Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jane Eason
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.
Ray,

Mentioning ethics in the poll was relevant to me because the player who reported his partner's revoke believed that he was required by ACBL's Active Ethics policy to expose the revoke. I also hoped folks who voted for options 1 or 3 would not be judged as having less than perfect ethics by those who did not choose those options.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

I intended option 1 to be chosen by a player who follows the laws as he knows them and who plays an actively ethical game, but who believes he has a choice of whether or not to expose partner's revoke.

And I intended option 3 to be chosen by a player who follows the laws as he knows them and who plays an actively ethical game and who additionally believes that exposing partner's revoke is not a choice he is allowed to make.
April 16
Jane Eason edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am of the school that believes “it is wrong to expose my partner's unintentional revoke, as I am required to do the best for my side, as long as I am following the law and practicing active ethics.”

I am also of the school that believes that what is right for me under the law and under active ethics may differ from what is right for you, when the laws clearly give us a choice.

Additional facts:

The tired, old guy who revoked is my husband, a Flight A player.

The opponents who failed to notice the revoke are sound, winning Flight B players.

Aside from the penalty paid, the revoke did not affect the outcome of the board.

My husband's partner, a skilled director, forgot his roll, but his rule was the one I would have made had I been called to the table.

The tricks actually taken by the defense were AK-A-A, one of which was later forfeited to satisfy the revoke penalty.

The side that did not notice a revoke that had no affect on the outcome of the deal was later awarded a trick that allowed them to make a doubled contract which could never have been made otherwise. So, those guys scored a top board unrelated to a bridge result, albeit a legal result.

Would these additional facts have influenced your vote?
April 15
Jane Eason edited this comment April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It didn't occur to me that whether or not damage had occurred might affect one's answer to the poll. In this particular case, declarer scored a doubled 4-level contract on which they had only 9 tricks. The defense took four tricks via AK-A-A.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If an honest person rolls a perfectly balanced honest die once, he has a one in six chance of any of six numbers occurring. If he rolls back to back numbers on that die in two rolls, on the third roll, he still has a one in six chance of rolling each of the six numbers because a die has no memory and each roll is independent of all other rolls. To me this problem is like the problem of, “Which hand is more likely: 13 spades, 13 diamonds, AK7, AQJ, AQ2, AK109?”
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every roll of the die is independent of every other roll, so every time the die is cast, each of the six numbers on the die has an equal chance (1 in 6) of showing up. So if I choose 5 and 6, each of us players has an equal opportunity to win the game. I'd rather play a game where we roll two dice, and I can pick 7.

(Edited to add: I think strategy dictates that I pick 1-3 or 3-1 so I have an equal chance to win when either of my two opponents hits their first number.)
April 8
Jane Eason edited this comment April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I let the result stand. North did say she was willing to play in 3H, but she did not say she was willing to defend 3S. I do not believe the UI was the reason for her bidding on, but I am guessing, as I was not there to inquire.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, any action other than 3D is bizarre. I think I'll give my 0-master point group this hand to next month and see what they do. They all hesitate before every call, so the hesitation would make zero difference. I'll also give it to my Tues. night 99ers, with very few having anything close to 99 master points, and see how what they do.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Way to go, Richard!
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had DEAL EM. The police once stopped my husband and, suspecting that he was a drug dealer, asked about the plate.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice article.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RIP, Steve.
Nov. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither lho nor partner should finger a pass card before bidding. And partner is no more guilty than lho. In fact, I can see how this could be entrapment.

Personally, I don't believe I would ever see lho's action and I doubt I would see partner's. Are you really tall?
Oct. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with the majority. 2S should be natural and this hand should definitely bid.
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bravo!
Sept. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Larry. I'll give it to you in Tunica.
Sept. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Larry, can you guide me to a write up on 4-suit xfers after a 2NT rebid? The only article I found requires Office, which I don't have.
Sept. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm curious about the result at the other table.

I don't believe I could determine what the result would have been with N-S having the correct info.

I would toss the result and give the offending side a penalty. One IMP seems okay to me.
Sept. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, can you have a split score in a team game?
Sept. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why, Richard?
Aug. 26, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top