Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Yehudit Hasin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 213 214 215 216
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, ok…
:)Yu
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And ”most“ players in this game are never opening 2-4-2-5 with a NT call.” that's not true imo. Opening this a 1NT is pretty mainstream, and there were quite a few people in the room that were not novices.

:)Yu
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have no such agreement about 2NT, but it makes sense, thank you.

Richard, given that W does not have the weak NT range - passing is rather safe with the strong balanced hand, because partner will balance on anything but junk, and if partner has junk they still might have enough spades to bid 2.

:)Yu
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I believe this is a system win. At most tables this hand would open strong NT and end up declaring 4, against which getting the singleton lead is not far fetched.

:)Yu
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, we played 2 as 5+ - it has its own bugs and I really prefer the 6+ version.
Personally I do not understand why Jim sweats this particular hand that much - both pass and 2NT seem logical to me.

:)Yu
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, it's obviously cards, and no specific suit. The question would partner double with something like KQx, Qxx, AKxx, AJx - or he would be happy to pass 4?

In my partnerships I would expect a strong hand with close to nothing wasted; but I have seen people do it on the balanced strong NT hand and in that case you really on a guess of 10 IMPs. This is exactly why I believe that the “cards” or “DSI” doubles at high level just have to be better defined in terms of waste in opponent's suit. I can't do anything intelligent if it can be both the strong balanced hand, and the one that was actually at the table.

:)Yu
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a tough one. What's the level of your responsive doubles? Because if it includes 4 I would think this hand qualifies. If it does not, as I see it partner bid the strong double hand (some 19+). From your experience would partner X with the hand he was going to bid natural NT with or does X mean that he is strong, and the values are not wasted?

The latter means we are pretty close to making 6 and I would bid 4NT. If you do not know pass looks like a safe plus, but can easily be losing 10+IMPs. Overall I think I would bid - my hand is just too good.

:)Yu
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - of course, then he would be declaring the 4.
:)Yu
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 promises 6+ clubs.

:)Yu
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT, 2 places or X.
:)Yu
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, as I understand the judge did not say anything about cheating, nor cleared them. The judge ruled that WBF did not follow its own rules (which is also form of cheating I would say).

:)Yu
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whatever is your systemic diamond lead
:)Yu
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is funny !!!:)

I often observe that people at the bridge table are not exactly self aware: what looks normal tempo to the bidder may or may not be to the other 3 people at the table. Obviously your opponents thought you did not bid in the same tempo and manner that you bid the pass over 1.

It does not matter why they think that something was wrong, and whether it was or not. Calling a director is never a reason to be pissed. Not calling a director on the other hand….

:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would you be pissed by a director call? It is the right thing to do whenever anyone has a concern about anything at the table. There is absolutely nothing wrong about calling a director, and your opponents did well to do so.

As a side note - you do not need to bid or deliberately wait. Bid in your normal tempo. If you waited for a while, then doubled then your partner removed it - I would also reserve my rights.

:)Yu
Nov. 17
Yehudit Hasin edited this comment Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing is sure, but sure is not the standard required by bridge regulations.
:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As others stated - no it is not correct. Whenever the tempo suggests one possible meaning over another it is UI. In this situation fast X tends to be clear penalty and slow “I don't know what to do but do not want to sell to 2”.

In the case when the bid is pass, there is always UI, because the alternative is to bid on (something, anything). But in many other situations fast and slow bids indicate rather specific UI or suggest one meaning over another is more likely.

:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That it is not a penalty double…
:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, it is a simple matter to change, nevertheless it has not been. My sentence does not mean it has to be that way, just that currently it is.
If you disagree with that I believe you are are wrong, but there are more competent people on BW than I to comment on this.

:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, individuals are not members of WBF. NBOs are. Organization can't ban someone who is not a member.

About your example - if in your bylaws there is nothing about cheating, why a person joining your club should be banned for something you do not specify the punishment for? Do you think it would be ok to ban them because you think they *might* be cheating? Or because you just do not like them? And if the livelihood of that person depends on being member of that club? Or may be because you just do not like the way they dress?

I think if this is a public club, you should have clear rules of what is allowed, what is not, how you referee disputes and what is the punishment - and those rules should be binding to both sides. If you do not specify in your bylaws prohibition of specific type of behavior or conduct, you should not be able to make rules and punishments on the fly.

As much as I hate cheating, having someone doing as they please sounds even worse to me than having a cheating pair. May be I am being cynical, but I do not believe these are the only cheating pairs anyway…

:)Yu
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WBF silence on this is deafening.

:)Yu
Nov. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 213 214 215 216
.

Bottom Home Top