Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dominic Cooke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On checking, I find that “extraneous” in the Laws specifically means outside the rules of the game, rather than being, as I assumed, information we did not already have. It still seems highly unlikely that the laws intend to forbid you from using information which you are already aware of, just because you are also given it from another source.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the OP is actually quite clear in asking whether the fact you have misbid is authorised information to you. I think obviously you don't tell the rest of the table that you have misbid - that's absolutely crazy, and everyone here knows that. Seems kind of like you're doing Martin a disservice by assuming he doesn't know that.


On an ethical level, if you know that you have misbid before partner tells you, it surely can't be unethical to behave as if that's what happened. Because… it happened. So while I agree with Mike that you should alert your partner's bids with the meanings that they do actually have, I also think you treat them as having their real meaning. In fact, I can see absolutely no logic behind literally anything else. The Law defining unauthorised information - 16B I think, but don't quote me on it - from partner is specifically about “extraneous” information. The only information in the OP is information that was already held before partner said anything.


Of course, the director and the opponents may not believe you, so while on an ethical level you can do as you wish to get to a good contract, do expect it to be rolled back and for your opponents to lose all respect for you. And on a legal level, Marty and Mike suggest that you are forbidden from using the information you already had, which must be something I'm missing.
7 hours ago
Dominic Cooke edited this comment 7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP doesn't mention misinformation, not sure where you're getting that from.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finally a unanimous poll! And with good reason.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it helps, Michael, I had a Roman Law exam and forgot all about the giveaway! Still, hopefully no one will complain about my priorities on that one.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the ebu it is an offence to indicate impatience, boredom, or that you have nothing to think about during the 10 second pause. I suspect that would extend to counting down, though I don't know that it's ever been enforced.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Crumbs, it's forcing? Life gets worse and worse every day.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the normal meaning - a convention after a 1 opening in a normal system. I think this is a system, produced by someone obsessed by finding major fits and unconcerned with all other bidding, whereby 1 denies a four card major and 1 promises one, unless they have 6 cards in the suit.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it could be short as 0, and that is legal, then of course you must announce it as could be short as zero. Unfortunately, if those are the only provisions allowed by your basic+ chart, it doesn't look legal.

I am, however, with David.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Feel free to record; I know some people record every psyche or just-about-psyche made against them. There's no problem with it, just a matter of personal taste.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're looking for the last option on the poll, Steve.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - why wait? Enter the board number when you get the board, unless you're dealer. Enter the contract after three passes, unless you're on lead. Enter the lead as soon as it hits the table, unless you're dummy.

2 - Absolutely.

3 - no. You can enter it during the play if you hadn't already, but interrupt the play? Nah.

4 - impending time issue? If there's an impending time issue, don't waste time asking the ops to do things that will save much less time than you asking them not to do it. How much time can entering a contract take?

5 - I had a partner who would always enter information into the bridgemate - and write it into the scorecard - before doing anything with his cards. He'd do it before leading and before placing the dummy down. Deeply annoying, but he forgave me for all my terrible misplays so I didn't make a point of it.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…Presumably because it isn't relevant to the discussion?
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“even though the only person besides partner who could see the card was the declarer”

That's how we know.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can definitely say that I wouldn't take a 4 day break from revision less than 3 weeks before my exams if it weren't for the generosity of the EBU and its sponsors in keeping expenses down to train fares and food.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's obvious that, no, this doesn't preclude defending 3X, despite Mike's complaints… but I struggle - and struggle very hard - to find an advantage for X=hearts, 3 = an invite, over the reverse.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, John can find that passage in his post, too, where he's quoted it in full!

I think the problem John finds with the passage is that “responder expects three or more” is not a good way of phrasing it at all, and doesn't actually provide guidance. If opener will always bid 2 with that hand, you might well feel that means responder is expecting it. It's a poorly drafted passage, and it feels as though it should read “responder will bid as if 3 or more were promised”, or something similar.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, I think you've misunderstood - Debbie is suggesting raising the amount that is discounted. Hence, in the OP, she says “I'd like to suggest that it is time to increase this discount” and says this is in order to avoid discouraging youth players.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are only 4 sentences in the op, and half of them are devoted to explaining that “skip bid warnings” are not in use :p

Snark aside… John is exactly right! Skip bid warnings? Why are they at all relevant? There should no relation between stop cards and the idea that you need to wait after a jump - the latter exists independently of the former in the vast majority of governing bodies. And the idea that you might need more time to think about your call/where the auction is likely to go, regardless of your hand, after the opponents jump to game is independent from any regulation at all.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a specific class of calls that's exempted from that.

And which I'm sad to say I'd completely forgotten about before this thread - whoops.
April 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
.

Bottom Home Top