Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seems to be confusion between two separate hands. TBW panel saw 5 A643 J97652 J6 and voted for 2D. (Richard gave the exact votes above.) The panel agrees with Bridgewinners voters that 2NT would have been natural, so nobody chose it with the hand given.

Benoit suggested 2NT might show xx xxx xxxx KQTx, which fits the definition of natural, but that looks to me like a hand that would pass 2x.

I don't see that anyone else has suggested a hand where natural 2NT is a good bid, though there was a suggested type “8-9 with 2353 and two club stops.” What's wrong with 2 on that or perhaps 2 if diamonds are weak?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
D25 gives $2000 per team, all four flights:
http://www.nebridge.org/media/ups/2017_Files/GNT_NAP/GNT_CoC2.pdf

Fund source is Grass Roots Fund games.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The alternative is Laws that depend on observable events. There are plenty of examples, including those that deal with when declarer's or a defender's card must be played (Law 45).
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another wrinkle: if LHO's play was out of tempo or with undue emphasis, L73A2 could be relevant.

For the L45C4 part of the ruling, the Director has to determine declarer's intention at the time he first designated a card. Therefore the exact description of events is critical, but on the account given, I agree with Barry, Martin, and several others that saying “ace” is a pretty good indication that declarer noticed the queen and intended to cover it.

FWIW I dislike laws that require mind reading, but that seems to be a minority view.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to rule out “obvious shift” signalling. Even if you don't play “obvious shift,” whether you want to encourage or discourage in one suit usually depends on whether you like or dislike the alternatives.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alerting depends on jurisdiction. I've answered the poll based on what I know of the EBU. The answer would have been different in the ACBL.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
#12 disallows openings with “more than two” possible suits, so all-weak multi is not prohibited by that. I'm not sure what happens if you include strong meanings other than balanced, e.g., weak with an unspecified major or strong with diamonds.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is certainly disallowed on the GCC, but I think it is legal today on the MidChart. As an overcall of 1NT, it is a version of “Reverse Cappelletti” and I think fairly popular. If the intent is to keep things the same, the language needs some tweaking.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And yet another question on “constructive” or “purely destructive” …

I'm thinking of a 2D overcall of 1NT that shows “one-suited with a major and less than opening values or a minor and at least opening values.” At least that's how I'd describe it to an opponent at the table, possibly adding that it is nearly always the major type. (Strong hands are uncommon when an opponent has opened a strong NT.) The term “opening values” means what most people would understand: something stronger than an Average Hand but not necessarily Strong under the draft definitions.

Is this intended to be legal? Is it legal under the draft rules? I don't see that it qualifies as Constructive unless the promised suit length is 6+, but I could well be missing something.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Getting back to the alert procedures, there has been a recent change with no authorization that I know of. Prior to that change, a natural bid in a quasi-natural suit was not alertable.

There is room for debate on what the alert rules ought to be, and I'm not sure it's wise to base definitions on a presumed outcome. If “cuebid” isn't needed for the Convention Chart, maybe you could simply not define it at all until it's needed.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thinking some more about 19, I think it would be simpler to drop the definition of “Purely Destructive Bid” altogether. Then prohibit:
#) any opening bid that is not constructive
#) any overcall (or did you mean “direct overcall”?), except for the cheapest bid, that is not constructive.

That comes to the same result you have but is more direct.

If you were to allow forcing pass with a 1C fert (which I'd play against any time with no more notice than a pre-alert at the table), all you'd have to do is eliminate prohibition 1 and add “except 1” to the first prohibition above.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as only two suits are possible, 4-card (and _a fortiori_ 5-card) multi is constructive (item a twice plus item d). That will confuse most readers, but the logic is sound.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite right. Thanks.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitions:
1. if you keep that at all, mention that agreements can also arise as consequences of other agreements.

2i. you could shorten and simplify if you started with “Any call is natural if…,” and delete the second sentence.

7. do you really want cuebids to include bids in opponents' quasi-natural suits? It probably depends on what you plan to use this definition for.

16b. probably should start “When there has been an opening bid and ….” As it is, when there have been three passes, fourth hand is in balancing seat. Maybe that's OK?

18c. do you really want 5+-4+ there, or would 4+-4+ be good enough? I'm thinking of Suction where the two-suiter could be 4-4. (Overall I think this definition is clever.)

18g should be “Any response to a forcing _call_” (not “bid”).

19. I think I'd define “Purely Destructive Bid” as any bid that is not constructive, leaving out the bits about opening bids and overcalls. Then in the relevant sections, prohibit “Purely Destructive Opening Bids” and “Purely Destructive Overcalls other than the cheapest bid.” That makes no difference here but gives you the possibility to prohibit other things on the other charts.

Opening Bids:
8. you are prohibiting the Woodson Two-way Notrump. Was that intentional? (It's no longer popular but has long been allowed.)

20. do you really want to prohibit psyching natural bids?

Lead and carding agreements:
I don't understand “Distinct meanings for middle cards (vs. highest and lowest) are permissible.” How is that compatible with the previous statement?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is “However otherwise legal Artificial Preempts may also contain one or more Strong meanings.” part of item 11 rather than a general statement elsewhere?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In matches of 5 or fewer boards, an Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT that does not show at least one known suit.

Rules out opening 3S to show an unspecified solid minor (i.e., “Gambling 3NT” but bidding 3S so partner will play NT). Was that the intent?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Encrypted Signal”: A signaling methodology of a card or sequence of cards which varies based on information unavailable to declarer.

By this definition, almost all signals are encrypted. I think you need to add something about the key being known to both defenders but not declarer.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There doesn't seem to be anything about advancer or advances bids. “Response” isn't defined, but “responder” is opener's partner. What about overcaller's or takeout doubler's partner?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought this thread was about what constitutes correct disclosure, not about what minimal disclosure one might get away with in practice.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hilarious! Too many people think that's what “full disclosure” means.

As I wrote above, relays are hard to describe because they encompass a wide range of hands. The most common relays, Stayman and Blackwood, are familiar, but imagine explaining them to someone who was used to entirely different methods and hadn't seen them before.

For RKCB, I'd suggest something like “Artificial and forcing. Shows a hand that expects to make 12 or more tricks if we aren't off two tricks in aces or top trumps. Has reason to believe we have at least second round control of all side suits.” In some auctions and some partnerships, you would follow the “Artificial and forcing” with “Unless he's fooling around with a weak hand,…”

Stayman is more tedious but easier. The most important thing would be listing the weak hand types, if any.

Because of familiarity, we tolerate “Asking for…,” but we shouldn't believe it's a correct explanation.
Feb. 5
1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top