Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 124 125 126 127
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or a very intesne 1st round - 1 board on each table, after the hand is played ask them to duplicate it - and tell them which table to pass it to. Having the pack of cards for the duplicate sorted means you can deal straight into the 4 hands - will only take a couple of minutes. (5 at most)
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't like it - but a proactive “Do you think your partner could has showed unauthorised information due to his actions?” might eventually train them up.



“Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.” 16B1

This list is not inclusive. Examples of each type of information are shown below - and a possible ‘naughty’ action taken as a result.

‘Remarks’ - Your partner picks up a hand and says “Rubbish again”. Holding a poor weak no trump hand in third position you decide to pass to avoid possibly conceding a large penalty.

‘Question’ - A strong 1 call is made and alerted. Your partner says “Does that show clubs?”. Knowing your partner is interested in the club suit, you lead one through declarer's KJ into partner's AQ and get a ruff.

‘Replies to Questions’ - Partner is asked what your 3 overcall meant and says “Diamonds and Spades” - you thought or know it means ‘Hearts or Spades’ so when partner bids 3 you are worried that he may not have many and bid 3 to clear things up.

‘Unexpected Alerts’ - Your partner opens 1NT: Your left hand opponent Doubles and you bid 2 as a weak take-out. Partner alerts it and then bids 2 . You suspect he hasn't a heart suit and rebid diamonds.

‘Failure to Alert’ - Your right hand opponent opens 2 . You bid 2NT intending to show the minot suits. Partner does not alert - obviously he is taking it as natural. He raises to 3 and you decide to bid 4 to make it clear you have the minor suits.

‘Unmistakeable Hesitation’ - The bidding has got to 4 by the opponent. Your partner thinks for 30 seconds and then passes. Obviously he was thinking about going on/ sacrificing and that persuades you to bid 5 .

‘Unwonted Speed’ - After your LHO opens the bidding with ‘Stop - 3 ’ your partner immediately passes. Obviously he has a poor hand - and with a borderline take out double you decide to pass.

‘Special Emphasis’ - After an Auction "1 , 2, 3 ‘ your partner throws down the 3NT bidding card onto the table very firmly. Obviously he does not want you to continue - so you pass.

’Tone' - Playing without bidding boxes you hear partner say ‘4NT’ with an inflexion obviously indicating that it is a question and to be taken as Blackwood - You were unsure whether 4NT was quantitative or Blackwood in this situation - but you now can respond appropriately.

‘Gesture’ - Playing a hand you note that partner, as dummy, has looked at the hand on his left. When you lead a trump towards dummy, he moves his head deliberately towards his left hand opponent. You decide to finesse your RHO for the Queen.

‘Movement’ - You observe your partner fiddling with the cards in the bidding box, including the pass card. Eventually he bids 1NT (6-9). He obviously has a minimum so you decide not to make a game try with 17 points.

‘Mannerism’ - You lead a heart against a 3NT contract and observe partner ‘winces’ when he sees the card - clearly he wanted a different lead, so you switch to Spades when you win a trick, finding partner with a useful holding.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In EBU guidelines a pause before a double suggests that partner remove it. Your partner did remove it but it is probable that there is no logical alternative - and in any case NS weren't damaged by the action.

In future just make the call in the same tempo as other calls - both fast and slow calls convey UI.

NS are within their rights to call the TD (unless your RA insists that he is called at the end of the hand) - and it is up to the TD to find out whether there was a BIT.

Example of a fast BIT disallowing a pass.

3 - Pass (immediate) - All Pass

4th in hand had a marginal re-opening double. The immediate pass suggested that 2nd in hand was very weak. It was ruled the final contract would be 3 X - making.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It happens a lot - when discussing appeals and likewise, many ‘experts’ impute their own interpretations on what a call may possibly mean.

What we are discussing here, though, is whether South would want to allow his partner to respond to his replacement call. To do so he must make a comparable call (or make the lowest call that shows the same denomination(s) as his insufficient bid).

It looks as if there is no comparable call - so he would have to bid 2. That his hand does not match a typical 2 overcall is irrelevant - his partner can use his insufficient call to determine the best course of action. The laws enable the TD to adjust the score if the NOS are damaged.

(TBH I would pass and accept partner is going to be banned from leading one suit when first on lead.)
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes there are many players who would play that a 1 overcall can be made on a weaker than opening hand but a 2 or 3 overcall would show values. (TIC)
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no UI after a change of call if it to a comparable call or to the lowest call secifying the same denomination, however there are two subsequent sections to prevent damage.

23C AND Law 27D

Law 27D basically replicates law 23C except it tells us to adjust the contract assuming the insufficient bid never took place.

So we would have to rule based on - “What would South do if his choice was not influenced by the consequences of not making a comparable call/ bid to show clubs at the 2 level?” - which almost certainly will be lead penalties. (Forbid the lead of any one suit)

Obviously we discuss it - but it looks as if South would pass (I would). So we may get a situation where EW would actually play in their contract rather than NS playing in e.g. 3.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if they are playing a weak no trump then South would have opened 1NT, not 1.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our club will play a 10-table Howell for 24 boards. (Time constraints prevent 27) the only inconvenience is that the Director has to sit at table 10 rather than table 1 - and we prefer to select a stationary NS as the missing pair.

The EBU has a 70% rule - in other words all players must play 70% of all the board sin play for the event to qualify for master points. This is beginning to cause problems in our afternoon event where 16 tables are in play. A missing pair would result in some only playing 22/32 = 68.75%
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where does it say in the laws that ‘may’ does not apply here?

“Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not) “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).”
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe Jeff it is because the OP states that 2 was corrected to 3.

So, apropos Mr Rainsford, either the 2 call is accepted or the TD rules on the 3 replacement call - there are no other options.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul - this description is obsolete - the phrase ‘without pause for thought’) has been excised from the LAws.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law also says (Law 25 A)

6. If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized to his side and unauthorized to the opponents.

Since the word is ‘May’ then LHO doesn't actually have to withdraw his call ('failing to do so is not wrong'). If it is now an Insufficient Bid then presumably Law 27 kicks in and HIS LHO can accept it.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No doubt one day we will have adequate case law and WBF minutes to clear up problems. Until then - good luck.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because you are one of the 23/70 doesn't mean it is your birthday that is duplicated.

Mine is August 25th - so that reduces the number of viable alternative dates to 364.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well if I don't call the Director then that is not ‘wrong’. The same applies to my partner and the two opponents (since they fall under the ‘any player’ statement). So who is left?

Maybe the law should read. “A player at the table should call the Director”
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your sentiments do you credit sir - however what happens if you subsequently make an error and the opponents feel unable to reciprocate?

Although we seem to say that the director must be called when attention is drawn to an irregularity, that is not what the law says.

B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity

1.

(a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

..> ‘should’ is defined as "(failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised) - which means that if attention is not drawn to the fact that the Director has not been summoned then the Director need not be summoned.


(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

..> ‘May’ is defined as ‘(failure to do it is not wrong),’

Thus if each player in turn does not call the TD then this is not wrong.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe some Directors should read law 48.

A. Declarer Exposes a Card
Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

B. Declarer Faces Cards

1. When declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54 applies.
2. When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim), and Law 68 then applies.

What infraction has occurred? No claim has been made. The laws do not state that a playeer's cards must be held in the hand so partner cannot see them - they merely advise on the consequences of failure to do so. Nothing to see here - move on.

(Will be awarding both sides AV+ for a director error and, rescind any PPs issued)
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responder is supposed to know the law. It was discussed on another thread (not sure if here or not) whether the TD should actually find out what options the player who made the IB has available and what possible options the IB could in fact have. The player, after all, knows what they intended to show when they made the IB. My current thought is that the Director should just read out the definition of a Comparable call and only after the player has made a replacement call should he find out whether the call made is in fact comparable. Note that the director has to do this at the time since the progress of the auction depends on whether a CC has been made - damage to opponents is irrelevant.


If it turns out that the only ‘comparable call’ is a pass then responder can decide whether to make that call - and let the auction procede, or make a different call.

If responder changes the call so that the opener has to pass - well ‘c’est la guerre'. Responder should not have made an IB. However no one is ‘requiring’ the responder to do anything at all: it is just that his decision will have consequences.

One of the hardest IBs to recover from, is one that is limited in some way, since the comparable call must be limited to (at least) the same extent. If 2 is limited and 3 as a replacement call is not, for example, then it will not be regarded as a CC.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And consequently may be guilty of breaching the (new) law 20G2

2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent.

(Not that I like the wording: ‘sole purpose’ is very restricted - maybe the reason was 99% to elicit an incorrect response - that is OK)
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And also what is known from partnership experience - if partner has been known to open 4 when actually holding diamonds rather than spades then opponents are entitled to know that. (In effect you are playing that 4 shows Spades or, rarely, Diamonds)
Nov. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 124 125 126 127
.

Bottom Home Top