Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If that's the only way the outcry happens, it might be worth it.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even more to the point, there are services that can do this in ways that make it difficult to violate the copyright. (Not sure those services were as good 5 years ago. If Rubens had quite reasonably been scared of pdf, there are reasonable ways to do this today.)
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're right, but it looks like they added this rule specifically to cover this situation with this pitcher. It would not have been the logical outcome of the rules that had been in place.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a number of useful, constructive conventions that used to be easier to play than they are today. Kaplan Interchange used to be GCC. Multi used to be allowed in all midchart events. The backsliding has been ridiculous.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly the batter has to commit first, since he needs the umpire's permission to leave the batter's box to switch, while the pitcher can switch very easily if he thinks it's worth more than fielding his position. (He might have difficulty pitching within the time limit if he's trying to switch gloves, but bare-handed it would be easy.)

Interestingly, who commits last in the above situation is the opposite of which team gets to commit last regarding who the player is. The team that is batting can substitute a new batter at any time, but the pitcher has to pitch to at least one batter (presumably because it takes too much time to have a pitcher warm up and not pitch to anyone….fans would get restless). So you can sub a leftie batter for your rightie, and the other team can then put in a leftie pitcher for its rightie, but now you can sub in a new rightie batter (without your leftie batter ever taking a swing) and the new leftie pitcher has to pitch to him.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a like manner, why is it not permitted to use a 2 response to 1 to show five or more hearts with constructive or better values, but it is permitted to use a 2 response to 1NT to show five of more hearts with possibly no values whatsoever?
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In most events, just because your opponents have seating rights doesn't mean your pairs aren't allowed to change their system between sessions. I'm not sure how that works in the Trials (e.g., whether complete systems or only very unusual methods need to be files ahead of time).

I do recall one sectional KO final long ago (at the time the trailing team had seating rights in the second half) where we were so confident in our lead that we sat down in completely new partnerships and the opponents withdrew. (Not that I think there was cause-and-effect. I think they were going to withdraw anyway.)
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben, in theory I think the distinction as to what the defense ought to be expected to handle from responder should depend on whether responder's LHO was a passed hand. So one can make a theoretical case that it makes sense to disallow Drury when opener was dealer but allow it in all other circumstances. However, making a distinction between 1st and 2nd seat openings would add an extra complication to a GCC that is already far beyond the capabilities of its drafters…
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from Kit's Korner on the one hand and Letters to the Editor on the other, I find there to be very little overlap in style (in terms of features in one that I'd expect to find in the other) between the two BWs. Editing still matters. I do think Bridge World could do a lot of neat things if they went on line, but not the same neat things Bridge Winners does. There is room for both.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For purposes of comparison, perhaps you could run a simulation where South has 15HCP, North 8HCP, and neither has a suit shorter than two card nor longer than five?

Without that, it's hard for the reader to know whether the simulation suggests this is a good 15 count or whether it merely suggests that we should be more aggressive about bidding game in general on balanced hands.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You didn't say what you plan to do if Q is not covered.
May 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can only imagine three things happening after declarer plays out of turn from dummy: The next player plays the ace, thinking it is his turn; the next player plays the ace thinking that is proper procedure; or one of the opponents calls the director and asks him what to do next. I think it's ridiculous to presume someone who is not otherwise known for coffee-housing just happened to coffee-house when the opponents committed an irregularity; as a matter of both common sense and equity, I think the ace-player is still the non-offending side.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I don't. If partner is that bad, maybe I'd rather make other plans for the rest of the afternoon.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Considering the way I have seen players bid with weak two-suiters, I'd start with the question “Which is more useful - 2 showing a weak two-suiter, or never bidding 2”.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, Law 60A2 states: “Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn.” This applies in two ways.

The defender by playing the ace after dummy's play out of turn has caused dummy's play to be treated as though in turn, in which case his own play is also in turn.

Even if somehow you still want to construe the defender's play of the ace as an irregularity, you have to treat it as though it were in turn since 57C1 says that in this case the right to rectification has been forfeited from the start.

Since you have to treat the play of the ace as being in turn, you can't treat the person who played it as an offender for purposes of Law 23.

I would maintain that Law 23 also does not apply because the declaring side is not a “non-offending side”, having committed the irregularity in the first place that directly led to all the confusion.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Designating a card out of turn is already an irregularity because a card in dummy is played once declarer has designated it. Law 45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which [i.e., after ‘Declarer plays’] dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." By not putting the card in a played position, dummy would be violating Law 9A3 by calling attention to an irregularity before the conclusion of play.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted.
May 15, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point. You don't need the heart entry for that.
May 15, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not saying it's bad to ruff one diamond, but it does have the downside that when LHO is in with the K he is more likely to put you to the heart guess right away, simultaneously removing a key entry for many of those other chances. When you give him his K while there's still an obviously useful trump in dummy, it's hard for him to resist playing a 3rd round of trumps.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder how well Lall would have done if Grue had shifted to a small heart at trick 3 (especially if Moss had pitched a heart rather than a diamond at trick 2).
May 14, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 14, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top