Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take it that it is modern expert think that gets us to double in the first place with a hand that becomes useful to describe after partner's jump. So the “better than 1NT, balanced” is no longer the meaning of the double?
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DL
First suggestion OK, but the second is just
Ridiculous.
17 hours ago
John Larkin edited this comment 16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oddly enough….
And my son has the potential of being Dr.Dr.Dr….. but doesn't tend to use any.
I wonder which one comes first, technically (I had a boss in the past who insisted on being called “Professor Sir Abraham XX..” - the order (!) was very important to him.)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RT: now that you've told ‘em, we’re never gonna find out.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… intended…”
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Do you intend to follow this rule?”
“No. I will follow it, but that will not have been my intention.”…… apparently
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except you already got the PhD.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…asking partner to drop his honour under it………
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Old-fashioned Balanced 19-20. Fits for First option but more specific.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF: Aha! You proved my point. Your story resulted in a good score for the England team.
Surely not a “good thing” - just as I stated.
:)
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's interesting that the poster's conceived drawbacks are almost certainly the reasons for the change.
None of them seem good things.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Er…I think I watched this, had no idea, so would follow the Blowers-style cricket commentary and chat about the cakes we had sent to us by Mrs Fleet of Wimbledon
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DB:
I am still surprised.
They are not “now” telling you. It has long been the case.
You have long been able to accept an insufficient bid on your right rather than have it replaced by another bid (be that comparable or not…with all that entails) because it was an error, and that right continues.
But this is the case of the wrong card being brought out of the box, or slipping from your hand, or not being there (e.g. Two versions of 2 hearts, but no 3 hearts, which happened to me once)… and in this case the bidder substitutes the bid he meant to put down.
You are not really saying that if there is a 1club card attached to the top of the 6NT I put down, then as LHO you wish to be able to insist that the 1club bid stands…… I can't really believe you think so, having seen all of your other considered posts.
Has something happened recently?…
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's European
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised DB is having any trouble at all here.
Certainly in the initial post, West being “inert” and the intentions of South to bid 2H clearly stated (so it must be mechanical failure) there is no question of 2H not being immediately substituted.

If West has made a bid, and North has not - it is still the case that South substitutes 2H - the bid that was originally intended and the “equitable” bid. This is made clear by the laws allowing West to change his bid…no UI…etc. That would not have to be in the laws if West's bid took precedence.

If, as one scenario states, the TD has been called and West “wants to bid 1NT”, then my own opinion is that he should never have told that to anyone. If play has been stopped, and TD called - he should say nothing about his intentions. If he does spout out this wish to bid 1NT AT THAT STAGE, I would hope that would be UI to his partner. If West seemed to do this wilfully, I am sure a couple of hawks here could find a way to a PP.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry.i missed that as I didn't think of the other view as “legalist”
:)
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RL: As PJP points out, it is easy to see the flaw.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To my mind the sensible active ethics school followthis plan. The holier active ethics than thy active ethics (?!) school follow the other.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think MN was trying to make a point against the “unethical not to try your best to win brigade”, although they are using a DIFFERENT law to the original.
To be fair, I think the “unethical to draw attention to your own teams's revoke” guys are deliberately taking it a bit too far to further enhance their argument that there is no need to… a la… “in fact, you could ALMOST make the case that bringing attention is bad…” sort of thing.
April 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
.

Bottom Home Top