Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Stevenson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I realise that clever people will play clever stuff (I do not decry this since I play clever stuff myself but do not play 2/1 regularly) the sort of player who asked me this will be playing a fairly simple vanilla 2/1 system. So my question is really based on a reasonably easy approach with 2 showing 4+s.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
L68C says how a claim should be made to which you are referring. But L68A defines when a claim is made so a bad claim (which, frankly, is the norm with claims) is still a claim.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. I retract my comment and leave others to judge whether you are sane.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you know that declarer cannot be misled because he has seen all the cards, it is not coffee housing if he thought it was a time to stop and think.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course declarer should accept the offer. If you read what I said, non-claimer is out of their mind. It is perfectly sane for claimer to accept the offer.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they do not play on then dummy is no longer dummy and can participate in any discussion with the director or otherwise. So he has a legitimate interest in whether they play on.

Any non-claimer who wants to play on is out of their mind. It usually means there is something wrong with the claim and can only benefit claimer.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doing something like this with intent is a breach of L73D2 and may lead to an adjustment under L73E2. Furthermore a PP should be added on top to convince this player not to do it again.

The term coffee housing is normally understood to mean vaguely unethical but legal methods. This one was clearly illegal so coffee housing is probably the wrong term.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For dummy to ask what the contract is during the play of the hand is not one of his rights so he may not. In most situations the TD tells dummy to behave and that is it.

But it could have the effect of reminding declarer what the contract is and the TD should make a couple of enquiries of the defenders to see if this might have happened. If so he adjusts the score.

This presumes that dummy was innocent in his intent. If the TD has any feeling that it was done intentionally a reasonable sized PP should be given and a record kept by whatever means is normal in the jurisdiction.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A touch of optimism in my 3 bid. I now bid 4 unless partner bids 3 which I raise. There is no guarantee game is playable but it might easily be which is good enough at imps, and I cannot find out what I want to know.

At MPs I just bid 3.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe it is to play but thinking about it I think it should not be.

While I originally said pass because of this if my partner thinks his spades are better than my hearts perhaps I should go on even if 4S is a signoff. So I am changing my mind to 5S since spade quality is paramount.

I should also like to know how they play a 4C opening. I have always played it as a solid suit, no more than a king outside. Obviously I would not open 4C therefore. I think how they actually play this affects my rebid.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wrote to the WBFLC before the last laws suggesting the IB or COOT should be UI to partner, AI to the opponents, no other restrictions. This solution was too simple for the WBFLC to adopt.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran seems spot on. Pass is not a subset of 2S for the reasons given.

In my experience people who play 2H as H + m play 3C as p/c (as I do). People who play 2H as H + other do not since 2S is p/c. So I do not think 3C is comparable.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is case law in the UK that thinking whether or not to Peter with two small cards is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

I consider the case quoted here analogous.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is hardly a Britishism if I have never run into it.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it strange that one should applaud people for doing the right thing. Long experience in the UK suggests that more experienced players normally correct at the end of the unction, and even less experienced players do so quite often. My partner and I do so routinely. We would not expect to be congratulated and we would not expect to congratulate others. It is like congratulating people on following suit.

I find the most common problem as a TD is when defenders correct explanations at the end of the auction. Wrong, of course, but with good intent.

It may be different in other jurisdictions.
April 26
David Stevenson edited this comment April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The questions seem to me to be:

#1 Does the UI have to be of value for there to be an adjustment?

No. The TD applies the law as written which involves choice amongst LAs. If the UI has no value whatever then that affects what is or is not an LA.

#2 What about adjusting for one side only?

The TD has a law (L12C1E) which tells him when to split the score. This would not apply here.

Alternatively there is the possibility of penalising one side if there was no adjustment (or even if there was, for that matter). While that is always a possibility in fact it is not normal to penalise for errors of system. But the decision whether to adjust would not be affected by the decision whether to penalise.

#3 Was the ruling right?

Yes. Original intent is never relevant in deciding whether to adjust. If the law says adjust (as it does here) then it does not matter what South intended. In fact if I had been South I would have passed 3H even if I had decided to bid 4H previously because of the UI and its effects.

Note. I have not read any other replies before writing this.

@David0Stevenson
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) …”

So if he believes his partner to be wrong he should inform the opponents at the end of the auction. In my experience most experienced players do.

If he now believes his partner to be right (whatever he thought at the moment he made the bid) then there is no need for him to say anything.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 1D opening must satisfy the Rule of 18. That is 100% clear from 7A3. Yours does not. It would be legal in 3fd or 4th hand. The second sentence of 7A3 does not apply since it is not a 1N opening.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect any knowledgeable player to call the director before the opening lead and would be surprised at a good player who did not.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be honest in 55 years of playing I have never met anyone claiming to play Reverse Attitude leads and my guess is you ran into a pair that was trying something they did not understand. If my opponents told me they were playing Reverse Attitude leads I would ask for an explanation.

Whatever they are playing they need to make it clear on the system card.
March 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top