Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play weak NT and I'd prefer to rebid 1NT with 15-17 balanced even with three-card support. I agree that unbalanced three-card support comes up frequently, but I don't think it's frequent enough to justify its being the only hand with which 1 is rebid.
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the bid was called “fertilizer” because it indicated that your cards were t*r^s, not because it was a $h*!!y bid.
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did they have any evidence that it was a system forget rather than a mistaken explanation? In the case of a tie in the evidence, director is expected to treat it as a mistaken explanation. That's an actual rule, whereas redress for CD, and even the existence of CD, is unknown to the laws.
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three-card support seems like a too-infrequent use of the transfer-completion. I like to add to that a “2-1/2 ” rebid, so that 1-1red-3 has full values (or could even be played as forcing).
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sure hope that before you ran the simulation you fully specified the South hand. For example, you need to specify fully which diamond spot and which small club spot cannot be dealt to North. Otherwise your simulated North hands will have on average too many minor suit cards and not enough hearts.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, but fewer people would conceal their convention cards if there were a greater penalty for failing to have them available.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would summarize my philosophy as “always look at the convention card and then ask only if the convention card does not answer the question”.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene,

It is you who is being overly legalistic, not to mention illogical. Placing your opponents at a disadvantage by forcing the creation of UI when there is no need to do so seems to me to be the epitome of bridge lawyering with no regard for equity, fair play, or the proprieties.

The purpose of allowing the Regulatory Authority to prescribe system cards is precisely to avoid (when practicable) the problem of UI generated by questions. Saying that the procedure for explanation of bids should remain *exactly the same* in the presence of system cards makes about as much sense as saying it should remain exactly the same in the presence of screens.
April 29, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though I suppose in Canada green point aren't green. I guess one could call them “queen points”?
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's probably because it's legal to play for green point in Canada, so they don't care so much about pretend points.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I suspect most of the exploration has taken place in mixed events.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene,

Yes, you're really supposed to look at the card. Why do you think it is there? Obviously the rule permitting one to ask for explanations is needed because not everything can be covered by the card. I did not and do not object to such questions (though better designed cards would reduce how often such questions are needed).

As for which players were following the rules and proprieties, kindly reread the original post which indicated the both convention cards were clearly filled out, and the answer to the question was on the card. You are the one who is allowing players who follow the rules to get hosed, by proposing to treat them the same as players who don't bother to fill out their cards. *You* are the one who is not giving players any incentive to follow the rules (i.e., filling out their cards and having them properly available).

Asking a question that could have been answered by looking at the card is unfair as a matter of equity (because the answer creates UI for the opponents); it's also a violation of Law 74B2 (since it's gratuitous), and arguably also of 74A1, 74A2, and 74B1.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why report to the recorder? Most recorders don't have enough time to investigate actual cheating, and you want to add to their load cases where cheating isn't even alleged?
April 28, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe the ACBL raising the fees on duplicate is a good thing for bridge. Bridge clubs will be motivated to start running (unsanctioned) rubber bridge games and attract more members that way. We've all forgotten that rubber bridge is what gets so many people into the game in the first place.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he meant the internet, not bridge. :)
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless West's surname is Information, East was not damaged by mis[s]information.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another reason to correct the explanation as early as possible is that if you end up having to correct it later, the opponents will have much more information and be more likely to call the director based on a theory about how they were damaged. If you just say “when dummy explain my bid as showing X it actually showed Y, and my hand actually matches both descriptions” before the opening lead, the chances that the opponents will allege damage are much smaller.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was it lucky for you? Perhaps if they were playing X as penalty they would not have been able to X?
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously when I say a technological solution, I mean a “convention card” that could show features relevant to the auction at hand. It wouldn't completely obviate the need for Q&A, but it would help.

I have zero sympathy for the folks mentioned by the OP, since they could have looked at the card but asked instead. *You're supposed to look at the card.* Maybe if they instituted a rule that if you ask a question that is answered on the opponents' convention card, then the answer is authorized for both sides, that would stop this abuse.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably because you just passed your partner information which not only was he not entitled to use but also you were not permitted to say. (This assumes this occurred during the auction or while you were defending. If your side was declaring, it shouldn't be an issue.)
April 27, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top