Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel: I know that you quoted Andy, but I think we all know what he meant, since it was within the context of a very specific discussion, and relating to a very specific situation.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just quoting some text which may help (have spaced to make it easier, but from laws)

established usage has been retained in regard to
“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),
“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized),
“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),
“shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not),
“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition,
“shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”


source: http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
does this list help you in some way?

Take out up to 4S except:

1. Game try: E.g. after 1 M-(Overcall)-2 M-(raise) when no room for game try.

2. Penalty:
(a) We agree a suit
(b) we preempt
© we rebid or respond NT
(d) opponents make 2-suited overcall
(e) we make defined 2-suited overcall
(f) we double 1 NT
(g) we redouble something
(h) we both bid and they protect
(j) We double their TRF or Stayman over WK NT, showing pen. double of 1 NT

3. Lead Directing: Double of their splinter, means lead suit below. Lightener.

4. Responsive doubles. (special: 1M – X – 2M – X =promises 4OM, 2NT = TO)
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To those who voted “yes”:

Some messages are directed at individuals or subset of communities. Those that are irrational, and without foundation, personal, rude etc, offend the individuals and communities.

Tell me why you want these people to be offended? Do you think it is nice to be attacked and insulted?

Do you think that people like seeing their friends and acquaintances maligned in such a public manner?

I get hurt and offended when people who are strangers to me, and even those that I don't care for too much, are treated inappropriately.

I would hope that if most people saw an offensive and indecent message pinned to a tree would remove the message. I cannot believe they'd think to themselves “let me leave that there so that others can read it, and the person who it was directed at can be offended for longer, and by more people”.

I completely support the judgement of Eugene and his team. I understand and agree with the rules for participation on the forum. And I plan to follow them.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff G: re silent claims, it occurs to me that :
(defender thinking time) + (asking “what is your line of play”)+ (line explanation) > declarer stating line anyway from the outset

I agree with your option (see Andy Bowles comment which is fairly similar to your comment). I just wondered if people agree with you, then it may as well be better disallow silent claims.

Claims can be concise, of course :)

There is another point: I never show my hand for silent claims until my partner and I both agree on the claim. But if the declarer states the line, I am almost certain to show my hand immediately.

It is much easier to verify the claim with all 4 hands face up. So by carrying out a silent claim, it can take longer to verify it as I can't see my partner's cards during that process.

Finally, when you all see the cards on the table, then it is easier to notice a revoke. That works to declarer's advantage. So … I assert that
(1) declarer be vocal and specific
+
(2) all players show cards

shows better return on investment for declarer.

The same applies for defence claims (though of course, as we all know there is the added complication that one defender's claim is not binding on the other).
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In rubber bridge, there is a tendency amongst some players to subtract an ace when responding to blackwood …if you have already “overstated your hand”.

A very much liked player at the Young Chelsea (club in London - duplicate) decided that he would “add an ace” if he had understated his hand.

Despite the obvious pitfalls of this strategy, he was keen to repeat it.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was declarer in 3NT. LHO led a heart (the 4th suit). Dummy went down with AXX. RHO said out loud “ooh, you led a heart, what a good idea”. Suddenly she realised what she'd done, and we all laughed it off.
Oct. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NOt referring to this deal, but referring to (82C) … Let us say that you know that rule, and the chief TD knows that you know that rule. The TD comes to the table, and for whatever reason, provides an incorrect ruling. Your board result will improve drastically because of 82C. You keep quiet and wait till the end of the deal, and call the TD back. Have you done anything wrong?
About 10 years ago, despite my second attempt to get the TD to read from his rule book, he objected, and gave a wrong ruling. Later I collected my attractive adjusted score. I asked the chief TD: “how many times do I have to remind the TD of the rule, and ask him to get the rule book?” the chief TD replied: “If *I* know that you know the rules, then I need you to only ask him once”.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Lille, 1998, a two-sided sheet of paper was handed out. English to French on one side, and vice versa on the obverse. I have a copy of this, and anyone who would like it … please contact me. It is an ideal starting point for the translation project.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Bridge At The Top”, T Reese, 1977 Faber Edition, page 114:

“..The field at Baden-Baden was below standard and the British team had one of its best years, winning every match. The Little Major created a great deal of interest among the Continental Journalists - especially when in one match Boris and I abandoned it at half time, reverting to old-fashioned Acol”.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Clyde, I sorted out the link
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few days ago a group of us bridge players went to a lecture in London by author and mathematician Simon Singh. His lecture included a discussion about codes. One segment was particularly relevant to some of the discussion here. Please use 4.5 minutes of your time to watch this link
https://vimeo.com/44172155
(the clip is longer, but the relevant part is the first 4.5 minutes)
Of course, many of you know the point he is making.
Oct. 17, 2015
Shireen Mohandes edited this comment Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Giles: are you suggesting that it is ok not to comply with this: “…the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information….”

I am sure you are tying to make a point but I am having difficulty understanding what that is - perhaps you can elaborate a bit more (sorry I don't want to sound rude, I am not being rude, I just don't understand your point)
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to add that the problem still exists, I have successfully demonstrated it to both Tomasz and Rui.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Giles: I am fully aware of the difference between those two laws, and I was fully aware that the earlier discussion was about another law. My comment was that since 73 was using terms like “communication” , and “use” (implying 2-sided, and must actually use the info)- and yet 16 talks about “EI”, then if EI was provided by ONE player, it is a law that was broken by the player, and the proof for that one might be easier than for 73 (because of what David Burn said). Perhaps you can take a look at David Burn's post, and Kit's reply and THEN read my post and tell me if you think it is relevant.

Sorry, that was a bit wordy.
Putting it another way: if 73 is broken, then probably/certainly so is 16. But given David Burn's comment, then proving 16 is MUCH easier. (Hard to prove usages, but easier to prove that LA was not chosen).
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can somebody explain if this is relevant (link to laws for ease of reference)

http://worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscomplete.pdf
~~~~
B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
~~~~
We are very familiar with this and how it applies in the auction, but I can see the word “play” there too. Forgive me if I am wrong, but might it be that by providing “extraneous Information” (EI) then LA text applies, and perhaps what needs to be proved is that on all of the deals where EI (+concrete proof for it) was made available, if partner did not chose LA, then there is violation of that rule .

I am way off the mark here…? Advise me please…
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz: even now, the cards still talk. Look at a few recent decks, you can see it. I will leave you to work it out for yourself, pm me if you need help to identify the method.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adding more detail Peg: Eddie is the only person ever to have played in a World Bridge Championship and a World Table Tennis Championship.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert Sheehan is a silver medallist (BB) and strong backgammon player.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
an amusing story from the source linked, I quote:

Deschapelles was also a phenomenal chess player who quickly became champion of his region. But when competition grew tougher, he adopted a new condition for all matches: He would compete only if his opponent would remove one of Deschapelle's pawns and make the first move, increasing the odds that Deschapelles would lose. If he did lose, he could blame it on the other player's advantage and no one would know the true limits of his ability; but if he won against such odds, he would be all the more revered for his amazing talents.

http://www.omahabridge.org/Library/mh_DESCHAPELLES_COUP_rev.pdf
© Marilyn Hemenway October, 2009
Oct. 13, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top