Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1070 1071 1072 1073
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what your question has to do with what I said, Peg.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Forcing”, to me, means forcing for one round. If a bid is forcing to a particular level, then it should IMO be alerted and the level included in the explanation.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have never played the Forcing NT to include GF values, which is why I originally said that if it does it should be alerted. And your argument, Ray, has merit. Be that as it may, it's the ACBL that's the final arbiter. A definitive answer, then, should probably come from the C&C Committee.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is that what the regulation requires?
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On reconsidering, I have seen Forcing NT played as including up to a balanced 14 or so, where responder would rebid 3NT with a max. So I guess my “limited to 12” was wrong. Sorry about that.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“By the way, if declarer concedes the remaining tricks is it currently considered a claim - hence allowing defender to insist on seeing the hand (and to hear a plan of play)?”

No.

Law 68B1: Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.

If there is no claim, no line of play statement is required. Declarer should face his hand, but there is no penalty for failure to do so.
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I wasn't thinking clearly. :-(
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which major? Which minor? If the answer to both is “don't know”, then it's not legal because “at least one of which is known” is not true.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PPs are given to the contestant, which in a pair event is the pair.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Mo-om!”
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the interpretation follows from the law, then my conclusion that it is in a player's best interest to delay informing the opponents that he has given them MI until they can no longer hurt the player's side by a change of call.

The situation where it is the bidder who corrects his partner's MI is completely different and has nothing to do with the above. For one thing, the “window” for corrections has not changed from the 2008 law. For another, it's a narrow window.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems, under this interpretation of law, that a player who becomes aware that he gave MI to opponents would do well to delay informing them until the last possible moment.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't follow the system regulations of each and every RA, so I don't know how many allow (or don't ban) Forcing Pass systems at some level. IAC, your response doesn't answer my question. I'm guessing you don't know either how many do so.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How sure are you of that, Stu? It seems to me possible that the “squeaky wheel” protocol may well have been involved in the banning of Forcing Pass systems.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'No agreement? Okay. Do you have any partnership experience that might suggest what he has?'
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Implementing regulations that conflict with the laws in order to deal with implicit agreements due to partnership experience on the grounds that we can't deal with them by tracking them smacks of “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”. :-(
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Damn, Richard, you really are a geek! :-)
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your system annoyed me I would either learn it so I could play it against you, or arrange my life so I never play against you.

I don’t believe in banning systems because I don’t like them.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t follow that logic.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So when will we see revised system regulations that do not conflict with the laws?
Jan. 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1070 1071 1072 1073
.

Bottom Home Top