Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 ... 104 105 106 107
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Under law 20: East is fully entitled to ask a question at his turn to call provided he is not compelled to pass. (at the risk of giving UI for enquiring about a single call).

My own concern was whether his question demonstrably suggested a club lead - but he asked only about South's bid and not North's reply if I am reading the OP correctly.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We already have South probably breaching Law 75 - which is a “must” condition. And this event is a ‘top flight’ section so we have to assume NS are aware of the laws. I think a PP is definitely warranted. There should also be a PP for the ‘unauthorized panic’ as well. (In fact under the new laws “a penalty may be assessed” appears for breach of law 73C1 (carefully avoid taking advantage of UI) - so this is a pretty strong guidance.)

I am 100% in favour of the ACBL TD's comments about North's potential actions and consequence.

(If the 6 bid is allowed, surely North is going to bid 7 or 7 - after all he thinks 4 is MSS (or should do!) and he has the Ace of what is South's other suit - which he has not promised - the actual score is going to have to be weighted.)

Law 75 (current laws)
… must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The K obviously didn't work at the table. I can only assume East came down to J AQ in the endgame.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the whole reason for the automatic 1 (or 2) trick penalty is to save the Director having to work out what might have happened had the revoke not taken place. (With Law 64C as a backup in case of extreme losses)

Of course to deliberately revoke is an infraction (72B1) which is the strongest prohibition (“must not”) and so (nearly) is trying to conceal it (“may not”).
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Anyone can try and prevent an irregularity . . .”
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A summary of changes in rectifications/ procedures more appropriate as a basis for TDs is at www.portwood.co.uk/bridgetd.pptx
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 made when the Ace of Spades was ruffed and declarer set up the hearts.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no reason why you can't give a procedural penalty for someone not checking who they were supposed to be playing and what the correct boards should be - after all it is displayed in the Bridgemates and/or the movement card on the table.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the effect of 50E1 means that if you had, for example, a bidding decision where it was 50% one way, 50% for an alternative and the choice you were going to make anyway is supported by the penalty card then you are free to make that decision without worry that it would be rolled back as the other choice is obviously a LA.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and  explanations given or not given.

(It's been widened a bit - stops people saying “How's your aunt in Virginia” when you have a rubbish hand.) Or e.g. the manner in which you ask you partner "Having none?

With regards to 2) I would much rather have something about players having to accept the rulings of their RA if they are found guilty of such an action.
April 21
John Portwood edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To put the board there - correctly orientated.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 40 is interesting (new version)

“(iv) The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.”


The current laws say

“3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.”


The EBU WHite book says

(i) Under Law 40B3, a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

So this will have to be changed as they no longer have the power to disallow the second part of the rule.

This means that

Now initially I thought that this was an error - that if opponents make an infraction you could take advantage of it with pre-prepared understanding variations.

Now it looks like it means the RA can't stop a side saying “If we know partner is silenced the next time it is his turn to call, all calls will be natural”.
April 21
John Portwood edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not often penalised - however IIRC the last part of the law says

“2.no player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to  rectification.”

So how can they do anything unless there is a director there to 'explan all matters in regard to rectification"?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh I agree - the law is logical in the reasons for its existence - it is just going to raise problems in its execution. The previous version was an attempt to get the ‘correct’ result for all the boards in the round with the ‘correct’ players, this version has the effect of simplifying procedure of what to do, but at the cost of a pair being left ‘dangling’ for 5-7 minutes (and then the TD/ players remembering to reinstate them for the second and subsequent boards, before the error is compounded.)
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law that says that AV+ can only be awarded for a side “in no way at fault”. You were late and overstepped the last round - that cannot be interpreted as being “no way at fault”.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes that is my interpretation - however, as I say, for a while I would take the liberty of assuming I was being called to explain the new laws and advise the table of the alternative - until the knowledge of the option becomes more widely known. After all, disputed claims don't occur very often for each player. I have amended the slide to make that clearer.

(Obviously the players should realise the consequences of asking for a Law 70 ruling)

(edited to expand rationale)
April 20
John Portwood edited this comment April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10 years ago, in the infancy of online bridge, I scored +3120 in 1XX + 6: http://community.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/poorbridge/094.php
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - and of course director also knows the situation, and that might affect his play.

Law 72C (old law 23) could also be invoked - if partner could have known that playing the Ace would help you plan the defence.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pair meet the board later on (most likely!) then I think we could get by on law 16D - extraneous information from other sources. After all they ‘accidentally’ sat at the wrong table.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are going to be two pairs who can't play the board against the correct opponents - the pair who arrived at the table to find the auction had already started, and the pair who would have played the wrong pair in the course of the movement.

It would seem equitable (if time allowed) for them to play the board against each other. If not then I suspect you would have to pretend that they played the board against each other and award an artificial adjusted score to the result.
April 19
1 2 3 4 ... 104 105 106 107
.

Bottom Home Top