Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 154 155 156 157
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That comes under law 21.

A. Call or Play Based on Player’s Own Misunderstanding

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

Although I would argue that making an insufficient bid was not part of either 18E or 1A as they are definitions.

Are you arguing that players might make an insufficient bid as a means of communicating with partner. This is pefectly possible - in fact an astute player who knows the laws could easily say it was a mechanical error and then make it good.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it is difficult to deviate from law 18E

E. Rank of the Denominations
The rank of the denominations in descending order is: no trump, spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep sticks and wheels.

Mind you, the same evening we played in 3 and made 3 …. tricks that is…. for an 83% board as -300 beat -600 quite comfortably. (Partner miscalled and had the decency/ ethics not to run)
June 22
John Portwood edited this comment June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Durham England:

£2.50 ($3 or so) members, £3.00 (nearly $4.00) non members. £5.00 ($6.50) membership fee. Two sessions on Tuesday - typically 12 & 8 tables, (afternoon is below average strength, evening a bit above) supervised novice session on Monday (fees a bit higher as tuition is given). Rented premises: benefits include: duplimated boards most sessions with printouts, tea/ coffee, a quirky director (me) and a temperamental bridgemate computer system. (Crashed again yesterday afternoon, I'll be migrating the software to another one this week.).
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am 100% in favour of full disclosure as per law 20. Too many people seem willing to use the ‘cop out’ of Law 40B - however they should read the whole paragraph.

3. (a) A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play, as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score.

(b) Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized.

4. ….

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.


Regrettably all that seems to be able to be done is to record deviations as well as psychs - which will be very time-consuming.

To put it another way - some players bend and twist the laws in totally inappropriate manners. Deliberate obfuscation is tantamount to cheating - and I use that word unresevedly.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 43A1c

© Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

This is a ‘must not’ condition (the strongest prohibition) so IMHO a PP is mandatory. At this level possibly a double or a triple one.

As for the ruling itself - well I would need to know whether playing 9 is a logical alternative. If it is then the ruling will be 100% for playing 9. (even if the voting is only 20% or so in favour for playing it.) We can't award a weighted verdict in this UI case - either the 9 discard is allowed or it is not. Dura lex sed lex.

(If opponents commit an irregularity there is nothing in the laws that suggest that you cannot take advantage of it. Indeed the closest law states that if a side has a choice of actions after a ruling following an irregularity then it is appropriate for them to take the option most advantageous to them.)
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he meant it as an example. No reason why any unusual action should not be recorded, if only to build up evidence of a CPU.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 31A1 does - but that only applies if you bid when it is the RHO turn to call - and he then passes.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“(1) I can and will, in good conscience, gamble on a bid of 4S;”

I think this says it all. If you are gambling then pass must be a LA.

Option 2) is weird

SO I vote for 3)

I invited game, partner declined, so I pass. Even if game is on then it would be less than a 50% call on the bidding so the winning option is to pass.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Soemtimes you get a bad result with any convention. However I think that a weak-only multi is counter-productive. Partner does not know what suit you have (which I would regard as being esential in any weak-hand-showing convention) and opponents know you are weak.

Add in a strong option and interference is much less likely - Would N have doubled 2 if it could have shown 21-22 HCP or a hand with many playing tricks in a minor suit?
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One possible reason to bid 3 is to shut out the opponent's Spade contract. Quite possible for North to have some decent values but the wrong distribution to make a TOD of 1 - and South to double in the protective position.

Equally it is quite possible for East to bid 3 after opponents compete - so even if their action is ruled inadmissable EW may still play be adjudicated to play in a 3 contract - at least part of the time.

Woould need to know if an immediate 3 call would be forcing, I think.

Given all the information, I poll - to see if pass is a LA, and also to decide if bidding 3 is not carefully avoiding making use of the UI.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It isn't - that was the whole point.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To clarify for non EBU members.

EBU have declared that anything after the first bid and the immediate overcaller is legal (at their usual tournament level - more restrictions apply in simple-system/ no fear events). The only thing is that in this case the 2 call must be alerted if, by agreement, it could have a potentially unexpected agreement. Other RAs no doubt have different rules about what constitute special partnership understandings and how they may be treated. (Law 40B)

As it is an agreement, itobviously is no more a psych than Stayman.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whats the problem? - they played in 5 vulnerable and scored 600.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul - come and direct in Durham then! You'll save more.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No - he MUST give a ruling - I just don't like the circumstances i.e. he has to work out whether a call is comparable based on the bidding system that the players are using - which means he has to understand at least two calls, one or more of which may have meanings he's never heard of before.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I am unpaid (I don't have to pay table money when directing - that saves me $3.50) and am not an especially strong player, but I understand the concept (virtually no one has had a year's experience with it). (I don't take offence, maybe I am atypical)
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't like the requirment of the director to give a ruling (one which very likely will involve fully understanbding a pair's methods in such an auction), nor of course the fact that he has to wait at the table until the option of what call to make comes to the player who made the COOT.

“If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non‐offending for that purpose.”

But is this any different from a ruling that the result at the table will be changed following a UI issue, which an appeals committee then over-rules? In this case I don't think anyone expects both sides to be treated as a NOS.

Director rules that a call is not comparable and imposes rectification - later held that call IS comparable. If TD/ appeals committee can work out likely result following comparable call being allowed then the rectfication does allow the board to be scored normally.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just as long as you don't tell your partner that you might do that.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that by its very nature a one-winner system will almost always be unfair i.e. not totally fair. All you can do is to try and pick a ‘fair’ system - and this involves (at club level) switching one or two rounds. (I would argue that going for a 1-winner result does not need seeding. (Or rather that sticking the better players in a regular pattern results in ‘fair’ competition, since there are many circumstances when the actual competition between two strong pairs is less than between the strong pair and weaker pairs)
June 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 154 155 156 157
.

Bottom Home Top