Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 ... 104 105 106 107
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no reason why you can't give a procedural penalty for someone not checking who they were supposed to be playing and what the correct boards should be - after all it is displayed in the Bridgemates and/or the movement card on the table.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the effect of 50E1 means that if you had, for example, a bidding decision where it was 50% one way, 50% for an alternative and the choice you were going to make anyway is supported by the penalty card then you are free to make that decision without worry that it would be rolled back as the other choice is obviously a LA.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and  explanations given or not given.

(It's been widened a bit - stops people saying “How's your aunt in Virginia” when you have a rubbish hand.) Or e.g. the manner in which you ask you partner "Having none?

With regards to 2) I would much rather have something about players having to accept the rulings of their RA if they are found guilty of such an action.
April 21
John Portwood edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To put the board there - correctly orientated.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 40 is interesting (new version)

“(iv) The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.”


The current laws say

“3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.”


The EBU WHite book says

(i) Under Law 40B3, a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

So this will have to be changed as they no longer have the power to disallow the second part of the rule.

This means that

Now initially I thought that this was an error - that if opponents make an infraction you could take advantage of it with pre-prepared understanding variations.

Now it looks like it means the RA can't stop a side saying “If we know partner is silenced the next time it is his turn to call, all calls will be natural”.
April 21
John Portwood edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not often penalised - however IIRC the last part of the law says

“2.no player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to  rectification.”

So how can they do anything unless there is a director there to 'explan all matters in regard to rectification"?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh I agree - the law is logical in the reasons for its existence - it is just going to raise problems in its execution. The previous version was an attempt to get the ‘correct’ result for all the boards in the round with the ‘correct’ players, this version has the effect of simplifying procedure of what to do, but at the cost of a pair being left ‘dangling’ for 5-7 minutes (and then the TD/ players remembering to reinstate them for the second and subsequent boards, before the error is compounded.)
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law that says that AV+ can only be awarded for a side “in no way at fault”. You were late and overstepped the last round - that cannot be interpreted as being “no way at fault”.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes that is my interpretation - however, as I say, for a while I would take the liberty of assuming I was being called to explain the new laws and advise the table of the alternative - until the knowledge of the option becomes more widely known. After all, disputed claims don't occur very often for each player. I have amended the slide to make that clearer.

(Obviously the players should realise the consequences of asking for a Law 70 ruling)

(edited to expand rationale)
April 20
John Portwood edited this comment April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10 years ago, in the infancy of online bridge, I scored +3120 in 1XX + 6: http://community.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/poorbridge/094.php
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - and of course director also knows the situation, and that might affect his play.

Law 72C (old law 23) could also be invoked - if partner could have known that playing the Ace would help you plan the defence.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pair meet the board later on (most likely!) then I think we could get by on law 16D - extraneous information from other sources. After all they ‘accidentally’ sat at the wrong table.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are going to be two pairs who can't play the board against the correct opponents - the pair who arrived at the table to find the auction had already started, and the pair who would have played the wrong pair in the course of the movement.

It would seem equitable (if time allowed) for them to play the board against each other. If not then I suspect you would have to pretend that they played the board against each other and award an artificial adjusted score to the result.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard - probably YES at the moment, but when the new law 75 comes out things will change.

D. Director’s Determination

1.Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1); failure to do so constitutes Misinformation.

2.It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.

3.When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.

BTW - 1. (a) An agreement between partners, whether explicit or implicit, is a partnership  understanding.
April 19
John Portwood edited this comment April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The order of play was not immaterial in practice - dummy leads a diamond and declarer loses two tricks. Obviously declarer was unaware (and could not be aware) of the true position - which is why the EBU says that the ruling in should be in his favour. In fact there is an argument that can be drawn from the rulebook in that if a player is misled then they can change the card that they lead to a trick. (Law 47E) (Defender discarding sort of gives an explanation that he has none of the suit led)

2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played (see Law 16C). An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

(b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's 2 call should have been alerted as “No partnership understanding” as that seems to be the case.

We need to know whether EW do actually play 2 as a transfer. Logically this is stupid since how on earth do you play in 2 after a natural 2 overcall?

So we'll assume that West will make the same call (after all it looks unlikely that South is showing hearts). North (given the correct explanation of 2)might even bid 3!

East isn't entitled to know that South's call shows the majors. He could and should have asked North (and got the ‘no partnership agreement’ answer), so his comment about ‘not bidding 3NT if they had known South was showing the majors’ is irrelevant

So the answer is:

I would leave the contract as it is - but give SOME reward to South for finding the spade lead.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't matter what the position is after the revoke - you can't say “there would be only one trump out if the revoke hadn't happened - and adjudicate on that” because the revoke DID happen, was established and can't be undone. So there will be a one trick penalty (the revoke card did not win a trick) - or Equity will be restored whichever is better for the NOS (law 64C).

Declarer will lose two tricks when he claims - unfortunately that is because he didn't make a clear and comprehensive statement when he did claim and so any doubtful point is ruled against him. Playing a diamond is ‘normal - includes careless or inferior’ - and so will be adjudicated as the line of play adopted.

If declarer had NOT made the claim then I agree that (providing he led a trump) he would only lose 1 trick as the K & Q crash - and then that trick would be awarded back to him.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure - but aren't there 3 classes of bridge players in the ACBL - flight A,B and C? A flight B player should have enough experience to know the rules on designating a call of a card from Dummy.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If declarer makes an incomplete designation then the rules are there - subject to the ‘win it’ problem.

46B4 applies if both the rank and the suit are named - the call is invalid and the declarer may designate any legal card.

(Note that until the new laws come out, if declarer says e.g. “ruff it with the 7” when dummy still has a card in the suit led, dummy must still ruff it. The card has been called and the infraction made.)
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, there is no doubt that 64C (Equity) will result in the declarer being awarded 12 tricks at a minimum.

Secondly: When declarer claims 11 tricks, he is conceding two of them - 68B1

Thirdly: Law 71 says that (in the correction period) the director will cancel a concession of a trick that could not be lost with normal play. HOWEVER declarer might play a diamond, which would result in an over-ruff - so it looks as if the claim for two tricks only will be correct. (One of which will be transferred over)

'Normal' play INCLUDES ‘careless or inferior’. The play of a diamond is therefore ‘Normal’

So the net result is declarer makes 12 tricks - which after all is the equitable result)
April 17
1 2 3 4 ... 104 105 106 107
.

Bottom Home Top