Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1003 1004 1005 1006
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You sound as if you think a pair's agreements are a matter of law. They aren't.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West is fishing for some way to get a better result than he got at the table. :-(
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That Precision 1 opening requires an announcement, not an alert.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That same wording is in the alert chart.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is not a relay IMO, because it doesn't ask opener to describe his hand. 4 SA Texas requires an alert.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Backups are a good thing. :-)
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hm. If I respond 2 to partner’s 1NT and partner announces ‘transfer’ should I immediately alert his announcement?
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the ACBL 2 here requires an alert as well. Robin’s correct response to ‘transfer’ would have been to raise his hand and call ‘director, please’.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘Interesting’ is one word for it.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. An inferior play is a normal play.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It’s Tim’s fault. Everything is Tim’s fault. :-)
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hm. If there are no logical alternatives at all, does that mean South should refuse to take a call? :-)
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it? Or is it 'given the new AI, there is no LA to <whatever action the player takes>"?
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps. Seems to me the alternative is to assume partner will always make the bonehead play. If that's the case, why play with him?
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does that work, given the law?
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws used to caveat “careless or inferior” by adding “but not irrational”, but that last has been removed in the 2017 laws. We can't assume the lawmakers didn't mean it when they did that, even if in fact they didn't, unless and until they tell us they didn't mean it.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
New Law 44H: If a player is found to have failed to follow suit at any time during the play of a hand, his opponents will receive a score of average plus on the board. The player will receive a procedural penalty of 1 IMP or 25% of a top, as appropriate, in addition to a score of average minus on the board.

Would that satisfy you, Michael?

I might suggest that the revoker should be shot to insure he won't revoke again but that might be a bit much. Maybe.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who says a defender claiming circumvents anything? If there's a normal play by the claimer's partner that invalidates the claim, then the claim is invalid.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Rolled the contract back” is unclear. If the director said, at the table, something like “north can't bid 3, the contract is 2, play it out” then that is director error (see law 81C3). If the director allowed the auction to continue, and later adjusted the score to that for a 2 contract, well, that's what she's supposed to do.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I do not think that if the play had not continued that anyone would have considered the dA a normal play when holding the AQ and needing to beat the jack in dummy.”

Is it careless to play the ace here? Or inferior? IMO it's both. However, that's normal, in the eyes of the law. And considering that's what he did at the table, how could it be otherwise?

I'm sure that if a director ruled the claim invalid on the grounds that it would be normal to play the A, at least two people would be very upset with him. Gee, does that mean he should rule the other way> Then at least two people would be upset with him. Oh, I know: score the claim as valid for the defense and invalid for the declaring side. Now everybody's happy — except those of us who think directors should rule according to the law, and not out of fear of people being upset with them.

'The fact that the dA was played is an anomaly that somehow needs to be required with the wording of “normal”, “careless”, and “inferior” and “class of player” in the laws.'

I have no idea what this means.

A careless play is “normal” in the eyes of the law. An inferior play is “normal” in the eyes of the law. There is no caveat in the law that a play may be so careless, or so inferior, as to no longer be “normal”. That may not be what the lawmakers intended. What is it DBurn said about that? Oh, yeah. “We hang for what they wrote.”

Don't like it? Get the law changed.
22 hours ago
Ed Reppert edited this comment 22 hours ago
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1003 1004 1005 1006
.

Bottom Home Top