Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 625 626 627 628
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I have a very good partner who just writes ”SEE PARTNER'S CARD“ on his.”

Your partner is in violation of ACBL regulation.
7 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arguably, that's nonsense.
9 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Damage is specifically defined in Law 12. “Advantage” is defined nowhere in the laws.

No example of “advantage but no damage” comes instantly to mind.
13 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say rather that LTC works best when you have a good trump fit. And yes, it's an important factor in hand evaluation. As are several other things.
15 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cogito cogitas, ergo cogito sum.
21 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see. I think. :-)

Thanks.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
16C2, in part: A player of an offending side may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

16C3:
the Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C1) if he considers that a violation of C2 has damaged the non-offending side.


Nothing in there like “has resulted in an advantage”.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“OWTTE”
<Temperance Brennan>I don't know what that means.</Temperance Brennan>
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hm. What does a 1NT rebid show then? 12-14 OR 18-19? I gather 1NT could be passed. What would responder's rebids mean, if he doesn't pass?
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I understand what you mean by “insured vs insured” — that if the same insurer covers both parties, the insurer must lose — and they won't like that. But I'm surprised that it seems to really be a thing. Would it be a thing if we were talking about car insurance? I sincerely hope not. :-(
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“IMO, it would be far better for the ACBL to subsidize units and districts purchasing their own policies, rather than having a one-size fits no one policy.”

Not my area of expertise, but wouldn't that cost the ACBL more, at least in the short run?
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh. “Are you aware that <explanation of partner's call>?”
Answer 1: Yes. “Okay then”
Answer 2: No. “Alert!”

:-)
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not that a weighted ruling cannot be made under the UI Law (16), but that it cannot include in the weighting the contract which was played at the table. Under Law 23C it can.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not under Law 16, no. Under 23C, yes.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that passed hand bidding is a completely different animal than un-passed hand bidding. So much so that Mike Lawrence wrote an entire book on it. :-)
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Henrik here. Also, I think that thinking of it as “23C essentially treats the POOT as though it is UI” can lead a director down the wrong path, and so should be avoided.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me, John, that your determination of “comparable call” is too restrictive.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
but not obama. :-)
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why “the average player”? What is “a significant number”?

I agree with your contention, btw. But the devil is in the details.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At some point you will be concealing a partnership understanding. Unless you start alerting it.
Oct. 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 625 626 627 628
.

Bottom Home Top