ais523
Comments
-
(Quote)
In order to avoid giving UI, there are certain bidding sequences that I always ask about, regardless of whether it's alerted or what my hand is. One of them is 1NT, (2C) – in my experience, this is more often a case of the opponents fo…
-
I knew about the "if you have a S+H+D three-suiter and partner's weak NT gets doubled, use whatever method your system has to play in 2C and then redouble if you get doubled" trick, but I've never used it myself nor seen any of my opponents use i…
-
That's probably true in direct seat, but I'd expect rather more variation in protective seat (many players play it as fairly weak there, but I imagine some play it as strong to keep their system simple).
-
When playing online, I always self-explain my agreed range for the 1NT overcall even though it wouldn't be announced when playing in person. When playing online with self-alerting, there are lots of good reasons to explain things and few reasons …
-
Pointed out on BridgeWinners recently: Law 20G1 forbids asking a question for which the sole purpose is to benefit partner – but with a sufficiently pedantic reading, this is pretty much impossible to violate because helping your partner to play …
-
You could probably get the desired effect by changing it to "A revoke is established if both sides have played to the following trick. A revoke by a defender is also established if that defender's partner has played to the following trick." The f…
-
In terms of West's claims of MI affecting the EW bidding – I play an artificial double in this situation (assuming 2H is natural) which shows 15+, 3+ spades, and 3+ clubs, and I'm pretty likely to have used it. That would likely lead to a 2S call…
-
(Quote)
As written, this isn't limited to cards that actually are in the defender's hand. The Law assumes that they are without actually checking.
-
Law 50 and Law 49 both give mechanisms for creating a penalty card, and Law 49's isn't limited to defenders. This is almost certainly a mistake, and penalty cards are almost certainly intended to only be for defenders, but the purpose of this thr…
-
Law 49: "when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)". This produces an easy way for a defender to determine where a particular card is, or to create a penalty card in declarer's hand or in du…
-
(Quote)
My interpretation of "attributable" is "that the player's partner may have thought is intended" (as opposed to what the player themself actually intended). For example, in a sequence like 1NT (2NT) 2D, there isn't a whole lot of inform…
-
BBO often becomes disconnected in such a way that BBO's servers believe the connection is disconnected, but the player's computer is not aware of the disconnection. It can be fixed by logging out and back in, or by logging into BBO in a second br…
-
There's been quite a bit of research done on this specific opening. I'm not convinced it's actually good (otherwise I'd probably be playing it myself), but it does at least seem to be playable (and as a pre-empt showing two suits without going be…
-
Apparently the existence of seating rights can have quite some strategic impact when teams consist of more than two pairs, and the pairs are not equal in strength. For example, one strategy that's frequently seen is for teams to play their weakes…
-
Not bidding 5!h is also a gamble – you're gambling that 4!s goes down.
As such, it only makes sense to do a "gambling action" adjustment when one possible call is much riskier than the other possible call.
-
In most systems where an opening 1NT is 15-17, I'd consider (2!s), 2NT to be comparable to an opening 1NT – the strength shown is very similar, and the distribution shown (balanced, with a spade stop) is more informative than the call replaced (b…
-
(Quote)
The Stop Card helped here. If there hadn't been a stop card, the offender would have used a bidding card instead, creating larger amounts of unauthorised information.
-
A very similar debate (but concerning WBF rules, not EBU rules) has now arisen on Bridge Winners – again, it's about whether restricting a legal Multi b…
-
I'm still not convinced the new rules actually ban Wilkosz at level 4 (despite the intent presumably being to ban it) – it doesn't promise 4+ cards in the suit opened, guarantees 5+ cards in another suit, and is a variation of a permitted underst…
-
There's an EBU-specific ruling for this situation in 8.43.1 in the White Book: "If dummy draws attention to an irregularity, despite Law 43A1 (b), the TD must rule on the irregularity, as if (say) declarer had drawn attention – as required by Law…
-
(Quote)
EBED doesn't teach a short club, does it? That's an example of a bid that currently requires an announcement (typically "may be two"). It definitely doesn't teach a short diamond, and that also requires an announcement ("may be two" or…
-
(Quote)
If the only change were to announce transfer responses to short clubs, then the only change that would be needed to make to that announcements table to accommodate that would be to change the title "Responses to 1NT or 2NT openings" to…
-
(Quote)
"Announce transfer responses to 1NT, 2NT and 1!c openings" doesn't take up that much more space than "Announce transfer responses to 1NT and 2NT openings". You might want the clarification "as long as the transfer shows only the suit t…
-
An announcement that rarely happens generally isn't a burden on people. For example, when was the last time you heard a "strong not forcing" announcement of an opening 2-level bid? I also don't think low-level club players will have much issue un…
-
One thing that confuses me: why did East alert? A weak 3-of-a-suit overcall isn't normally alertable.
I don't think 3!cX is a likely result – if South doubles, West would be very likely to pull even if East had explained correctly (I migh…
-
That argument doesn't seem to match the current wording of the rules – by that reasoning, a 2!d bid that shows 5-3 in two suits would be legal as long as the 5-card suit wasn't diamonds (even if the 3-card suit was diamonds), so it would be surpr…
-
The robots are much better declarers than the vast majority of club players (out of the three main parts of bridge – bidding, defending, declaring – the robots are definitely better at declaring than defending or bidding), so this setting would l…
-
Presumably, a forcing natural 2NT will continue to be alertable? With the announcement removed, the alert seems more important.
-
(Quote)
The strength of a 2NT opening can be relevant after (2NT), P, (P) – this is often a close "pass or double" situation and knowing how the opponents' honours are likely to be split is helpful in determining whether they're likely to make…
-
I've figured it out – it's an alert, not an announcement. A forcing 2NT bid, even if it shows a balanced hand, counts as non-natural by BB 4C1b. (The bid is legal by BB 7C1a, but is treated as artificial rather than natural, and thus is alerted n…