Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jacob Duschek
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the organizer should decide on a policy and inform the players of it. It is easier to handle players complaining about an official policy than players complaining about each other.

Many clubs in Denmark have a rule that players may not begin a new board when there are less than 5 minutes left of the round, awarding 50-50 for cancelled boards. This seems to be generally accepted by their players.

The alternative is penalties, now that trying to keep the tournament flowing without penalties seems to fail.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a difference. If a player makes a bid suggested by UI (over logical alternatives), he is breaking the rules and can only lose by doing so.

In case of an insufficient bid, using the (authorized) information from the insufficient bid may be the only way to get a decent result, and depending on the conditions he may well keep it. Or the adjustment may be minor compared to the risk involved when shooting.

That said, I see the point you are making. Constructing some example hands might be interesting.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plus, if you accept 1, West will know less about East's hand.

Most hands which respond 1 to a 1 opening will either double or bid 2 over a 1 overcall, so if you don't accept, East will likely make the same call he would have made if he had seen the 1 bid, and without getting his side into any trouble.

However, when you accept 1, West will not know to which of the two categories this particular 1 response belongs. He probably cares, you probably don't.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure it has been made entirely clear, but …

Information from the 1 bid is authorized for West. OK, that part has been made entirely clear.

If West uses the information from the 1 bid, the TD considers adjusting the score. In that case, the question is not “what would have happened if West had not used the information”, but “what would have happened if East had not bid 1 in the first place”.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A two-trick adjustment seems more consistent with the principles in Law 64A, and the discarding revoke followed by a ruffing revoke may well be a contingency that has not really been considered. I find the current wording absolutely unambiguous (for one trick), but I agree that a change would make sense.

That being said, with the revoke laws being too complicated for many as they are, I would not exactly call it a pressing issue whether declarer should be handed two tricks neither of which he could never win, or only one of them.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
64B2 says quite clearly that the second revoke is a 0-trick revoke and not a 2-trick revoke. Not sure whether this was intended, but if we understand the question as “what is the correct ruling according to the law”, I don't see why we should rule contrary to the laws.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or you have to convince the TD that there was UI after all.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given what players waste their time on during play, I don't see why entering the lead should be an issue. Much more time would be saved if we do away with the requirement to enter the results.

In a serious tournament, there is hardly room for discussing this. In a club game, the management should simply decide based on what they think their members prefer.

As for people who enter the queen of trumps as a lead to locate it, unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure to play against such players.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Call the director and ask for a ruling on what seems to be an illegal bid in view of the UI from partner.

If this is a local club and E-W are weak players, using a recorder system would be far too much.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 as a transfer is clearly alertable. So whether 2 as a natural signoff is alertable or not, a player cannot reasonably infer that a non-alerted 2 shows spades. Therefore, I see no justification for adjusting the score.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, you have a point. East can pseudo-endplay South by leading a small heart from his hand. South wins with the 8 (since North must play the 2), but instead of returning a heart into the AQ, South can simply play a club and hold declarer to nine tricks.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… but when he makes the right play I see no justification for taking it away from him whatever the perceived reason for his making the play is. I could understand a split ruling giving E-W a score of +130 if it is judged that they damaged by the the director's explanation …”

If it is judged that North makes the right play because of a TD error, E-W is damaged from that and the score must be adjusted, e.g., a split weighted ruling as suggested by John Portwood.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't see why South is not allowed to duck once partner corrects to a small club.”

As per Law 62C2, South is actually obliged to duck if partner corrects to a small club. He may only change his play if East changes his.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. Law 62C says that North can correct his revoke, and that East may thereafter change his card, and if he does so, South may change his. This would not make sense if North may not know which cards were played and could thus be changed.

If the cards played were UI in this case, and both the K and 5 are logical alternatives, North would be obliged to duck if South has ducked, and to play the K under partner's A if he had played that.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You cannot give a non-offending side an adjusted score that is worse than their table result.”

Law 12C1 says that the TD must adjust to whatever would have been likely. It does not say that a non-offending side can never get worse than the table result.

Consider the following example: South plays 6 missing the AK and leads a spade off dummy. East revokes, and West wins the A. East discovers his revoke, and the TD is called, who for some reason says that South can either demand that East play his highest or his lowest spade. 6 made, but I don't think South should keep that result.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, when reading Law 50E1, it is not altogether clear that inferences from the penalty card are UI:

Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who had UI?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the first Danish Bridge Festival was held in 2005, the Danish Open teams tournament was introduced. The ambition was that it would eventually turn into something similar to the Chairman's Cup in Sweden. The number of participating teams was usually around 18-20 teams. We got the feedback that the club players did not enjoy playing the strong players and therefore preferred other side events.

So a couple of years later, the tournament was split into two. The Danish Open continued with appr. 18 teams per year, while the tournament for the club players grew from 24 teams on the first occasion to 118 teams in 2014.

In 2015 we decided to merge the tournaments with a slightly different format. It now contains one top flight with the 14 strongest teams playing a round-robin, while the rest of the teams play Swiss divisions of appr. 30 teams per division according to their strength. The tournament has grown to more than 200 teams, and everybody is happy to play against players of their own approximate strength.

So we have appr. 180 teams who do not play the top flight and are happy to do so. Of course, we think these people are crazy because they really ought to enjoy getting hammered by a stronger team after any win in a big Swiss. We will never understand them. But we have decided to accept the crazy opinion of a 90% minority when we realize that we can organize a tournament of 200 teams instead of 18.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also used to play the 4/ responses allowing responder to make either partner declarer, but found that the opponents are too happy about the opportunity to do something useful with our bids. 4 as P/C seems to occur far more frequently than the long heart suit. My initial reply would be to bid 2 followed by 4, but I see the merit in using the discardable convention and bid 4 in order to pass partner's transfer bid.

Might as well agree 4 as a transfer to 4
June 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top