Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill March
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My teammate thought no apology was required , minus 800 against no game the other way!
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The combination of East’s bold double and West’s (in my view) strange response gave North a problem that they wouldn’t normally have - even so, North’s ‘solution’ was consistent with having miss sorted their hand.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed - you can’t now show what you’ve already denied ie a raise to 2D.
Nov. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a flat board!!!
Nov. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2S was available as a fit jump but would normally show 4 card support.
Nov. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though I don’t regard 2H as ‘correct’ it seems to have worked out ok - 3H is simply ridiculous.
Nov. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago I used to play a more efficient scheme in this situation but then abandoned it for the simplicity of just playing the same system regardless.
Another problem is how you explore for a fit in responders major(and strong hand) - some play that with eg Hearts you respond 2H then 3H over partners 2S(hoping that it doesn’t go 2H all pass!). Clearly you don’t play that way but anyone that did ‘wouldn’t’ have the option to change methods.
Nov. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve
From the white book
‘Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction. This sanction will be both of:
• A score adjustment of the standard penalty (e.g. 25% of a top, 6 IMPs or 1 VP)
• Forfeiting the deposit.
The sanction is imposed at the Appeals Committee’s or Referee’s discretion and their decision is based upon whether they consider the appeal to have been without merit for the class of player involved. The test in the case of an experienced appellant would be if the committee came to a unanimous decision with little or no discussion; the less experienced the player, the more lenient the Committee would be. The appeal-without-merit sanction can still be imposed if the committee decreases the score for the appellants (or penalises, or increases the penalty for, the appellants)’

If you believe that the lack of an appeal was due to me thinking it was without merit then you are mistaken , moreover if you think that in the light of the 2 articles presented that an appeal would actually have been deemed without merit then I’m speechless.
Nov. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian, I’m afraid you’ve lost the plot and are getting mixed up with some other EBU.
If a suit bid is artificial then a double is assumed to be penalties and is alerted if it isn’t.
However, in its wisdom the EBU has decided that a pass or correct call eg 2S in response to a multi is ‘natural’ (even though it shows no Spades at all) since it ‘suggests a place to play’ so you don’t alert a takeout double of such a bid.
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Krishna - as of a few minutes ago it was exactly 57 for East and 57 for West with only 3 for even!
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So Alan, are you confirming that at your table the 3433 15 count was the opening bidder?
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this law should be changed so that the player can take their bid back - they get to demonstrate their judgement without the benefit of hindsight and we lose the ‘double shot ‘ that so many dislike, what’s not to love?
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes it has to be alerted.
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not as tiny a minority as those that call the director back to change their score from -620 to -790!
Or for that matter from +200 to -500 since missing from the OP is the suggestion that was made by NS that they might have sacrificed with correct alerting??
There is merit in your viewpoint but by the same logic you could apply it to UI cases and say you don’t adjust unless a poll gives zero support for the bid made.

* and FWIW your final paragraph is not quite as ridiculous as you hope it is.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I inadvertently rotated the directions through 180 degrees but the long club hand is the opener.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let’s just leave it that we agree to differ as whether the situation is less ridiculous now.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So there is no confusion - IMO that law was fine and it was wrong to change it at all.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though this certainly seems like the same hand it must have been either opened out of turn at one of our tables or the cards were in the wrong hands !
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik - I’m getting confused, I mean the one about making a bid sufficient(if natural)or partner is barred,was that a different law?
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just go back to the previous law.
Nov. 18, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top