David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I really doubt ‘few do’. Most reasonable or better players I know play 2N as a game forcing raise. A lot of them call it Jacoby. While I agree with you that they probably should not at least that is not misleading.
Even Kxx is better in another suit than opposite singleton ace. If you have a suit of (say) QJx and a singleton ace, and partner has Kxx in one of those suits it is far more useful opposite QJx.
I am not sure whether it makes me a pragmatist but I have always thought that people who will not splinter with a singleton ace have missed the point of splinters. If you hold QJxx that is basically no tricks opposite a singleton whether ace or small. My advice is to splinter with a shortage whether void, singleton small or singleton honour. However it is true that many good players do not agree.
Please do NOT use the word Jacoby if you play 2N as a raise to three or better. Jacoby is unambiguously a game raise and you will correctly be ruled against if you use the term Jacoby or Jacoby type and an opponent who knows Jacoby is damaged. Just describe it as you play it.
Mr Bridge told me that Bernard would be taking over sales of Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified (the “Yellow book”).
If you do play opener’s bid of the opponent’s suit as some sort of raise please do not call it a UCB which will confuse a lot of opponents. Just call it a raise, or three card raise. The term UCB refers to a method of raising partner’s overcall and that is understood by the majority. Unfortunately some people have started using the term in different positions which does not help.
Doubling a splinter bid to ask for some other suit, whether a specific other suit or “Pick one, partner” requires an alert. Without an alert it shows the suit actually bid.
The 2C bid is illegal because to play 2C as a strong artificial bid requires either
#1 16+ points, or
#2 12+ points with 5+ controls, where ace is two controls, king is one control
The hand shown contains 13 points and 3 controls so does not qualify. This pair is playing an illegal convention.
What should the director have done? He should have cancelled the board and given average plus to North-South (60%), average minus to East-West (40%) and explained to East-West that if they want to play Benjamin (“Benji”) they need to do so legally.
This hand is another example of the growing irrational fear amongst a lot of players of opening at the one level with a long suit. It is a perfectly normal 1C opening and by opening 2C they have misled the opponents into thinking they have a strong hand.
No, there is no need. A double of an artificial bid shows that suit if not alerted.
There is an exception to that rule. If a player opens 1C or 1D which may be short, ie may be two cards or fewer, the purists will tell you this is artificial. But generally opponents treat them as natural openings so a takeout double is considered normal and not alertable. But otherwise doubles of artificial bids below 4C are either showing that suit or requiring an alert.It is certainly both legal and ethical to describe a bid as ‘looking for a stopper’ if that is how they play it. That does not mean the player who bids it does not have a stopper. You have inferred that but there is no such inference really. The only slight worry is that a number of people do refer to bids like fourth suit and cue bids of the opponent’s suit as asking for stoppers when some of these players really play it as asking for more information, with a stopper being one of the obvious bits of more information to show. But it is a very slight difference between the explanation and the real agreement and I think you should just learn from this case not to conclude that someone who makes such a bid will never have a stopper themselves. One of the problems with holding an ace is that while it is a very good stopper it is also very useful in an alternative suit contract so it is quite normal for someone with an ace in the critical suit to still investigate whether a suit contract might be preferable.
If you want to know whether it is a good idea or not then you should ask Julian. That is his department!
If your agreement is weak then you announce it as weak. Your opponents have a right to know your agreements but you do not guarantee to follow them. In fact it is generally understood amongst somewhat more experienced players that a pre-empt at the two, three or four level has a wider range of strength in third position than in the first or second position since with a passed partner game is unlikely and the possibility it is the opponents’ hand is greater. So if you play a weak two as 5 to 9 it is not unreasonable to open it with 3 or 11.
Incidentally, never be afraid to ask questions on this forum. I like lots of questions and am jealous of the fact that Julian gets far more than I do! 🙂
Just in case anyone who reads this does not know my experience on BBO for just under a year now I have been directing eight duplicates a week on BBO for the EBU. In fact for the last few months there have been two extra ones since there are two duplicates at once in the early evening.
When a board is unfinished but the bidding is finished the software adjusts a final score so long as five tricks have been completed but leaves it to the director otherwise. The director uses his best opinion as to the most likely result so long as the auction is completed. He takes no notice whatever of what has happened at any other table. While the software will show him the perfect result played double dummy he does not rely on this except maybe as a check to make sure he hasn’t committed an idiocy, ie makes his mind up first and then checks the double dummy analysis.
However when the bidding is not finished if the director considers that there is no doubt how the bidding will continue then he will do the same thing but if it is not clear what the bidding will be then he awards averages. In the case you quote I think the director made a very poor decision. He cannot possibly think it likely that 5H will end the bidding. I am quite sure that he should have given averages. If you had explained to him that the opponent had been slow (which he can check in the Table History) and then did not explain the 2D correctly I believe he should have given average plus to North South, average minus to East West and explained to West that he should not use terms like SQUAT which no one has ever heard of, but when describing a jump overcall he should always describe it as weak, intermediate or strong.
I have checked up with Barrie Partridge, the CTD of BCL. According to him BCL uses partner alerts the same as live bridge but no announcements. Therefore this is correct on BCL:
If this was on BCL with partner alerts, it is more difficult because of partner alerting, but since partner will not have indicated you have it wrong you are still free to pass 3H. However the director may disallow your partner’s 3H and adjust to 2S because your alert has wakened partner to the situation, in other words your partner has unauthorised information.
Unfortunately I have not played on BCL so to give advice I need to know the methodology. A post a few months ago suggested that BCL used partner alerts. However from what you say that appears to be wrong. So let me get this straight.
On BCL when you open 1NT do you tell opponents your range?
If yes, can your partner see or hear your announcement?
Does the same approach apply to artificial bids that require an alert, for example fourth suit forcing?
Finally do your answers apply to all games on BCL or are there options?
If I know the answer to these not only can I give better advice in this case but it will help for future queries.
If this was on BBO you are probably alright to pass 3H because you have no unauthorised information so you can just follow your instincts.
If this was on BCL, or in live bridge, or on RealBridge with partner alerts, it is more difficult because of partner alerting, but since partner will not have indicated you have it wrong you are still free to pass 3H. However the director may disallow your partner’s 3H and adjust to 2S because your alert or announcement has wakened partner to the situation, in other words your partner has unauthorised information.
