Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Aviv Shahaf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I “liked” your comment, but only the last part…
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, Not all rulings are black or white and the law book does not always provide a fixed solution for all situations.
I’m sure you know that there are two general types of rulings - Book rulings, where the law book tells you exactly what the solution is, and Judgment rulings, where the director has to use judgment to come up with the solution.
Contested Claims falls under the latter.
While its true that “Duplicate Decisions” has not been updated since 2008, it still provides the best advise to directors regarding contested claims, via its many examples, and I do not think the 2017 update to the laws effected that.
And while it is ultimately up to any director to use their own judgment, it is recommended to consult regarding any judgment ruling, and usually it is better to positively consider “suggestions” you get via these consultations, even if they are not “instructions”.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Duplicate Decisions, please note specifically example 3 under Law 70

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/clubs/Duplicate-Decisions-2008.pdf
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The guidelines to directors specifically address this and direct directors to rule as if declarer saw the cards played.
We all know that in real life its possible that declarer might not notice the cards and underruff or even revoke (on other hands), that doesn’t mean we can treat these as “Normal” or “Rational” when we adjudicate claims.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, Do you think West would have bid the same if North asked about the 3 bid and East responded “It is a Natural preempt with about 7 clubs” and then continued to bid 3 and 4 over 4?
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, for me its the other way around…
If the laws of the game requires ignoring or violating Active Ethics then the rules of the game are fundamentally flawed.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West had UI from East’s alerts and explanations.
A poll would help but it looks like West had other options over 3 and over 4 and that the 4 and 5 bids were heavily influenced by the UI.
I would likely adjust the score to 4X down 9 (defense gets 5 hearts + 6 spades + 1 club).
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I was the declarer then like David I would have called attention to my revoke, called the director and entered 3NT -1 in the Bridgemate.

If I was the West player in a similar revoke scenario, I would inform the director that I refuse to accept the prescribed 1 trick penalty after my partner refused to allow what was going to be an obvious claim and induced declarer, who probably thought playing it out will just be speedier and less confrontational than calling the director to adjudicate an obvious claim, to play the hand out while obviously distracted by the fact that he actually had to play the hand instead of claiming.

To me, that's how you play bridge.
What baffles me, after reading this and the other thread, is why you would play any other way…
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, How would you rule if the players act as you suggest and one of the non offenders say they need the director because they might have acted differently and later their partner makes a play based on that information?

If the offenders call the director, as they should, then the non offenders can provide that information to the director away from the table without transferring UI.

The director is also the one that determines whether there was MI or not which is another reason for the player that thinks their partner gave MI to summon them.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only the director can reopen the auction and allow the opponent who passed last to change their call, which is why the director should be summoned by the side that created the misinformation.
The director should also talk to the non offending players away from the table to find out if they might have acted differently earlier in the auction, which is why the director should be summoned by the side that created the misinformation.
The director should also asses whether there was use of UI by the offending side, which is why the director should be summoned by the side that created the misinformation.

Any time players think they can solve these issues on their own, they always manage to make it worse.
Just call the director and let them make sure everyone's rights are protected.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North should have waited till the end of the auction and then, since his side was declaring, say: “Please do not lead, we need the director since my partner may have given you misinformation. DIRECTOR PLEASE!”

It is the responsibility of the side that gave misinformation to summon the director to avoid making the other side creating UI if they only call the director when they think they might have acted differently with the correct information.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one said you can't…
like any agreement, being more precise helps partner better evaluate their choices, especially when passing it out for penalty is a serious consideration.
If you could have any number of hearts for this Double than partner will make the wrong decision many times when holding only 3 hearts.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you could have voted for 5NT…
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some might argue that it should show exactly 2 Hearts.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the 3 bidders cater to opponents further bidding, setting up the defense against 4.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered “Forcing” but do not believe 95% of club level players know that…
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How tricky is RHO?
If RHO is a straight forward player then I would take the risk and overbid slightly with 4.
At least we would be in the right strain and partner is known to have some values.

If RHO could have a heavy preempt then I would Double and Pass whatever partner bids (unless they cue-bid 4 asking me to pick a Major).
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I specifically said in one of the earlier installments of this bidding problem That I do not consider 3 to be Forcing.

I treat this sequence (Double followed by correcting 3 to 3) as a hand that can tolerate other strains, just not clubs…
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me try again…
Since a Splinter forces the partnership to a SPECIFIC game, it is by nature a Slam bidding tool.
Oct. 2
.

Bottom Home Top