Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 887 888 889 890
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the irregularity has already happened it's no longer possible to prevent it, so I don't think 9A3 applies.
40 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes and no. A player may ask questions at his turn to bid or play. Once East has made the opening lead, it's no longer his turn, so he has to wait until it's his turn again.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director needs to understand what constitutes damage. In particular that there must have been an infraction. It is not the case that if somebody gets a bad result there must’ve been an infraction.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rulings should be based on facts, not speculation.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One might give a procedural penalty for failure to have a system card, but that in itself is not sufficient to justify a score adjustment.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Legally, “damage” requires that there has been an infraction.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you ask the director for the legal basis of his ruling, and he can't or won't explain it to you, appeal. If he tells you that you can't appeal, ask him to show you the law that says so. If he can't or won't do that, find another club.

Another point: if E/W were damaged, there was an infraction. Ask the director what the infraction was, and then ask him to show you the law that says it's an infraction.
Feb. 14
Ed Reppert edited this comment Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rather play Truscott than Mathé. However, I have partners. :-)
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Marie Antoinette said, ”let them eat steak!” :-)
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like you did it to go along with the herd. :-)

Frankly I think it might’ve been better if the herd had gone along with you.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It can be claimed”? Lots of things can be claimed. It’s the director’s responsibility to decide if the claim is valid. I don’t think it’s possible to ensure your side is never in a situation where something can be claimed.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The rule “if your partner breaks tempo you must pass” does not exist.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have to try both rules and see which one works better
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said, a review is not the same thing as an explanation of the bidding. A review is simply a restatement of the auction, including alerts and announcements.

Around here, the bidding cards start disappearing even before the final pass is on the table. In fact, frequently it never gets on the table. :-(
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you lead low from an odd number, the rule of 10 will work only if you led from a five card suit. If you lead from a seven card suit you need the rule of eight.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not how I read it, Steve. <shrug>

On the EBU thing, I don't know why either, but I suspect they found that 10% turns out not to be the deterrent they thought it would be. Or maybe it was, but times have changed.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with 10%, though I note that the EBU has recently gone from 10% standard PP to 25.

If you truly have evidence that indicates that a player may have violated 72C, yes, you can adjust the score on that basis. But not on the basis that poor players played poorly.
Feb. 13
Ed Reppert edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A review of the auction and an explanation of it are two separate and distinct things. You are not required to ask for “a complete auction review with meanings”, and if you ask for just an explanation of the auction, a review should not be included.

If the ACBL would get its collective head out of its ass on this one point and require people to leave the bidding cards on the table until the opening lead is faced there should be no need for anyone to ask for a review of the bidding (although declarer and the defender on declarer's right can each ask for a review before they play to trick one.

IMO at this point (during the clarification period) in explaining your side's auction each player should state what his partner has shown. There's really no need, if full disclosure is given (as it is required to be) to give and attach a meaning to each bid. A player “is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding” (Law 20F1).
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I'm tryin' ta think, but nothin's happening'!” – Curly Joe Howard
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it's only unethical if he knows he shouldn't do it.
Feb. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 887 888 889 890
.

Bottom Home Top