Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 676 677 678 679
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends.

If you think you have substantial reason to believe that UI was used, call the director. If you just have a vague feeling, that's not substantial reason. It seems most here do not think there is such substantial reason in the case posited.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or any other time, Ai-Tai.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“multinational organizations like the EBL have to worry about complying with only one set of rules (the IOC statutes) as opposed to the laws of whatever many countries they have jurisdiction over (of course, the ACBL does not have this problem).”

46, from memory, countries in the EBL. I don't understand your parenthetical. True, the ACBL comprises only 3 countries, not 46, but a much smaller problem is still not no problem at all. Perhaps you refer to the fact that ACBL cases would not go to the CAS, though they might still go to arbitration, and after that to the legal system.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh. Reminds me of an incident at the club some years ago. Opps bid to a small slam. Before leading, I asked for an explanation of the entire auction (Law 20F2, first sentence: “After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.”) They gave me a review. I thanked them, and asked again for an explanation of the entire auction. They called the director and complained that they didn't understand what I wanted. The director turned to me and asked “which bid did you want to know about?” The point being that people erroneously assume that all questions about an opponent's bidding are always directed to one specific bid (Law 20F3: “Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.” Law 16B1 deals with UI from partner).
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many are still alive?
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does not seem to me that a court needs necessarily to be “a judicial branch” of some government.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah. Not Vietnamese then. :-)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zero Tolerance is not a change in the laws, it's a change, or more accurately an attempted change, in the culture.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
QUC?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting system.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose you could do this, but if people aren't reading all the comments to see whether someone agrees with what they're about to post, they won't be reading all the comments to see if there's one on which they can push the agree button either.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as a player being armed is not illegal, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it.

I recall an anniversary party thrown some years ago by a friend of mine who was a 911 dispatcher. He, another friend, and I were talking when another guest came up and handed Gary (the dispatcher) a live 9 mm round and then walked away. Steve, the other guy in our group, got all bug-eyed and whispered “is he *armed*?” Gary looked at him and said “Look around you, Steve. Half the guys in here are packing”. Of course, most of them were off duty cops. :-)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“- US pairs often openly accuse foreign opponents of being cheats and (initially) refuse to play against them.”

Really? Evidence?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have an idea. If you are required to pass boards to a table at which your teammates may still be playing boards which you may later play, blindfold yourself and tell the director you'll need help getting to the other table. :-)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I seem to remember somebody around here (not you, Nigel) saying “it's not slander if it's true”.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's certainly a simple rule. I can hear the screams already. :-)
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The advantage referred to in your penultimate paragraph may be applicable in France but it is irrelevant in the UK.”

And in the US, and probably Canada as well. Don't know about Mexico.

Personally, I consider the fact that governments have money to distribute for things like sports, mind or otherwise, deplorable.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“just as a protester might be arrested in countries without proper civil liberties.”

Oh, the irony! :-)
Jan. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 676 677 678 679
.

Bottom Home Top