Home Abbeybear Comments

Abbeybear

About

Username
Abbeybear
Joined
Visits
662
Last Active
Roles
Member

Comments

  • (Quote)

    i.e. "tell them what you play", see Blue Book 2A2 and 4A1.

  • I prefer the authorised interpretation. At the point when partner "played" the stop card, it was authorised information that he was about to make a skip bid (subject to the usual considerations if he did not in fact make a skip bid). I don't se…

  • (Quote)

    By contrast, at the club where I direct most frequently, there are a couple of pairs whose unusual actions (looked at objectively) are drawn to the TDs' attention more than just occasionally; and the players drawing such attention are …

  • (Quote)

    Told you so :)

  • You cannot determine that a psyche has been fielded without determining that there has been a psyche in the first place.

    You cannot determine that there has been a psyche without determining what the relevant agreements are.

    From …

  • (Quote)

    Well, I suppose it is, although it doesn't have to be to be a choice that allows the auction to proceed without further rectification.

  • Given the existence of Law 27B1(a), it is unlikely to matter much whether there is a comparable call available - opener normally just bids 3 !d and matters proceed without further ado, but FWIW:

    1. I don't think that the question is …

  • (Quote)

    I'm not convinced that this would be popular. One feature of a Swiss that people are very much used to is that teams can leapfrog those above them on the last round if those above take points off each other.

  • I have said it before, but in deciding whether something is a psyche you do have to ascertain what the methods in use actually are.

    Here, it is not likely to be too difficult - you would need to find some fairly unusual statements on the …

  • (Quote)

    It might be preferable to say that that if an action does not appear to a logical choice opposite what the bid is supposed to show, but is the right thing to do opposite the actual hand...

    (It comes to much the same thing, I th…

  • (Quote)

    If N has genuinely realised his own mistake, he is perfectly entitled to bid 5 !c and to defer calling the director. Besides, on what basis are you calling N's bridge actions into question? There is no indication that he has any UI …

  • (Quote)

    Well, it is certainly recommended to do your thinking in advance when, say, you have a number of discards to make, and trying to plan your later discards in advance at a point at which you don't (yet) have a problem as to what to spare…

  • I think it's easier to get across the concept of a comparable call after an IB than after a BOOT (besides which it isn't so often needed because of the "lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination" provision of Law 27B1(a)). But i…

    in Law 23 Comment by Abbeybear July 2019
  • I'd be looking at Law 73D (both sections).

    If you know from your hand that you don't want partner bidding 5 !h , and you presumably don't have a double of 4 !s, then you know you are going to pass. To take an inordinately long time to do…

  • The polling could have been inconclusive because a substantial number would have bid 3 !c on the first round. If WJO's are in use even at Red, the hand seems to fit the bill. But in many clubs a substantial number will play vulnerable jump ove…

  • I find that people don't have a problem with the "intermediate" announcement of my Precision-style 2 !c opener (which I do play as guaranteeing a 4-card major only if the club suit is as short as 5). The reason is perhaps unexpected: a surprisi…

  • (Quote)

    In order to do this you need to find out as much as possible about N/S's agreements. It is not appropriate to assume that 3 !h over 3 !d showing spades is necessarily impossible, although it may be undiscussed in this particular par…

  • As in all these situations, it is helpful to deal with these things systematically.

    For each player on the N/S side you have to ask:
    (a) Did he have UI?
    (b) Did the UI suggest the action taken over other possible actions?<…

  • (Quote)

    Or even..."shows diamonds if opener's LHO asked no questions" but "random if opener's LHO expressed an interest in the auction by asking questions" :/ .

    Be all that as it may, it is generally accepted that it is appropriate (I …

  • When considering what is a likely outcome in a bridge context, there will be some hands where there is a very high probability that the number of results with any significant frequency will be very small. Take, for example, a flat game hand wher…

    in With UI Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • (Quote)

    Many people would assume, if they thought about it, that "if this ends the auction, I'm happy" afforded some implication that "diamonds has a fair chance of being a better fit than opener's major", whereas the actual agreement is "who …

  • I agree with ais523 that "could well" implies that it's not a remote possibility. Clearly a minority of the time qualifies, so the question is how small would the probability have to be not to qualify. My view is that as a matter of the use of …

    in With UI Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • (Quote)

    I think there is an important distinction between passing a natural weak two and passing a "weak only" Multi. In the former case opener has announced willingness to play in the denomination named; in the latter he has not. So in the …

  • (Quote)

    Mr Burn would approve of this sentiment.

  • (Quote)

    That's the way I play it, too, but if I were to play that it was off by a passed hand (like you, I don't*) and there was any history of forgetting, I think I would alert and tell opponents if asked "it's natural by a passed hand althou…

    in Law 20F1 Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • I'm a bit confused. Were they playing Granville responses to 1 !h (where 1NT shows spades and 1 !s shows the equivalent of a forcing 1NT response) and having an accident as to whether or not they applied as a passed hand?

    in Law 20F1 Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • (Quote)

    I'm afraid I'm not convinced.

    in Law 21b Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • (Quote)

    I accept that in the sense that if E had bid 2 !h to show hearts over a 2 !c that he thought was natural, and now wished to pass over 2 !c showing majors, because his suit wasn't good enough to show in the teeth of a known bad break…

    in Law 21b Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • (Quote)

    I don't see this at all, in the light of Jeremy's clarification of the facts.

    Law 21A: No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

    Law 21B1 (in part):... a player ma…

    in Law 21b Comment by Abbeybear May 2019
  • I don't believe that WB 1.3.2 is specifically about Law 12C1(e). It seems to me that it is just a statement that a player who is experienced enough to recognise that he has probably been misinformed has not been damaged by the misinformation if …