Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for John Portwood

John Portwood
John Portwood
  • 0
    Following
  • 7
    Followers
  • 96
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
Aug. 23, 2011
Last Seen
32 minutes ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Now in Mid 50s, have been member of one bridge club for 40 years - and pretty well play in the one club. Married with one youth and work in insurance.

I like to think that I am a highly ethical, polite and considerate to partner and opponents.

 

Country
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Website
http://www.portwood.co.uk/

Bridge Information

Favorite Bridge Memory
Overcalling a multi 2D on a six card spade suit - only to find that that was the suit intended.
Bridge Accomplishments
Winning a pack of 6 mixer drinks in an EBU magazine competition
Regular Bridge Partners
Professor WJ Zakrzewski
Member of Bridge Club(s)
Durham
Favorite Tournaments
Don't play in any.
Favorite Conventions
My own!
BBO Username
weejonnie
ACBL Ranking
None
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Is this the worst change to the 2017 laws
A summary of changes in rectifications/ procedures more appropriate as a basis for TDs is at www.portwood.co.uk/bridgetd.pptx
John Portwood's lead problem: A8765 43 AT987 2
6 made when the Ace of Spades was ruffed and declarer set up the hearts.
Is this the worst change to the 2017 laws
There is no reason why you can't give a procedural penalty for someone not checking who they were supposed to be playing and what the correct boards should be - after all it is displayed in the Bridgemates and/or the movement card on the table.
Is this the worst change to the 2017 laws
I think the effect of 50E1 means that if you had, for example, a bidding decision where it was 50% one way, 50% for an alternative and the choice you were going to make anyway is supported by the penalty card then you are free to make that decision without ...
dump bidding boxes - all in favour ?
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and  explanations given or not given. (It's been widened a bit - stops people saying "How's your aunt in Virginia ...
dump bidding boxes - all in favour ?
To put the board there - correctly orientated.
An Insufficent—Bidding Problem
Law 40 is interesting (new version) "(iv) The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents." The current laws say "3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary ...
An Insufficent—Bidding Problem
Not often penalised - however IIRC the last part of the law says "2.no player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to  rectification." So how can they do anything unless there is a director there to 'explan all matters in regard to rectification"?
Is this the worst change to the 2017 laws
Oh I agree - the law is logical in the reasons for its existence - it is just going to raise problems in its execution. The previous version was an attempt to get the 'correct' result for all the boards in the round with the 'correct' players, this version has the effect ...
Is this the worst change to the 2017 laws
Yes that is my interpretation - however, as I say, for a while I would take the liberty of assuming I was being called to explain the new laws and advise the table of the alternative - until the knowledge of the option becomes more widely known. After all, disputed claims don ...
Not following anyone yet
.

Bottom Home Top