Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ulrich Voigt
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This strategem appeared at least once in the Menagerie books.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://xkcd.com/378/
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a problem with reaching the occasional 3NT with 24 HCP?
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Hesitating will be deemed to be an infraction. That's it, simple.”

If you wish to create a game where thinking is deemed illegal, feel free to do so, but why do you want to base it on Bridge?
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 92:

An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of the partnership concur in making the appeal.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have the clear agreement that double shows the diamond ace, shouldn't the hesitation suggest that South holds an ace in a different suit, hence a diamond lead is explicitly not “demonstrably suggested”?
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“No, it is not condescending, because I am right.”
Nov. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(insert Monty Python quote here)
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks!
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I see. Yes, the 2007 laws change about insufficient bids could be motivated as you say. However, it is also possible these laws were changed to conform to the general principle that a call (or play) can't be retracted unless there is good reason to do so, and someone's ignorance about the laws is not a good reason. So, the insufficient call is retracted (unless the next player accepts it), but if the offending player replaces it without knowing the consequences of his action, that's his own fault.

I think the motivation of the recent change in claim laws is to cater to club players who don't like TDs adjudicating claims, or claims at all, and simply want to play till the end. It often happens that declarer claims, the opponents say “play it out” and declarer complies, which is (more or less) legal now.
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could you elaborate on that restriced choice argument? I don't see why either player should be more likely to hold three hearts.
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That is the way bridge should be played.”

I very much disagree.
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not correct. If an insufficient bid is corrected before the TD is called, the next player certainly doesn't lose his right to accept the insufficient bid. Basically he can choose which call he accepts, in both cases with consequences for the offending side.
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
7NT was making, and yes, it scored above average. One pair managed to get doubled in 7NT for a clear top.
Oct. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From a local club today:

A
AKQxxxxxx
AK
A
Oct. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, I wouldn't worry about clubs 8-1, especially when both opponents had a chance to bid them.

Second, why discard the king? That tells them you don't have any diamond losers anymore. I think it is much better to discard a small diamond, suggesting a problem in that suit.
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that is exactly the question. However, I'm pretty sure that “Who cares?” is not the answer.
Sept. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 68A: “A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed.”
Sept. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the opponents called the director at this point, I would rule your statement to constitute a claim, and proceed accordingly.
Sept. 14, 2018
Ulrich Voigt edited this comment Sept. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unlikely, but yes. In a tournament I have been directing, I have once seen someone revoke on the opening lead.
Sept. 14, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top