Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 660 661 662 663
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two pairs at the club here played in 6NT making 6. Another went down 1. My partner played it in 4, making 5. One pair was in 5 making 6, another in 6 making, and another in 6 down 1. We got an average.

IIRC, our SA auction went (uncontested) 1-1-1-3-3-3-4-P.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two things wrong with “the clubs are good”. The first is he has not stated a line of play, in violation of Law 68C. The second is that he might block the suit, and he didn't mention that possibility. I'm not giving him five tricks.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on what, Steve?
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hehe. Actually, his name's Bill. :-)
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've heard that, or something very like it, exactly once. The guy who said it (yelled it actually) has a tendency to be a PITA. BTW, the commotion caused me to blow the 3NT contract I was trying to play at another table. Really pissed me off. :-(
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably the “last hand”, currently being dealt, is nominally if not actually going into the “first board”. If so, I don't see a problem.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The word was not “play”, but “follow”. Though I don't think it matters much.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Smalltalk was a programming language developed, iirc, at Xerox PARC, and a huge influence on the development of the Macintosh.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not. We do it routinely here.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“These days everyone has a runout”.

Not around here.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should never call the director “on” somebody. :-)
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then it shouldn't say “should” it should say “does”. Or “calls”, as in “declarer calls for a card from dummy by stating the rank and denomination of the card”. This “establishes procedure without suggesting that a violation be penalized”. Or it could be “declarer may call for a card from dummy by stating the rank and denomination of the card”, in which case “failure to do it is not wrong”.

OTOH, it could be the case that where the rules of a game are concerned, what is written is the “real meaning” of the rule. And, call me Secretary Bird if you like, that would be my preference.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The current General Convention Chart has, under “Definitions § 3” “A simple overcall in a suit is natural if, by agreement, it shows four or more cards in the suit named.” So a 1 overcall on three cards is not natural. Item 1 under “Competitive” on the chart allows “CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.” (Why this is in all caps I have no idea). I don't see anything on the chart that would permit an overcall on three cards in direct seat, unless over an artificial or 1NT opening bid.

In a 2/1 or SA context or the like, over 1 on my right, I might bid 1 with your hand one. 1 with your hand two is considerably less attractive, but I suppose still possible.

I don't know if the regulators consider an overcall on three cards egregious, but they do say it's illegal, whatever their reasons. What can we do? Convince them to change the rules, or try to. Or live with it. (I haven't looked at the proposed new charts wrt this, there may be some pertinent changes there.)
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting ruling. Might have been legal under some previous version of the laws, but I don't think it would be legal under the current version.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Picky, picky. :-)

Perhaps the route should be to make it absolutely clear that 46B is not intended to give permission to declarers to violate 46A. I would also change “should” to “shall” in 46A and ensure that when 46A is violated declarer almost always (I'd give a warning for a first offense) get a PP. And then I would train directors to actually give the penalty.
12 hours ago
Ed Reppert edited this comment 12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I think your second suggestion stretches the law too much.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it legal to ask your partner, after the screen is raised, what information he was given by his opponent?
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The director takes south away from the table”

Whatever for? North has seen South's hand. The deal is unplayable. Average plus to EW, average minus to NS. PP to North for taking South's hand out of the board. Next board.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have asked the director to read the relevant law(s) from the book. If he balks, ask to speak to the DIC. If he is the DIC, request a review of his ruling IAW with the laws of bridge and any legal regulations in place (“you can't appeal” is not legal even in a written regulation).

If all else fails, report the incident to the director's field supervisor.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's in my Oxford American English Dictionary, and its British equivalent. But then, “contact” is a verb in both of those. :-)
14 hours ago
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 660 661 662 663
.

Bottom Home Top