Abbeybear
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:
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'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 …
-
(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 …
-
(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.
-
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 …