Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Yu Chang
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Max
I know it was not about me or my partner, I had never took our discussion personally.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I strongly feel UI with a non-pass bid are different to UI with a pass.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David @Richard
Not sure what I had missed but I had stated in the original post that North (yes, that was me) was thinking about how to invite.
My thoughts had been the same since I made the post, never changed by David or anyone else.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,

Let us just take this hand in the post as an example.

I was North and had determined to invite all along.
My issue was which is the better bid to invite, 3D or 2NT.
So the bidding issue may be not just about a simple weak invite or strong invite.

Even if the issue is as simple as weak vs strong invite, a lot of other factors could affect the decision:
- type of game
- stage of the game (is this last board in a tight swiss or in a game you are leading a lot)
- your opponent's skill level (is that Kit or Max (just kidding) sitting West?)
- partner's declaration skill
- is partner an optimist who accepts frequently

My point is simply this, nothing is as black and white as one may think.
You may know your partner is an optimist but you do not know what is going through his mind to affect his decision. Being an optimist can invite with a weak hand that others would have passed, if you bid 3NT based on he is an optimist and not based on your own hand, you will probably just lose more.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max, I beg to differ.

Let us say my partner is an optimist, I open 1NT and he bid 2NT to invite in tempo, I would be pretty certain he is within 7.5 to 8.5 point range.

Being an optimist, I knew he would bid game without invite if he has a good 9.
xx xxx KTxx KQJx

But if he huddled, he could be deciding between pass and invite with a good 7.5?
xx xxx JT9x KQJx

or deciding between invite and bid game directly when he has not-so-good 9?
xx Jxx Qxxx KQJx


* Feel free to adjust the hands above to fit the description according to your style.


UI with a pass carries a more definite message. The law should be enforced fully.

But UI with an invitation bid is not so certain. The partner should have more freedom in follow-up bidding.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,

“Some don't like it because it would hurt them”

I would think at lower level of games, there is very few, if any, would cheat.
People would leave the game of bridge because they got very bad experiences being treated like cheaters, not because they cheat and got caught!

“I strongly believe that tons of UI is passed and acted on”

I could not agree more. When you pass after a long pause, there is only 1 direction for your pause. You wanted to bid up but decided not to. Partner can use the UI information.

However, in the bidding from this post, North made a non-pass invitation bid. South could not tell if North wanted to pass, to invite, or to go to bid game. In another word, there is UI but the direction is unclear. Everyone knows there is a bidding problem for North, but no one knows he wants to go up, prefers to stop, or have a hard time pick the right bid to invite.

I would hate to see EW calling the director, set the scenario of long pause.
It is like EW getting a free pass, no matter what South decides to bid, he would be in a no-win situation.
If he bid pass but 3NT would go down, some can argue he was supposed to bid on without the UI.
If he bid 3NT and made it, the same people can argue he went to game with the UI and roll it back to 3D making.
But if he bid pass and 3NT would make, or he bid 3NT and went down, he will have to swallow the bad result.

I just do not fee fair to enforce the law as some people suggested.
And I am very glad to see majority of people who care to share their opinion has an open mind.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
weak preempt.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Added when there are 10 votes for 2S and 3 for Pass.

To those who passed, have you considered this is a 5 loser hand and you only need any 2 of the following cards (SA, SQ, HA, HK, CA) to make 4S?
Of course, partner must have 4 spades too. If he does not, he would pass 2S.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For this board, 3D can be made, but was that the right argument for South to compete?
I think that was putting cart in front of the horse.

Without looking at the other hands, I think David was right to judge 3D can be defeated.

- South has value in opponent's suit (more defense than offense),
- South has only 3 trumps (more defense tricks but less offense tricks in spade).
- South has no short, 4432 is also more defense than offense.
- South has less than a constructive raise, should not he has extra to violate LOTT?


North would be happier to see a hand like xxxx QJxxxx x xx from South, which is less in point strength but a lot more in offense.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Trumps and losers/cover cards matter as much or more than points.”

I could not agree more.

When East had opened 1C, you think Kxxxxx in their suit is useful?
May be xxxx QJxxxx x xx would be more likely?

With that hand, North only need to find SQ to make 4S.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed, however…

Of course, Bridge is a game of probability/chances, nothing is absolutely right.
The issue is which bid (Pass X, 2C, or 2H) gives you best chance to be successful in the long term.

Looking at the actual hand/results is just to show that only 3 of 13 chose to pass.
This is pretty consistent with the poll result.

By switching the N and E hands, NS has an reasonable easy 1NT (or 2NT with slow defense).
Even so, EW playing DONT may stop at 2C -1 for a good score.
Even in worst case, EW playing Capp could stop at 3C -2, which will beat those allowing 1NT make 2.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play Multi-Landy, you do not need help.
If you do not play it, it is not relevant.

If you care to find out, you will google it.
If you do not care, I will not help someone who has no time or desire to help himself.

I have nothing more to say or time to waste on this.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just in case someone is curious, here is the actual board.

http://www.paloaltobridge.com/gameresults/lorisue/C180418E.htm
Board 17.

Both sides has 9 card fit.

Only 3 out of 13 west passed and NS stopped at 2S safely. EW got near bottom or Ave-.

10 of 13 West competed with various results.

1 out of 13 west competed but allowed NS to make 3S. EW got share bottom.
1 out of 13 EW competed too high to 4H and went -2 undoubled. EW got Ave-.

6 out of 13 NS got pushed to 3S and -1. EW got Ave+.
1 out of 13 west won the contract at 2H and got near top.
1 out of NS went to 4S doubled -2. EW got top.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“it shouldn't be adequate for an article on this site.”

Respectfully I disagree.

I would not want to insult players reading this site by wasting bandwidth with detail descriptions of these very common conventions.
If someone did not know, he/she could simply google or ask (like some did here).

As far I can see, the only question was what X means in Multi-Landy/Woolsey.
There is a very good book you can buy on amazon (I thought it was sold on this site but could not find it now).

https://www.amazon.com/Multi-Landy-Killer-Defense-Versus-Notrump/dp/1771401613
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to have an agreement with an old partner to use XX to show 44+ Majors.
But I like yours too.

Does this transfer require 5-card suit?

Or like transfer after 1C open (without takeout), you can transfer with 4-card suit?
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not be surprised to see overwhelm majority to pick standard.
Most probably do not feel there needs to be an agreement other than standard.

But if you have any thoughts/ideas, I would love to heart about them.

Actually, same question for P (P) 1C (X) XX too.

Thanks ahead.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because I trust human nature, no one would be trying to deceive in such a disgusting way.

But of course, I may be too naive to think that way.
.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hitch is reactive. Remark is active.

I think the remark is less likely to be deceiving but you still cannot draw conclusion.
You still have to decide whether to finesse.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Max. Good players (usually) has pride and would not use the remark to deceive.
A weak player probably did not know restrict choices and thought his/her QJ will be dropped
since that is how he/she would play.

But for a good player like Steve, the remark would not change his decision, the percentage play is still to finesse.

Also, if they really try to deceive, they would not make it obvious by saying something.

I would always give the opponents benefit of the doubt unless the acting/action is obvious.
Such as hitch with a singleton or with 2 equal cards like KQ doubleton.

Another example, in a club game, my partner lead a high spot card through dummy's Kxx toward my AJxx. This declarer thought about it for awhile (like it really matters) and then played low from table.
It did not take me long to play the Ace.
This declarer has QT in his hand and if I played low, he could discard all losers in this suit to get an overtrick.
My respect for that declarer dropped several degrees.

Sometimes I wonder why they do it.
You will only gain from weak players, Naive me thinks everyone want to play well against real good players, instead of taking advantage from (almost) senior citizens like myself.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray,

The “back and forth” included 4C by East, 4D by West (both in uncertain tone) and a couple of “Oh, I am not sure”.

You said yourself, “the director's ruling should have been based on what each player said in private, not after joint discussion”.

So the talk at the table in front of us was both irrelevant and unnecessary.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The electronic play can be programmed to simulate the screen.
Your partner's bid is not displayed to you until RHO had done his bid.

Same can be programmed for cards played for each trick.

The issue is this may cause more delays.
But it can hide bidding/playing tempo from each player.
Feb. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top