Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 ... 106 107 108 109
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact that South bid Drury mean that to East, West has a bust (7 spades to the Jack and nought) and to West that East vould not be as strong as he actually was. So both are going to be put off bidding a slam.

From Wikipedia (not that I trust it)

“The Drury convention is a bridge convention, used to show a game-invitational major suit raise by a passed hand while guarding against a light opening by partner in third or fourth seat.”
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An “Extremely serious error” does NOT mean not making a bid that many people would have. Note the double emphasis. I would be interpreting it as revoking, or misbidding (misbidding not related to the MI).
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner is sensible he is going to hold some clubs and if he hasn't the King then it rates to be onside. There are plenty of hands where 6 or 6 rate to make - and just one Ace makes 5 a very good contract. That spade suit looks pretty chunky and we MIGHT just pick up AXXX with partner. (The bid also points out to partner great shortage in the red suits so he'll downgrade values in them).

Perhaps those who passed took the “Stop 3NT” call as meaning “Stop bidding we want to play in 3NT” (which many at our club do).
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is basically a guess. Since I haven't discussed this sequence, all I can do is tell partner my hand isn't completely worthless in support of his.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit - Yes East received MI - but he is only entitled to know what the NS agreement is - and that is not necessarily “A weak hand with clubs”

I am not sure whether my understanding of Drury is correct - but doesn't it promise a modicum of high cards in support of partner's call? West's two Aces should have been in the South hand (Which then makes West's initial pass on a Yarborough pretty understandable.) and then East is 100% correct to pass.

If the correct ‘explanation’ is given then there is room for West to hold some values - which would make East More likely to bid on. However all we can do is poll players to see whether they would actually do so. That is as far as any TD query discussed on a judgement case can take it. The TD is NOT judge, jury and executioner.

The correct thing to do would be to have the East hand as a bidding question and see what the answers would be.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may well be true - however it is up to the TD to try and find players of similar ability and characteristics as EW and ascertain answers.

FWIW I agree with Roland as to correct procedure and what EW should be told. Law 75 (new laws) has been comprehensively re-written to provide guidance for TDs in MI cases.

I could argue that East should have continued on - West has found a free jump to game. DO EW have requirements for pre-empts that make the West hand unbiddable? (Two Aces is very strong for a pre-empt and the suit is rubbish - but the hand hasn't enough points to open (It has in the EBU as it meets the requirements for the “Rule of 18/19”). But the question then is: Is East more likely to continue given the ‘correct’ explanation (“We play Drury but haven't discussed it after an opponent's double” - Is this the case - I would have thought that most pairs would at least have considered possible developments after an opponent's TOD/ Overcall: again that is for the TD to find out.)
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does the decision affect the field?

It doesn't add a single matchpoint on a single-winner event - all those who lose a matchpoint to the beneficiary, gain a matchpoint from the person who does worse.

(I agree that whenever attention is drawn to an irregularity the director should be called - but remember that a side generally has no obligation to draw attention to their own irregularity - this is slightly different.)

(Please note that this is a ‘should’ condition (failure to do so may infringe aperson's rights but is not often penalised) - I haven't done it yet but I think I would only penalise a table (all 4 remember can call the director, once attention is drawn to an irregularity) if failure to call the director makes things worse when the director IS finally called.)
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way things are going - the open events will soon be playing fewer boards than the seniors.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 45 and Law 47 - however the correction would not be allowed these days as declarer played from her own hand (and many other times) before mentioning it - IIRC.

If someone says “Oh shit! I meant to call for the K not the K” then that would be allowable. BUT

If someone says “Oh shit! I forgot I had to draw a round of trumps first” then that would not. (Lapse of concentration - Law 45civb - new laws)

(The new laws are far clearer on what should and shouldn't be allowed in these circumstances)
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(And just try ruling on that!)
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “without pause for thought” WILL be removed as the 2017 laws are enforced. However that does NOT apply to played cards.

You may correct a mechanical error when bidding (i.e. pulling out the wrong card from the bidding box - or a slip of the tongue).

DECLARER can change an unintended designation (slip of the tongue) (a la ‘oh s**t’ case) of a card from DUMMY provided he has not subsequently played a card from his hand or dummy.

(Removing the 'without pause for thought" means that if you realise that you have made a mechanical error and call the director rather than try and correct it then you are now protected.)
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner can then hasn't he just won the 4th trick?

If a diamond lead is correct then in most cases you will be able to switch to a diamond after cashing the A without losing anything as you would be able to ruff the third club high and cash a diamond.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They won't know - and if one side is obviously doing so then I am pretty sure they fall foul of law 90.

Remember that at the highest levels, players of nearly equivalent standard of the contestents will be watching.

The English Soccer Authority is about to issue bans for ‘simulated diving’ when players attempt to win penalties and free kicks by cheating. Such would be available i Bridge matches.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We played bridge for 75 years using 16, 32 and 64 board sessions.

Why not have a ‘chess clock’ (hidden from the players), independently monitored and, if time runs out, fine the pair that has taken the longest, 3 imps an unplayed board.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 52A states …. as required by law 50 and 51.

Law 52B states … “when required by law to play a card.”

When you are on lead you are required to play a card. (Unless you claim of course..) - lead is defined as "The first card played to a trick)

So you are correct - if you are on lead and have a minor penalty card then you must play it instead of any other non-honour in the suit - but you can lead an honour or another suit.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you leave 10 on the table, you can force West to lead a club when you lose a trick to him - if it seems wise. The opening lead in another suit may actually help you. You may thus gain a tempo
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner forgot that Lebensohl doesn't apply here - I expect a weak hand with a 6 or, more likely, a 7 card suit.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law changes slightly. Under the new laws the revoke must be corrected (if not established) if attention is drawn to the irregularity. Currently IIRC a player must correct an unestablished revoke if he becomes aware that they have revoked.

The new law makes it easier to implement - after all, how do you find out whether someone was aware they had revoked before the revoke was established.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is an infraction, of course. 73D2
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I certainly feel that the case against West for ‘flagrant abuse of UI’ as people like to call it, is not-proven. Whilst the director can give a PP, the fact that he has probably ruled (partially) under law 85B suggests that he shouldn't.
May 18
1 2 3 4 ... 106 107 108 109
.

Bottom Home Top