Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 ... 133 134 135 136
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lately, I've observed (more than just once or twice) the letter of the law being waived (in cases 1 and 2) in top bracket regionals by advanced or expert players.

Kind of like – “hey, we're not playing in the Spingold.”
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, he seems to be the current CEO's kind of guy. Perhaps he sees the lack of bridge experience as not a problem
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Part of the problem is who are the nationals for?

In today's bridge world, I assume the ACBL wants to appeal to all, within and beyond the NA organization.

In olden days, they were often contrived to reflect the desires of a limited view – I forget the details but there was one that was held in Lancaster PA of all god-forsaken places.

Many of today's very well-off nationals and internationals want (and to some extent, must have) maximum convenience and comfort. Understandably. The ACBL must cater to them as a priority group.

To try to shoe-horn in most of the rest of us, and keep us “happy” most of the time has been and continues to be a difficult challenge.

All in all, the site selections for the most part in recent years strike me as reasonable compromises.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To add to the circuitous record:

I now recall “Bridge Toolkit” Falk-Jacoby, circa 1992 wherein the authors discussed autosplinters (I believe the term “idiot splinter” was mentioned). Later, I once bid 4H after 1S-1NT and played in the x-xxx fit.

Edited to add:

To add to the fun, the legendary Ron Anderson, my RHO, looked at me in bewildered amusement and laughed crazily when I mentioned an idiot's splinter.
May 19
Ed Judy edited this comment May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, repartee at its highest level.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.

I now note the following in BWS 2017:

“One of a major — one notrump — rebid one level above a forcing reverse or jump-shift is an autosplinter (big one-suiter; shortness bid).”
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim,
If you were a MSC panelist, you would not have scored zero.
At least a 10.

PS: I do not mean this unkindly.

Added: PS
May 16
Ed Judy edited this comment May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven't seen any commentary but this isn't a club match point game.

Presumably, most souths visualize a small slam if not an easy grand to bid.

Who knows/wants to guess how many spades East holds?
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2C is Landy you probably don't want to play system on. A number of counter-defenses exist.

If 2D shows a major, Jeff Lehman's suggestion can be appropriate. Other counters can of course be deployed.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Oren's signature segue: “So…”
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No doubt. It seems unfortunate that no one advised Jeff of the 2005 initiative.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to add that Jeff has made the comment before, so it's not off the cuff.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Delightful segment.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, but the post doesn't resonate with me (to each his own as to how much bridge means to one in his own life).
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ryerson has its appeal but I believe all rooms have just one bed.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An Afterword:

Some 10 years ago I gave away almost all of my bridge books. I recall that the late Max Hardy discussed FSF in exquisite, mind-boggling detail in one of his finest efforts:

A 3-in-1 book titled something like “Forcing NT-NMF-4SF.”

Hardy is occasionally demeaned in expert circles, but I can't imagine this treatise to be one.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michal,
Yes and thank you, but I could have saved the day by bidding 3S.
I think it is an instructive deal (and a rather unusual one) , as it relates to the subtleties of 4SF, which is often a problem for non-expert players like you.
May 4
Ed Judy edited this comment May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for your pertinent comments.

It's a Mea Culpa.

As West, I bid 2C as FSF (with 4 small spades, I have no good rebid). I hoped that my belated 2S would clarify. When it did not, and after partner's 2NT rebid, I should have bid 3S and then after 4S, I could have bid 5S and partner would have an easy 6S bid since she held the perfect hand:
AKJ9-AQ6-9642-103.

My West hand was 7542-KJ52-A-AKQ2

We play 1NT 15-17 (not 14-16). Incidentally, in the abstract,
the West hand opposite a 12-14 count 4=3=4=2 brings in 12 tricks 44%, double dummy (not a good slam). This one, with the SQ onside, makes 13 tricks.
May 4
Ed Judy edited this comment May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you talking the Big Show only, rather than the 0-6000.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is Law 16, in its entirety, I think.
MEGO. I'll try again in the morning.
Even though a run-of-the-mill director, I would not pass the the quiz.

Thanks for the reference.


LAW 16
AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED
INFORMATION
A.
Players’ Use of Information
1.
A player may use information in the auction or
play if:
(a)
it derives from the legal calls and plays of
the current board (including illegal calls and
plays that are accepted) and is unaffected
by unauthorized information from another
source; or
(b)
it is authorized information from a with-
drawn action (see D below); or
©
it is information specified in any law or
regulation to be authorized or, when not
otherwise specified, arising from the legal
procedures authorized in these Laws and in
regulations (but see B1 below); or
(d)
it is information that the player possessed
before he took his hand from the board (Law
7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of
this information.
2.
Players may also take account of their estimate of
their own score, of the traits of their opponents
and any requirement of the tournament regula-
tions.
24
Chapter IV – Irregularities
3.
No player may base a call or play on other infor
-
mation (such information being designated extra-
neous).
4.
If there is a violation of this law causing damage,
the Director adjusts the score in accordance with
Law 12C.
B.
Extraneous Information from Partner
1.
(a)
After a player makes available to his partner
extraneous information that may suggest
a call or play, as for example by a remark,
a question, a reply to a question, an un-
expected* alert or failure to alert, or by
unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed,
special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or
mannerism, the partner may not choose from
among logical alternatives one that could de-
monstrably have been suggested over another
by the extraneous information.
(b)
A logical alternative action is one that,
among the class of players in question and
using the methods of the partnership, would
be given serious consideration by a signifi-
cant proportion of such players, of whom it is
judged some might select it.
2.
When a player considers that an opponent has
made such information available and that dam-
age could well result, he may announce, unless
prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which
may require that the Director be called), that he
reserves the right to summon the Director later.
The opponents should summon the Director im-
*
i.e.,
unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.
25
Chapter IV – Irregularities
mediately if they dispute the fact that unauthor
-
ized information might have been conveyed.
3.
When a player has substantial reason to believe
that an opponent who had a logical alternative
has chosen an action that could have been sug-
gested by such information, he should summon
the Director when play ends*. The Director shall
assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he
considers that an infraction of law has resulted in
an advantage for the offender.
C.
Extraneous Information from Other Sources
1.
When a player accidentally receives unauthorized
information about a board he is playing or has
yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by
overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing
cards at another table; or by seeing a card be-
longing to another player at his own table before
the auction begins, the Director should be noti-
fied forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the
information.
2.
If the Director considers that the information
could interfere with normal play, he may, before
any call has been made:
(a)
adjust the players’ positions at the table, if
the type of contest and scoring permit, so
that the player with information about one
hand will hold that hand; or
(b)
if the form of competition allows of it, order
the board redealt for those contestants; or
©
allow completion of the play of the board,
standing ready to award an adjusted score if
* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.
26
Chapter IV – Irregularities
he judges that unauthorized information may
have affected the result; or
(d)
award an artificial adjusted score.
3.
If such unauthorized information is received after
the first call in the auction has been made and
before completion of the play of the board, the
Director proceeds as in 2© above.
D.
Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
When a call or play has been withdrawn as these
Laws provide:
1.
For a non-offending side, all information arising
from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether
the action be its own or its opponents’.
2.
For an offending side, information arising from
its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn
actions of the non-offending side is unauthor
-
ized. A player of an offending side may not
choose from among logical alternative actions
one that could demonstrably have been suggested
over another by the unauthorized information.
May 3
Ed Judy edited this comment May 3
1 2 3 4 ... 133 134 135 136
.

Bottom Home Top