Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeroen Wieland
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There is no further penalty for the same player”

Indeed, there is not, but 64C still applies as it deals with restoring equity and not with penalties.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The only thing that has to be watched out for is it is technically illegal to intentionally revoke if, say, you revoke
once, notice it, and no revoke again intentionally to save a trump and now get equity instead of facing a penalty.”

64C will be applied for the 2nd revoke. Equity is then assessed with respect to the situation after the 1st revoke. So, again, the 2nd revoke can never win. The 2nd revoke can lose (sometimes), for instance if the 2nd revoke is discovered before it becomes established.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not if it's on the CC.”

Also if it's on the CC. North knows that either (or both) the non-alert was wrong, or the content on the cc was wrong. There is no reason to assume that info from the CC trumps info from a (non)-alert when they contradict each other.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the imps would be weighted, so the non-linearity of the IMP scale does not matter
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should have mentioned that 3 was non-constructive
Dec. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(15)16-18 balanced
June 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt that any lead by partner would be correct
March 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the three options are not mutually exclusive
March 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As south (with another hand), I really like the availability of an SOS XX if the opps will always take out my XX
Feb. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no
Feb. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it did. that 2 was too strong to overcall directly was not in contention
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
not an established partnership at this moment (we were 5 or 6 years ago). The forcing nature of 2S was never explicitly discussed at that time. If there were ever any implicit agreements about 2S, they have been faded from my memory (but not necessarily from my partner's memory).

All calls were perfectly in tempo.
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I probably should have made it clear that this pair does not play leaping Michaels. How would leaping Michaels work after a multi 2 where their major is unknown?
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
dbl of 2 is either 13-15 (semi)bal, or too strong for a normal overcall
Feb. 10, 2019
Jeroen Wieland edited this comment Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the answer seems to be irrelevant. If the written defence is part of the opps’ system card, it means that either partner can consult it during the auction. It does not mean that a player is allowed to know whether partner consulted it or not. The only information you get from partner that is allowed to be used is from his/her calls and plays
Feb. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For non-English and Welsh people, …”

I think most Welsh people would like to be referred to as “non-English” as well :-)
Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But certainly Law 12.A.1 covers me very clearly. The violation not being merely making an insufficient bid, but the violation being making an insufficient bid when the player knew darn well that a sufficient bid would show a better hand that the player does not hold.”

12.A.1 does not apply, as the laws prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed: see law 27

if you are talking about 72b1: we are now not talking about rectification, but about procedural penalties.
Nov. 9, 2018
Jeroen Wieland edited this comment Nov. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are your criteria for a redouble after 1C-(X)?
Nov. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and South receives an educational lecture
Oct. 22, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top