Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A variation I have used is:

2NT weak 6-9 or GF raise
3 limit raise.

We have changed to 2NT limit raise. But we still use

1m (2M) 2NT as the weak or GF raise. If 3NT is in the frame as it often is when agreeing a minor then we have the option of 3M with a GF raise that does not want to bid no trumps.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ept” does appear in the Oxford English Dictionary as a back formation from “inept”.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure the five-level is high but sometimes there is no room. For example:

1. 2NT 4NT.

2. (3x) 3NT (P) 4NT.

To name just two crammed auctions. Given 1NT 4NT is reasonably standard then that auction is also forced in many systems.

Recently, I have been using methods where 3NT is the slam try on some sequences. This gives an extra level to find a fit.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not see why five of a suit should be an acceptance. There are so many hands where 6suit will make and 6NT will not.

I would play 5m followed by 5NT as no fit and an attempted signoff.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sad to learn of John's death. I played with John a few times when he first arrived in New Zealand.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 was possible but our agreement was that 2 was non-forcing.

If 2 was a one round force then this would have been better.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow. Thanks everyone. I am unfamiliar with the terms “grope” or “punt” in this context.

I use a similar but different concept in auctions like 1 1; 3 where there is no fourth suit below 3NT so a bid of 3 is very often false preference.

Another similar situation is 1 1; 3 where a couple of times I have used a rebid of 3 as an attempt to get to 3NT with no black suit stoppers but good hearts albeit only a four-card suit. One of those times I ended in a making 4=2 heart fit which was worth all of the matchpoints.

It seems the problems here are peculiar to this precise auction. We are at the three-level after a one-over-one and a reverse with no fourth suit available below 3NT. A similar problem will occur after 1 1 2 3 for those who play a natural jump shift into 2M.

For those who think that a 2NT rebid might have solved this problem, I think it is likely that you end in 3NT with the opening leader ready to go with the A and a result of minus two. On this hand we needed to get to 4 but 4 was also playable.

AQxxx Qxx xxx xx

One final note: I have often solved this problem in a different way from the other side of the table. More generally when raising diamonds there can be an issue determining whether or not there is a club stopper. Therefore a diamond raise should typically deny a good club stopper or as in this case if 3 is forcing then it shows either no good club stopper or reasonably serious slam interest. So on this hand opener, KJ AKxx AKxxx Jx, knows at 3 that 3NT is not a likely contract. Although with this particular hand that does not make the best bid much clearer.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was going to ask elsewhere in the thread what the rules are for this punt but you have suggested a rule.

How standard is this rule?
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No imps. Well actually the hands came up in bidding practice but we assume imps in most of our practices.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having bounced to 4 you already have a lot of equity in this auction. The opponents have been forced to guess both the level and strain. Sure some of the time they have guessed correctly but by bidding again you throw away almost all of your gains from the times they have guessed wrong.

As for assigning the blame.

South's 4 must be right as 4 could be making from south's perspective.

The question for north is: do you have more offence and less defence than you promised with 3? As only under those conditions can it be right to dive in front of partner. To me it seems no to both questions.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may need to do more than always ask. Others might be better placed to know if there is UI.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe if you always ask questions then your question does not impart any UI. However my experience is that especially in regular partnerships one can often tell or strongly suspect what the basis for a question is. Also others that I have heard claiming they always ask questions actually do not always ask.

The law says explicitly that partner's question can convey UI.

“Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.

This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.”
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once had a ruling in New Zealand that went to appeal. The player had a weak jump overcall and their card showed some stronger range or vice versa. At Matchpoints, I went off in 3NT playing for what I thought was a certain overtrick based on the information I had been given. The appeal committee had no sympathy for me (which I think was wrong as playing for a near 100% overtrick can't be an egregious error.) So they wanted me to keep my score but they were willing to penalise the opponents for not having their system card filled in correctly. The director was having none of this as he decreed that while the regulations required players to carry a system card there was no regulation saying it had to be filled in.

I questioned him on this ruling. When he stood firm, I took my card out from my back pocket and ripped it into pieces and picked up a blank card and said I would be using the blank card on the second day of the event.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't care about transmission of UI. I care if the recipient uses it. But that's his problem, not mine. Well, his and the director's. :-)”

Maybe this is true in some sense. However, UI does constrain your partner and those constraints may restrict partner to not being able to exercise judgment precisely as they would want and is best for your side absent the UI.

It is all very well to say the UI is partner's problem but when partner can't do as they would have done without the UI which is what we know the law says then my UI also becomes our partnership's problem and therefore my problem.

Unfortunately, the laws are flawed here and I do not know what is the best way to deal with the situation. It kind of seems there should be more than one category of UI. At its extremes, if I make a gratuitous comment that gives UI to partner then the full force of the law should apply but if I am properly complying with the correct procedure in getting an explanation and there is accidental UI then a lower level of constraint should be on partner. Although I recognise this could be abused.

However, it does seem wrong that finding out what the opponent's bid means might end up constraining my partner.

In reply to Kit and Nigel: Another use of the system card is to verify the opponents' agreements after the fact when there is potential misinformation from an answer to a question.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask your question the same way every time.

“Can you explain your auction?” should work well.

You might also need

“What other options are available in MOD CAPP?” or similar - “what would 2 mean?”

You shouldn't have to give away anything about your have. Technically if you did feel damaged perhaps by a surprising answer that would have meant you had a clear pass without asking questions then a director would be able to adjust for the damage caused by the incomplete description on the card.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dealt 100 hands where you can make 6NT double dummy and looked at the winning lines.

39 times either ducking a club or playing out the diamonds would work.

43 times playing out the diamonds worked but ducking a club did not.

18 times ducking a club worked but playing out the diamonds did not work.

Occasionally when diamonds were 5-1 or 4-2 with QJ then ducking the club worked but only if you subsequently guessed the diamond position by dropping the QJ with west or finessing for the remaining honour with east if 5-1.
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So why do you want to select someone who is good on the unimportant hands but might screw up more of the important ones?

Completely different skills are rewarded in each form of scoring. It is not even close on many hands. Bidding tight games, major v minor or no trumps at every level, doubling partscores, preempts, entering auctions competitively, active v passive leads, safety plays. The winning long run strategy in those and more aspects of the game is almost opposite for each form of scoring.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have seen this with chrome.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
King from king jack over the queen ten is very common.

When I tried it, declarer asked did you false card as he played the ten and I said yes as I won my jack.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The more I read this the more I cannot comprehend how using MPs to select the best IMP players has any basis whatsoever. It is like selecting tennis players based on their skill at table tennis. Completely different games.

A pair who wins two out of three boards with good sacrifices of -500 against 600 games is scoring 67% at MPs but losing six IMPs (2 IMPs a board) at IMPs. That is how different MPs is to IMPs. And there are many of these scenarios.
Nov. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
.

Bottom Home Top