Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
when do the matches play the same boards?
May 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
general curmudgeon…that about sums it up.
what i first stated: “It takes no conspicuous effort to glance at their cc.”
you guys are the ‘filthy cc card grabbers’
your ‘obvious step’, no director call, becomes a pitfall for the opponent. maybe they got rattled/flustered. we weren't there…maybe haven't received the whole picture.
get your prescriptions checked..optical. and stop claiming EW had no hand in this affair.

If you would consider a 3C call with Axx xx xx QJ9xxx absolutely automatic by a passed hand after a WJS then there can hardly be a transmission of UI if you do happen to do more than glance at their card before you make your call.

The whole situation including all this vitriol could have been handled with more decorum. We really don't know what exactly happened.

I daresay we've all been victimized by convention disruption…what can be done about it?
May 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It was established that NS were playing strong JS – their convention cards both said so”…but in the ?confusion? where there was no alert, just an announcement, West doesn't bother to check one of their opponent's cards before ‘prebalancing’

And nothing smells fishy?…

Would we have generated any of all this had West referred to a NS cc?

Seems like many voices hold EW blameless and victimized. I'm not at all convinced they didn't have a hand in their own undoing. Was the director called so that West could be informed he took take his pass back?
From my reading of the proceedings, no. East informed North of his obligation re. alerting a WJS.

Where was the director call? 9B. After Attention is drawn to an irregularity
1. (a) the director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

May 11, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know why partner might not hold xx Axxx Kx KQxxx. How can 5 be wrong?
May 9, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your forcing raise structure is simple (i.e. Jacoby) let opener's 3N rebid be the weak 5332, not a jump to 4M. 4M weak with extra trump length. 3M extra strength and maybe extra length. Let partner make the decision for 3N vs 4M.
May 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a premium for going plus at matchpoints, partner could have responded 1N with K sixth of diamonds and some stray hcp. The more I think about this hand the more I wish I'd abstained in protest over these methods. If partner is promising 6 with a top honor and an outside entry he should have bid 2. If preemptive means anything less than limit it's a pure guessing game.
May 9, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
so you say nothing smells. i say West knows something is askew. Either partner has passed with a great hand, South does not have a WJS, or North has a moose. It takes no conspicuous effort to glance at their cc.

the OP made assumptions about what North would not do. West should be singing the blues: Muddy Waters blues. I'm not claiming double shot at all. He made a tactical bid, a gambling action to his own detriment.

I don't think West thought his gambling action through. He had a chance to change his Pass, did so, and paid a price. I don't see why he should not have to pay the price. My reading of 12C 1(b) supports a -980 for EW. North's score is immaterial to the complaint that -980 cost EW the event.

You think West has no culpability. I disagree. I personally doubt West is any more savvy than his LHO who didn't remember their methods.

All that being said I am in favor of automatic penalties for pairs who disrupt auctions with misinformation. How you determine the specifics of ‘convention disruption’ is another question entirely and not an easy one solve.
May 8, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The CKO on day 2 of a national event: Trash Compactor
The evening team game opposite the CKO semi's: Loser's Swiss
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only reason I can see supporting a roll back to +230 is the likelihood that a North who doesn't know whether the 2 is alertable is not likely to raise to 3.

I think West's action was an attempt to poison the well. A surreptitious glance at an opponent's convention card would make it obvious that they were not playing WJS. You don't have to pick it up to see a check box.

We may never know what North would do in the absence of that call. If I was directing and felt that West was manipulating I would have no qualms about -980 & +230. A 3 prebalance borders on being preposterous.

If West had passed they might have won the event or they might have finished third. After West's 3 call I think they earned their third. The OP really has no clue, given a screened event, what North would do. If he thinks North would have passed (not being a very good player) then why muck around in an auction that doesn't belong to you? Something smells rotten and bringing it to bridgewinners for a proper legal interpretation seems like an effort to exonerate an inexcusable call.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if, having passed, North shrugged his shoulders, and bid 3 as a double shot. I wonder if the person consulted thought the MI link had been broken by West's call.

See Law 12C 1
(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the 17 Chapter IV – Irregularities infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.
May 7, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you play a delayed takeout double? Just a desire to compete? Basically the same strength but a desire to hear opponents clarify their strain? I might be more inclined to bid 6 if the immediate double had control-richer implications.

To my way of thinking, where slower shows more, I would want to double immediately with more suspect values because I might not be able to double later. If I double later I must be willing to contract for more tricks at a higher level and, thus, need a better hand.

For me as well, the opportunities to defend multi are few & far between.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
glad to see someone other than Kit who creates entertaining bridge movies.
I would have titled your article Canasta - a Bridge Movie
I almost didn't click on it.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An unfortunate experience particularly given the conditions of contest: 8 is enough. The less experienced players are subjected to a contentious disagreement, a disruption in play without a director call, a non-claim claim by the defense, and huddling without reason.

These games are opportunities for more experienced players to model good behavior, composure, etc.

At the table I might have said: "Mike, I don't want to call the director, but we are still on the second hand and 1/2 our time is gone. You are in a hopeless contract. I am going to hold onto my winning K and my partner would appear to have at least a trick too… You haven't run that suit. Can we speed things up or do I need to call the director?

In a serious contest you really have no alternative if you cannot make a claim to call the director.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer can fly A and pitch club on K. Then play on diamonds to establish dummy. You get only 3, 1 & 2.
Down 3 NV for 500.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The defining question for me is whether the purported utility of having two routes to 2N to distinguish varying kinds of support for opener's minor ‘trumps’ the simple treatment that the only route to 2N is via NMF and therefore, 2N is logically the relay to 3 for signoff.

Yes, you can get fancy using the useful space relay to bid beyond 3 for further specialized sequences, but that wasn't the point of this poll
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's been more than a decade since I've added 2WNMF & XYZ. Bridge World Standard signs off with a jump to 3 of an unbid minor. I was curious to know if simple NMF players are adopting newer routes to a minor signoff.

Have you never been curious about methods you aren't using?

Did you vote on the poll re. Lost at the End of the Alphabet?

If you play 2WNMF what is your call holding
Kxxx Axx xx AQJx after partner's
1 - 1, 1N - 2
Do you break the relay to raise hearts? 2 or 3?
Let's assume you are not playing 14-16 1N.

Does your answer change if your shape is 4=3=1=5?
Does your answer change if your minors are reversed and you open 1: Kxxx Axx AQJx xx
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I appreciate the many contributions

Before we adopted XYZ we would raise or jump raise responder's major with 3 trump and a min/max weak NT rebid over responder's NMF.
Why should we not do the same after a 1 rebid followed by an XYZ 2 call? Axxx Kxx x !AQJTxx looks like a 3 reply to an XYZ 2 to me.

Some have suggested that the relay should only be broken with extras.
Others break the relay if they have no interest in playing 2

After a 1 opener and 1N rebid do NMF, not 2WNMF, players with a weak hand with long clubs get out via 2 - 2, 3 or is that an invite? Is responder's rebid of 3 drop dead, invitational, or forcing? It's been a decade since I've played regular NMF and no longer remember?

Maybe it's worth a poll
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you mean by breaking the relay to raise, I do not think any of opener's raises, 2 or 3, is forcing. I cannot imagine responder passing unless they've stretched to make the 2 call.
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the spreadsheet. I am still confused. It looks like the calculation is based on a single deal. What about a pair averaging 17.7 hcp over 27 boards? The probability and number of standard deviations from 0.

Am I missing something?
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no psyche

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?n=s7qjah5d6qjc4569q&e=s458kth4ad9ac3kjt&s=s369h3kqjd35kc27a&w=s2h26789td2478tc8&b=1&d=n&v=-&a=1c1nx4dp4hxppp

On a diamond lead you can score 3, 2, and the black Aces for down 4 for a 5 imp win. Your counterparts bid and made 3N.
On a heart lead you lose a heart trick and lose 3 imps.
On the C!A lead you have to shift to a spade at trick 2.
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
west led a spade and declarer made 3 after a slight misdefense. The form of scoring was BAM and 4H was bid & made at the other table.
May 2, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top