Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 132 133 134 135
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - information from the legal auction is usually AI BUT only

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source;

Of course a lot depends on partnership agreements, but you shouln't be expecting partner to be too enthusiastic over your minimum (to him) hand.

Since we now have a verdict that pass followed by a 3 protection under some circumstances is OK, at least such an action isn;t going to be immediately ruled out. (Even if the player is not as good as Kit)
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The simplest answer is:

Does the pause by West demonstrably suggest additional values - if no then there is no problem, but I can't think of anything else it could be in context.

if so then the UI demonstrably suggests that East can do better by bidding on.

If so we have to decide whether passing is a logical alternative - for that we normally poll, but what on earth has made a person who has decided that the hand would reject a limit raise, now decide that it is worth bidding?

My opinion is that a person who would regard the hand as not being worth a limit raise would pass the double and await developments.

With regard to the other options. I think you are asking the wrong questions

1) There is no requirement to pass - but for any other action to be considered pass must not be a LA
2) Again - why compete when partner could hold a minimum hand for Drury? Let partner make the decision.
3) is blatant abuse of UI. East need a full understanding of law 16 and the belief that passing is not a LA to bid.
4) This depends on whether pass is not a LA
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is normally recommended that if an explanation is to be give of a call then saying “Stayman”, “Gerber”, “Blackwood”,“Ghestem”, “LTTC” etc is not enough. Why then should we feel that “constructive raise”, “limit raise”, “mixed raise”, “pre-emptive raise” are sufficient to describe a hand?

If my partner bids 2 over my 1, I will alert and say “weak raise to 2. Probably based on 3/4 card support and one useful card + ruffing value. We have methods of showing a raise to 2 based on high card strrength”. That is what I am expecting - and better informs opponents than saying “pre-emptive raise to 2”.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope not, Ray, since to ask a question with the sole purpose of getting a wrong answer is now an infraction (20G2) - mind you I think it would be very difficult to prove this, even if it were true.

“In general, the more ‘room’ you leave partner, the more wide-ranging your bid can be. This applies to all constructive and competitive auctions.” Robson & Segall 1992

“It remains important to seek out a major-suit fit, constructively (i.e. with a view to making a game), and competitively (to play the higher-scoring or higher-ranking partscore).” (Ibid)
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must note that comment - when was the last time anyone here passed holding 11 HCP and a 5-card major.

If it does the final contract looks like 3 which looks harder - but NS lost on the play (not running 9) not on the auction.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can think of hands a lot worse. We don't know the methods employed - but a direct 3 call would probably have been pre-emptive based on 4 trumps but a much weaker hand. If partner has values then they could include diamond honours, which gives a source of tricks, and a heart control. (Spade finesse is the right way).
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we look at losers (8) it seems that 3 is the default level of support (perhaps 2 if we allow South to be weak in third (does that ever happen)). The hand has values (Ace, 4 decent trumps, ruffing value).

Now we don't know what South's 3 call means: South could pass with a weak 3rd in hand count, there is also a double available, but to voluntarily bid at the 3 level presumably shows extra values and North realises there is nothing wasted in clubs because of the opponents' bidding.

Presumably the convention card agreed that and EW were given a correct explanation - they could of course have asked about relevant alternative calls that were not made or about the high card range the bid shows, but in a club I can understand if they don't.

The only possible UI would be if North ‘forgot’ the system and was woken up by South's explanation. As Frances says (supra) the hand seems to meet the requirements of the bid. I could understand a TD call if North were substantially stronger for the bid e.g. an extra Ace and then felt he had to catch up, but IMHO, based on the evidence, there is nothing to see here.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder what the ‘throwaway’ comment was.

“I have a great raise for you” = don't send it back
“I may have overreached here” = do send it back.

I assume it was similar to the former.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff - it does not per se: it says (inter alii)

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.


However I would probably interpret “the same or similar meaning” as being partnership specific. Most partnerships have agreements on range limitations of calls made.

The ‘similar meaning’ is presumably an attempt by the law-makers to try and maximise the number of ‘sensible’ auctions that can be saved rather than guessing (as per 2007 rules) and it is assumed that the consensus was that the benefits for bridge as a whole outweighed the potential UI considerations - and there are various emergency methods available to minimise the effect, should they be needed (23C 27D.)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought that being drunk would be a positive reason to welcome a player at the table (especially rubber) - ex vino duplicitas
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well in most of those you should call the TD first, who can issue a ZT penalty.

FWIW one year I had an emergency operation for a ruptured appendix and a week later, still with an open wound dressed with, I think seaweed, played in a county pairs event. No one complained.

I think pet dogs and snakes come under law 76 (spectators) so law 76B4 (a spectator must not disturb a player) is available if the TD needs to use it.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the EBU white book

“Frivolous psyching, for example suggesting a player has lost interest in the competition, is a breach of the laws. (Law 74A2, Law 74B1, Law 74C6).”

Mind you

74A2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Uses the word ‘extraneous’ - difficult to see how bidding is ‘extraneous’.

74B1

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

(If you ever lose concentration during a deal, miss your partner's signals or fail to count declarer's hand/ points then this law is here to catch you. I am probably guilty of it several times a session)

74C6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one’s cards).
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some players are very deliberate, dont't have the experience and need time to think. When you were a novice you probably took much longer to play a hand than you do now. Are you seriously considering in effect banning them, and many novices from playing bridge?

You can, of course call the Director if you feel that a player is deliberately playing slowly (or quickly) to disconcert the opposition. Law 74C7. But this applies to a different cohort.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit,

No one comments about comparable call rulings where the result is obvious. (I had one tonight where a player ‘opened’ 1 over a 1NT bid.) There must be many such calls made each day throughout the world. So we have a case of ‘selection bias’.

Obviously here are many experienced players/ directors who can produce valuable input as to problems with the implementation of the laws - and there are indeed problems. We have to work at producing an understanding so that we can minimise the problems, but we cannot hope to remove those that have been found without introducing others.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is why the word ‘attributable’ is used. If the new call shows a 1 opening bid then that is attributable to the IB - similarly if the new call shows a 1 response.

Obviously partner can try and guess as to whether the attributable meaning is the correct original meaning.

The important thing is not what the bid was actually meant to show, it is what the bid could have shown.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take back the last sentence - the TD has to determine if it is a comparable call.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And in #2, would you volunteer that information so the player is fully aware of the ramifications of using that particular replacement call?

As you might expect, I definitely would answer the offender's question in #1. Additionally, I likely would volunteer the same information in #2 (although that is more debatable).

On this topic, is there any information/rulings/interpretation out there from the 2007 Insufficient Bid law that would mention how much information offender should be told about his potential replacement call? Because this principle/question has been out there since then, not just with the new 2017 laws. ”

There is a case in the EBU magazine on a series of articles ‘director please’ by Mike Swanson where the TD asks if the player has a suitable replacement call available (not comparable as defined as this is the 2007 laws), and when the definition is given says he will allow it.

“2. Offender tells you privately which replacement call he intends to use, but does not specifically ask you if partner will be barred.”

Up to opponents to ask.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct that there may be additional information if the replaced call is deemed ‘similar’ to the withdrawn call. But the UI law 16C2 ('may not choose a call that is demonstrably suggested …') does not apply. This gives the partner of the player who had to make the comparable call greater latitude IMHO. (Again subject to 23C and 27D)

The example being given is when partner ‘opens’ 1 over a 1 opening. It is determined that a vulnerable 2 overcall is sufficiently similar (reasonable values, heart suit) for it to be allowed. (OK this isn't a comparable call - it is the lowest call showing the same denomination, but the consequences are similar - 27D)

However it is more likely that a 1 opening bid is stronger than a 2 overcall and has greater defensive prospects. If the assistance of the information affects the non-offending side e.g. they get doubled in a borderline contract by offender's partner because they know of the extra defensive potential, then that will be adjusted (if it is determined that after an overcall of 2 a double would not have been made.) - but note that even in this case, there is not a breach of a ‘may not’ condition that would apply under 16C2 (which may affect any procedural penalties).
Jan. 16
John Portwood edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LHO should be told that if he does not accept the insufficient bid then the offender will make a legal call - if I determine it is comparable (or the lowest showing the same denominations) then the auction proceeds (but if you are damaged by the withdrawn call then an adjusted score will be given). If I determine that it is not comparable then offender's partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction and if the side become defenders will be subject to lead penalties.

The LHO (but not RHO) has a right to ask offender's partner about the conventions that they play (including similar calls), to determine if there may be a possible comparable call. He does not have the right to be told that there is a comparable call by the director. (I would probably tell him this out of the goodness of my heart since he most likely will not think of it himself)

LHO does NOT have the right to ask offender whether he has a comparable call available (except in the very rare case when offender's partner is uncertain of the meaning of a potential call that could conceivably be comparable - in which case offender's partner would have to leave the table while an explanation is given.)

(I would still need to speak to the offender in this case, as what calls could be comparable will depend on the conventions used by the partnership - and I have to rule as soon as the replacement call is made.)
Jan. 16
John Portwood edited this comment Jan. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 132 133 134 135
.

Bottom Home Top