Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stuart King
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its worse than this even. Due to the non-linear nature of the IMP scale it could be that they had a 50/50 shot at flat vs -14. With the weighted score they just always get -11. Hmmmm…
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies Ed, I meant that there is no relief from your obligations under 16B1 when the information is duplicated. As far as the laws are concerned when you have UI you have to behave accordingly no matter what the other information you have suggests.
Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a reasonable position to take, but unfortunately the current laws do not include any provisions for situations where UI is duplicated by AI.

I agree the laws are sub-optimal and could easily be improved, but this is what we have at the moment. I would certainly be happy to have the rules changed to incorporate situations like this as I, like you, would expect that in situations like this I would be woken up by the bid all but an infinitesimally small amount of the time, and that the rules could be changed to incorporate these situations.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
16A1a

“A player may use information in the auction or play
if:
(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;”

I was incorrect, it does include plays not just call, but I have included the full quote of the law in question, which clearly states that information “FROM the legal calls” (and plays) can be used if it is UNAFFECTED by unauthorised information from another source.

And to respond to your last point, yes I meant that 1 is not demonstrably suggested over the LA's.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A.

Second choice 2.
Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, the part of Law 16 (16A1a) I refer to is very specifically talking about information from the auction being affected by additional sources of UI.

I would suggest that in your example the UI you possess from overhearing that comment does not affect any of the information you have from the auction.

Additionally, I suspect there are no LA's other than opening 1 with the hand and that even if there were, the LA's would not be demonstrably suggested by the UI, and polling would confirm this.
Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without the UI there is a non-zero chance I still wouldn't recall our agreement and assume that partner is doing something very strange. With the UI that chance is greatly diminished. Therefore the information from the 4 is different depending on whether or not I have the UI.
Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you think the bid is unaffected by the UI, and so is authorised, I cannot find anything in the laws that means we aren't constrained by law 16 by the UI we do have.
Nov. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The 4♠ bid itself is a clear indication of what happened, and the AI from this bid totally matches the UI from the alert. You are permitted to bid anything you please.”


@Kit. I may be wrong, but I cannot find anything in the laws that says that if we have AI the replicates any UI we have that we aren't constrained by law 16.

Also, my reading of law 16A1a suggests that the information from the 4 bid isn't authorised to us as it is affected by the UI we already have from the alert.
Nov. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players do not need to “weigh up” UA and AI. Lets actually read 16A1a:

“A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play
if:
(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;”

So here, it turns out, we can't actually use the information derived from the 4 bid as it is very obviously affected by the UI we already possess.
Nov. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16A1a is pretty clear.

“A player may use information in the auction or play
if:
(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;”

In this situation there is a second source, namely the alert, that has given us UI which affects the information that is derived from the legal 4 call.
Oct. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to everyone for their votes.
Oct. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My reading makes this information authorised by the laws. See the following:

16A1C - “it is information specified in any law or regulation
to be authorized or, when not otherwise
specified, arising from the legal procedures
authorized in these laws and in regulations (but
see B1 following);”

and 20F1 - “During the auction and before the final pass any
player may request, at his own turn to call, an
explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is
entitled to know about calls actually made, about
relevant alternative calls available that were not
made, and about inferences from the choice of
action where these are matters of partnership
understanding. Except on the instruction of the
Director replies should be given by the partner of
the player who made the call in question. The
partner of a player who asks a question may not ask
a supplementary question until his turn to call or
play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating
Authority may establish regulations for written
explanations.”

I would argue that by the letter of the law it is authorised as the information has arisen from a legal procedure that does not specify that the information is unauthorised.
Oct. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My gut feeling is that trying to unravel the size of the raise, the presence of a 4CM after and explore 3N vs 5m after 1m - 2m is too much to do in the available space.
Oct. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David

I tend to use hands that were made for the duplicate the night before, but if you expect crossover of players that may not be practical.

The effort to create boards is very low, but for those that like to have the records and go over them the value is high.

On switching partnerships, I just leave it to the players, which tends to mean that however they happen to sit for the first hand is how they sit for the duration of the session.
Sept. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. I really didn't want to pass, but what else?
Sept. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most popular sessions for social and returning players are “Supervised Play”. You may want to use a term like “Free Play Session” as supervised play doesn't have the best ring to it…

Basically provide somewhere they can come and play with experienced players around to answer questions.

Then if some would like lessons start a course from there.
Sept. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who are you expecting to bid 2M? RHO’s 2C was natural. Passing is very likely to lead to you defending 2C.
Sept. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree talking about hands at the table with the opponents is difficult and should be done.

I the best way to approach something like this would be to say something like “Interesting decision whether or not to risk the spade finesse.” That way they can engage if they want to and ask your opinion, or just move on.

The issue with what you said was it implied superiority on your part when, as others have said, declarer may have had other reasons for making the play they made. If you approach it from a position of being interested in their decision and why they made it, you can engage people without offending them.
Sept. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The KEY to teaching declarer play techniques is what I call “triggers”. What is it about a hand that should start you thinking about this technique. Very few students struggle to understand WHY the technique works - they have just seen it!

Lets consider a simple example - a finesse. The trigger for a finesse (for a beginner) is seeing a AQ combination in a hand. “Ah!” they think, “I should finesse in this suit!”. As the sudent gets better a solitary King also becomes a trigger, and then AJT, and then Ax opposite QJ etc.

One of the best teaching techniques I have found for getting people to understand the triggers for something is to set them the task of creating a hand (just declarer and dummy) where the technique works (I tend to have them do this as a table of in pairs). Often this will lead to them creating a hand where the technique is there but another technique works better. For example they set up a finesse for the 9th trick in 3NT, but the better play is to try and establish a side suit first. You then re-frame the problem - “If you were playing 3NT here what chances do you have to make the 9th trick?” and then “How can you change the hand so that the finesse is right?”.

This gets them thinking about the technique in a very different way and helps with understanding when a technique is best and why it works.
Aug. 30, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
.

Bottom Home Top