Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 755 756 757 758
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
New rule: all cell phones will be collected at the door and tossed into the nearest disintegrator.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dinner?
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's North's fault.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There is a minute”.

Okay. Got a link?
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps so, but that would violate the “not in view” provision.

I saw an ad for bluetooth enabled hearing aids the other day. How do we deal with those?
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep it in your pants pocket, and if it vibrates take it out but keep it below the table. I dunno what an ACBL TD would say, but at least you're trying.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Harald: Good question. I suggest asking it of the WBFLC. :-)
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Grattan Endicott told me some years ago that “logical alternative” doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like “plausible alternative for the class of player involved”. This, as I understand it, was the basis for Kieran's “any choice taken at the table is deemed to be a logical alternative”. But that was before the latest law change, and I'm not at all sure it's still valid.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Now, suppose you are East. God whispers in your ear that your partner has 6 HCP. You are permitted to take advantage of this information.”

Really? Per what law?
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John.. 73C says if somebody fails to avoid taking advantage of UI, you penalize them. If you're also thinking you might adjust the score, 73C refers you to 16B, and you're right back where you started. I don't see how you can avoid it.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, David, though it seems to me a lot of people don't.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What happened at the other tables constitutes a sort of a poll on how players of a similar standard (at least they play at the same club) would defend. That's certainly relevant to determining the likely result at this table.”

If you know how their entire auction went, and know that they have the same agreements as the pair in question. My point is that often the auction was different, and you can't know that just by looking at the traveller, even if they end up in the same place.

“Hypothetically, it would be ridiculous to determine that 2S is failing if everybody else is making it.”

Hypothetically, if everybody else is making 2, then it would be obvious from the cards to rule that it makes.
15 hours ago
Ed Reppert edited this comment 15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You want to change the law. I want to know how to apply the current law.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David. The point is that “action is suggested over inaction” is outwith the law. The correct procedure for the director is to look at the call actually made, and see if it is demonstrably (obviously) suggested over a LA.

That said, if “action is suggested over inaction” and 5 is an action, why does it not have the property of being suggested over pass by UI?
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given 73C1 is a “must” law, its violation is “a serious matter indeed” and should incur a procedural penalty unless there is a very good reason (and “it's just not done” isn't good enough) not to give one. So any ruling under this law that doesn't include such a penalty is suspect, if not flat wrong.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Law 73C takes priority since it refers to law 16B”

I don't understand this. Can you explain?
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Proper procedure in these cases, using this one as an example, is for NS to reserve their right to call the director later at the time the BIT occurred. If EW do not agree that UI may have been transmitted by West's tempo, they should call the director forthwith. IAC, either both sides agree that there was a bit that may have conveyed UI, or the director is called to rule on that question and to inform EW of their legal obligations. Also, if EW disagreed but didn't call the director themselves, hopefully to educate them on their responsibility to call the director - though I daresay there are few directors who would actually do that.

After the hand is over, if NS believe they may have been damaged by illegal use of UI, they should call the director back and ask him to rule on that question.

It looks to me like 2 should be down 1, so I would adjust to that. As I said upthread, what happened at other tables is irrelevant.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened at other tables is not relevant to a ruling at this table.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean West said that?
May 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 755 756 757 758
.

Bottom Home Top