners simply can’t be expected to alert what is normal to them.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neal - no because there it would not apparent that one side was responsible for the delay.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last year Cornelius picked my team over Rosenthal in the R16.

For that I will always say that Cornelius wins any USBC fantasy tiebreaker - or at least until someone else picks my team, which could be a long time!

He should get something for predicting an absurd upset that come closer than anyone expected to happening, right? Otherwise it’s too easy to just pick the favorites…
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That’s why Andy said “in the given circumstances.”

Of course for a player that usually bids 2C over 1N in 2 seconds, if they take 8 seconds because they have a slam try hand with a four card major and a six card minor, they have transmitted UI, even if their opponents are unlikely to get a ruling.

As for the other situation, say you (not intended to be personal, just a hypothetical player) are in a forcing pass situation and you think for 20 seconds before doubling. Your partner, who already knows a lot about your hand, might know that you don’t have a hand where it is 100% clear to double. “I was always going to pull, I had a void in spades.” High level auction, you were thinking about the different hands partner could have and the scores, these decisions always take time, so there was no UI, 20-30 seconds is normal for that type of auction. And it’s “automatic” to pull with a void on that auction…

But in the alternative universe you double immediately. Partner passes. “It was clear from the auction that I had at most one card in their suit, and it was possible I was void; pass was forcing so partner didn’t want my opinion; actually my void makes it more attractive to pass because partner can actually have length in their suit, they can be in real trouble.” You explain that you had already decided to double 5H when you chose your call last round, some of that time was to plan ahead so that you could do it in tempo specifically to avoid UI issues here. Again, no UI.

Yes, “normal tempo” can vary with the situation, but I think much of the variation attributed to the auction is actually based on players holding problem hands - for most auctions there are at least some hands where the action is clear, but nobody waits 20 seconds on those hands, so usually 20 seconds at least says you don’t have one of those hands. Whether that UI suggests anything to partner is a different issue, but it’s often there even when people say it isn’t.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the USBC issue, I will explain what I believe is the relevant rule and the source of the 15 seconds that was referenced there. I was not onsite so I am working from my general knowledge of the rules and what was posted on the USBF website about the appeal. I am not trying to express any opinion about the actual ruling or appeal, just respond to statements about a “15 second rule” that seem to me to be without context.

The rule is that behind screens, up to 15 seconds is presumed not to be UI. The other side can hold the tray so that an insta-bid is not visible to partner as such. Thus if the tray take 10 seconds to come back with two passes after (P) 1H (P) 1S (P) 1N (P) 6N and you push it across, your screenmate has no UI that his partner was thinking about doubling for the lead (which presumably is what someone might be thinking about there).

That doesn’t mean that anything beyond 15 seconds is always UI in every auction, just that - with screens only - faster than 15 seconds is presumed *not* to be UI. I believe that if the tray takes longer than 15 seconds the rules is that it “may be considered to have made UI available if it is apparent that one side is responsible for the delay.” This does not seem overly black and white.

Without screens there are plenty of situations in real life where 3 seconds is, for that auction and player, clearly a break in tempo, but it is very hard to win rulings in those cases. Same for the instapass that hits almost before opponents bid… and insta-double is penalty, thoughtful but technically “in tempo” double is take out. Being able to hold the tray is a good solution to these cases but the possibility of the tray having been held means that moderate delays don’t transmit UI. The 15 seconds addresses this issue and I think in that context it is quite reasonable.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case the committee did not change the directors ruling.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding Oren’s tough loss right now the scores show them ahead.

Anyway there were a number of close matches so condolences to whichever teams lost. I am sure there will be full results soon, with the possible exception of the appeal.

Edit: it looks like the “total” does not yet include the final segment (as of 7:16 pacific), perhaps pending the appeal. It looks like none of the final segments swung the match, again pending the appeal, about which I don’t know any details.
May 15
Max Schireson edited this comment May 15
.

Bottom Home Top