Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nigel Kearney
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68 69 70 71
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Realising your error without use of UI means you are legally and ethically entitled to do whatever seems best to try to recover from your misbid.

The problem is you have no way to prove you acted legally. To the director and everyone else it will seem as if you acted illegally. The director should rule accordingly and opponents will not be too impressed either. For that reason it is probably best to just keep bidding as if you showed diamonds.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That looks like a normal 2 bid to me.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't tick any. The first three are obviously false. The big worry when balancing is that they have a better fit somewhere else, not that opener has a huge hand and they will wake up and bid game in the suit opened or notrump. The last one does not apply because, sadly, lots of people just have no idea how to bid when opponents open.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there was no agreement that 2 is forcing, don't you think a 2 call on that hand would be a mistake?
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't like it either. But I can't think of anything better.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see much evidence for or against any of those. What I do see is a law that says we assume mistaken explanation not mistaken call. No mistaken call means the 2D bidder was following their agreement. The only plausible agreement consistent with that is natural and forcing.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course it matters. The proper adjustment is based on what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. If the infraction had not occurred, East would have received the correct explanation.

In this case, if the correct explanation is “natural and forcing” it would be foolish for East to act after North mistakenly passes. If the correct explanation is “no agreement” then double by East is much more attractive.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law also does not say we should assume no agreement. The fact they disagreed at the table does not mean the sequence is undiscussed. Maybe one player forgot their agreement. This is very common.

What would you rule if East asked about 2 and North said ‘undiscussed’ but South believed they had agreed it was forcing?

The director has to rule mistaken explanation when there's not evidence of their actual agreement but that doesn't mean always ruling as if ‘no agreement’ is the correct explanation.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
21B1(b): “The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”

Without such evidence, I suppose it is technically consistent with the laws to always assume no agreement whenever the bid and explanation differ.

But I think the more natural interpretation of the above rule is the agreement is deemed to match the hand held by the bidder.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why can't I follow the Stayman route (Romex thing or whatever) to find out about a spade fit and then bid 4 otherwise?
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the explanation was correct and South misbid, and they can prove that, no adjustment.

If the explanation was incorrect then I think East has a normal double of a weak 2 and a normal pass if 2 was natural and forcing. E/W clearly had a mixup about what to do after the redouble but that is not a ‘serious error unrelated to the infraction’.

Therefore I would adjust to 2+2 for both sides. No reason to give a split or weighted score here.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand recording 2. If they are a regular partnership and South failed to raise to 3, that might be worth recording. I probably wouldn't bother though.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My general advice:

1. Overbid a little with a decent six card suit, e.g. rebid 3 with x KJx Axx AKxxxx. To just rebid 2 with that puts too much pressure on partner and they will need to try again on too many hands where 2 was the best spot.

2. Don't overbid when reversing. With x KJxx Axx AKxxx rebid 1NT or 2 not 2.

3. Seriously consider playing a weak NT. Most of these problems for your side just go away and a whole new set of problems for the opponents are created.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be. I could be wrong but I'd say 5+-5+ majors (immediate 4) and choice of games (double then 4) are both more important than a slam try with no particular message about strain.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree it can be ambiguous. My preferred approach is “game before slam” so choice of games is the primary meaning of any cue bid like this one. If you want to do it on other hands, you need to first judge whether you can control the subsequent auction.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After double and 3, I think the 4 cue bid can be one of two things. It might be a slam move with a very strong hand and first round club control, but it could also be choice of games, e.g. a strong 4531. So North should bid 4 next, or something stronger such as 5 or even 5NT.

Over 4 South can bid 5 to strongly invite slam, running a slight risk of down one but partner seldom has a completely useless hand. North has three useful cards which ought to be enough to bid grand.

But I may be resulting which is kind of hard to avoid when looking at both hands.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have a conventional agreement, you may want to vary it according to whether the double is in second or fourth and whether the doubler has passed already.

What I intended for option 3 above, is the use of double by an unpassed hand as strong in some situations but artificial in others.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about 5 HCP and a five card spade suit and the alternative auction is 1D-1S-2NT-Pass?
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have done some computer analysis correlating honour cards and tricks taken and came up with:

Ace = 4.4
King = 2.8
Queen = 1.6
Jack = 0.8
Ten = 0.4

On that scale the above hand is still 20, even without any tens.

It would be great if someone could try to reproduce this kind of analysis because I think it's pretty useful.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Running the ten picks up QJxx in North (and doesn't harm your chances when South has four). There are three ways for South to have a small singleton and only two ways for them to have a singleton honour.
May 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68 69 70 71
.

Bottom Home Top