Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 17 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think we have to assume anything about purposeful or not. Just make the penalties severe enough that purposeful violations are unattractive. That would go against tradition but in my view would make for a better game.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the votes. I'm surprised to see that my view is in a tiny minority. At the table, I was trying to decide between 4 and 5. Maybe I didn't make clear the distributional implications of partner's raise, or maybe I'm just nuts. Or overly influenced by the result.

My real problem was that partner's pass was slow, and I felt obliged to pass. (I didn't think he was thinking about doubling.) Later, I was wondering whether pass was a logical alternative, but now that seems clear. :-)

The full deal:
____AT3
____JT32
____76
____KQ97
K985_____Q
KQ764____A98
A54______KQT9832
T________64
____J7642
____5
____J
____AJ8532
(Sorry about the underscores, but BW seems to compress multiple spaces to one.)
Partner had about as little distribution as possible, but 5 would still have been a good save.
May 7
Steve Willner edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I have the geography right, it looks as though a spot south of Orlando and towards the eastern half of the state would have been better for everyone. If this year's participation is common, I hope the organizers can take that into account next time.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree with that last. In fact, it's rather the opposite. L23 covers actions that a cheat might take, but there's no hint that a player ruled against was actually cheating.

On the main point, I agree that L23 would not apply if no one had asked about a revoke, and also that the rules once someone has asked are murky. Despite that, I wouldn't give an advantage to anyone who revokes and then, when asked, denies having a card of the suit led.
May 4
Steve Willner edited this comment May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“petty little odious bid” – Moyse?? He apparently thought it should be patterning out, i.e., natural, but then what is one to do with hands that are too strong to pass (or the auction is forcing) and can't bid anything else without misdescribing?
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed's ruling is the way I would have read the Laws, but there's a WBFLC minute to the contrary. According to that, if West objects to the concession, both East's claim and concession are cancelled, and play continues. As Ed wrote, though, the Director should be called, not least because there's a potential UI issue.

Here it doesn't matter because West has an easy, valid claim of all the rest of the tricks.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What did East do wrong, other than miscount trumps? West may have a complaint about that, but nobody else does.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“not one team from the local area” may still be the best location if it's central, i.e., equally inconvenient for everyone. In D25, for example, no one lives near the GNT site, but the site is near the middle of the population distribution. Did the five D9 teams come from different directions, or would a different location have been better for nearly all of them? The geographically large Districts have a problem with no good solution.

Not having CoC is, as everyone else has written, outrageous.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The published CoC had conflicting statements about carryover. I was told the directors consulted the GNT Chair, who said the “no carryover” was correct with the carryover language having been inadvertently copied from Flight A. The poor proofreading was unfortunate, but I don't think anyone did anything terrible.

The actual conditions for Flight B struck me as less than optimal, the lack of carryover being only one example. In general, the CoC created more of a “social event with some element of competition” than a true competitive event. That may have been what was desired, but it wouldn't have been my own preference.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's worse than that. For awhile there was a conflict between two of the documents. That was resolved by changing the one that said “bids” to make it say “calls.”

Delayed alerts really should be only for bids. For passes, doubles, and redoubles, which if alertable are (nearly) always in contested auctions, delayed alerts are too late.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once again, alert rules are matters of local jurisdiction. Assuming ACBL with no special rules (screens, club rules)…

As others have written above, starting with opener's rebid, _bids_ above 3NT are never immediate alerts. This is true for any meaning whatsoever. We can have all the usual arguments about which bids require alerts and which don't, but any alerts required are delayed. (I can't think of a context where a splinter bid in an unopposed auction would not require an alert.)

Whether alerts of passes, doubles, and redoubles can be delayed or must be immediate is unclear. I believe the official rules as recommended by the C&C committee and adopted by the BoD say alerts of these calls are always immediate. However, the latest documents I've seen from the ACBL web site have changed “bids” to “calls,” meaning that alerts of passes, doubles, and redoubles can be delayed. I hope this is just an editing mistake and will soon be changed back, but this is the ACBL we're talking about.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh! I originally typed “always a good idea” but realized that was an overbid.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Bridge Spinner” was supposed to be a similar product. What happened to it?

By charging an extra $1 per player per session, a club with five sessions per week could pay for a $1000/table device in about a year. That is a pretty small fraction of all clubs, though, and I don't know whether even that much extra cost would be acceptable to the players.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Declarer was unhappy as, if West had owned up to the revoke before it was established, the two of clubs would have become a MPC and declarer would have made an overtrick”

Why is no one looking at Law 23? It seems to cover exactly this situation (among many others). MR will hate the result, but contract making looks like what we have now. (In the next Laws version due to take effect later this year, I think L23 will be renumbered to 72C but stay the same in content.)

Personally I wish revoke penalties were more severe, not less, but that's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First off, let's remember that alerts are matters of local jurisdiction. I'm assuming everyone is talking about the ACBL with no special rules, which clubs are allowed to have.

As MR wrote, there is never a delayed alert for actions on the first round of the auction. Alerts for the opening bid and the next three calls are either immediate or nonexistent. For later calls, my understanding is the same as AB's above.

What isn't so clear is what happens if 4NT asks for something other than aces or keycards, say 2-1 points as MAR plays. I _think_ that makes the ask or at least the response alertable (delayed if appropriate), but I wouldn't be shocked to be told I'm wrong.

Part of the confusion may be that a couple of decades ago, the ACBL required delayed alerts for all ace-asking auctions. The rule was in effect only briefly and was widely ignored even then, but a few players haven't realized it has gone away.

Bottom line: saying “Please explain your auction,” before making an opening lead is often a good idea.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seems to be confusion between two separate hands. TBW panel saw 5 A643 J97652 J6 and voted for 2D. (Richard gave the exact votes above.) The panel agrees with Bridgewinners voters that 2NT would have been natural, so nobody chose it with the hand given.

Benoit suggested 2NT might show xx xxx xxxx KQTx, which fits the definition of natural, but that looks to me like a hand that would pass 2x.

I don't see that anyone else has suggested a hand where natural 2NT is a good bid, though there was a suggested type “8-9 with 2353 and two club stops.” What's wrong with 2 on that or perhaps 2 if diamonds are weak?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
D25 gives $2000 per team, all four flights:
http://www.nebridge.org/media/ups/2017_Files/GNT_NAP/GNT_CoC2.pdf

Fund source is Grass Roots Fund games.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The alternative is Laws that depend on observable events. There are plenty of examples, including those that deal with when declarer's or a defender's card must be played (Law 45).
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another wrinkle: if LHO's play was out of tempo or with undue emphasis, L73A2 could be relevant.

For the L45C4 part of the ruling, the Director has to determine declarer's intention at the time he first designated a card. Therefore the exact description of events is critical, but on the account given, I agree with Barry, Martin, and several others that saying “ace” is a pretty good indication that declarer noticed the queen and intended to cover it.

FWIW I dislike laws that require mind reading, but that seems to be a minority view.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to rule out “obvious shift” signalling. Even if you don't play “obvious shift,” whether you want to encourage or discourage in one suit usually depends on whether you like or dislike the alternatives.
Feb. 25
1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 17 18
.

Bottom Home Top