Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Adams
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 622 623 624 625
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wondering if the desire to over apply this law stems from lack of imagination on how the law might be needed with the correct interpretation and the faulty notion that every clause must add something to the law therefore we must stretch to find it.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too would like Henrik's examples.

I gave an obvious one earlier (knowledge that I had just one more card in the suit I failed to follow).

Another: Lead out of turn.. partner is not allowed to know why partner led out of turn. Perhaps partner was eager to lead through declarer, and the lead of a Jack might deny a higher honor.. So you are not authorized to know partner has no higher honor, but you are authorized to know partner was forced to play the Jack when the suit is led.

more: An opening 2 is led out of turn. That the 2 is a penalty card is AI. That the 2 was 4th best is UI.

And finally, the 2 in our above case was led out of turn. (say declarer won the trick.) Partner is not allowed to read that 2 as suit preference when it is finally forced to be led.
Jan. 16
John Adams edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I heard him say that forcing a meaning on the card played avoids partner deciding which meaning to apply based on frown or no frown.

I find that a poor justification for an already flawed interpretation of the law.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a practical matter, 2 game forcing works better. 1 needs much stronger follow-ups that few partnerships possess as you must be able to set hearts in a game force below game for hands like Frances presents.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
50 E 4 solves the issue I see arising from your example.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear David, Sometimes a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge.

Not being allowed to know “the circumstances it was created” is not at all the same thing as not being allowed to know “the circumstances it was played.”

This is not redundant with anything.

You are allowed to know the circumstances it was played.

If you believe they played the card in an “unhappy manner” or a “happy manner” you can rule UI attaches.

Ever see George Bloomer play a card? Every card, exact same expression and tempo. I have tried but failed to emulate it. You would make a rule that assumes such a player was always giving UI by the manner that he played?


When your reading of a rule fails the fundamental fairness check, perhaps you should reread. The problem with too many lawyers in this world is you can prove 2=3 and it takes a phd to figure out the lie.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play bracket 1 if they let you.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can give a pretty easy example of what it might refer to.

You fail to follow suit, then say, Oooooopps I have a heart. Knowledge of the circumstances of the penalty card, such as, you replace the card with your only remaining heart is not authorized.

Clearly the rule is intended to avoid extraneous information being authorized.

I am sticking to my guns on this, Ray you have it wrong.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nonsense Jeff. The 2 of hearts was forced. It conveyed less information than if it had been done by choice. Your reading of this law is very strange.
Jan. 15
John Adams edited this comment Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, there is no advantage gained from not knowing what the 2 means. Declarer is at an advantage because the defense must guess. We don't need to compound that advantage through a strange interpretation of the laws.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, BS. You have no information. A smooth 2 would ask for a club. A forced 2 communicates nothing.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a weak field, I would not want to play slam. In a strong field, I would. In any field North is worth another try.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean Abstain = other?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, double of 2 there is penalty. There is no point in a takeout double, since responder has denied 4 spades and 3 hearts. We like to make takeout doubles in case partner has a stack and we can avoid bidding when defending is right. If we know bidding is right, we can just bid.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. That is clearly not the intent of having a minor penalty card. The intent seems to me that the player CAN'T signal, not that they player must somehow send the wrong signal.

Clearly the purpose of the law is to protect declarer from a defender showing two spot cards and being able to disambiguate a signal from the choice made.

I could see it now, a defender let's slip a couple of spot cards by accident, and suddenly we want declarer to be able to pick the one he wants and force his opponent to interpret declarer's choice as partner's suit preference.

No way do I believe the framers of this law intended this interpretation.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having slept on this, I interpret 50E3 differently.

“Information from the circumstances under which it was played”

Seems to me is intended to ensure the offending side does not get extra information, or information that is unauthorized.

In this case, the player does not have extra information, the player has less information since the opportunity to signal has been denied. Declarer is not damaged by this, declarer is given a free chance at the defenders not guessing right.

I find the harsh interpretation that would require a club be returned to be twisting the words, and violating the intent.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It means that partner is one of those players that thinks you need points to bid your long suit freely in competition. Thank partner for removing ambiguity on the future success of this partnership.

At the table, I pass 4. If I am going to have a disaster for playing the wrong contract, partner gets to declare it and I get to be amused.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's close to my rule.

Mine, If Y is lower than X, take out. If higher than X, Penalty.

So we are different on two auctions. 1 P 1N 2 X would be takeout for me, and 1 P 2N 2 X would be penalty.

The notion is simple… I don't make takeout doubles that partner can't convert. There is no point. Just bid.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would actually be a negative inference, which in my jurisdiction is not alertable, but if asked about style, you would have to fully disclose.

For example,

1 P 1 1 P - Playing support doubles, pass would deny 3 Spades (negative inference) and though the double is alertable, pass is not. (specific example used in alert procedures, so I have no doubt on this one)

Generally speaking, pass varies greatly from person to person, and we would have to alert every pass if we wanted “full disclosure.”

My choice at mirth is not disclosure related, it was picking at David for his belief that if the hand does not match the alert description there was clearly MI.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have no idea what partner would have done given free will.

I am undecided on my ruling. Forcing the minor penalty card to carry meaning can't really be the intention of the law. The intention of the rule is the penalty be minor, and we can't communicate anything by varying the spot. That's entirely different from being forced to somehow communicate the wrong thing. But the opinions thus far do create some doubt. I certainly would not have ruled that way at the table without reason to suspect there was an issue.
Jan. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 622 623 624 625
.

Bottom Home Top