Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 179 180 181 182
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only concern is whether there may be comments, if the tables go back to compare scores. The TD may have managed to stop that - in which case there is no EI.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All comments subject to polling but my gut reaction is that I cannot see a LA to 4.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 15B does not apply to team play - see note 4.

So we look at law 86

B. Result Obtained at Other Table

1. Single Result Obtained

In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score and the result at the other table between the same contestants is clearly favourable to one side, the Director shall award an
assigned adjusted score .

Note that this is a case of extraneous information 16D.

The TD could also order a re-deal under law 6. (I think)

So if it is an obvious grand slam then we could have a re-deal. If the grand slam depended on two finesses and a break then I think the TD has to give the other side the benefit of what might happen at the other table.

(I don't do much directing of team play, so I expect this to be challenged).
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might have misread or misinterpreted since on reading it does not seem to apply to responses (I do try and make sure that any comments I make about RA procedures are preceded by ‘in England’)
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The blue book states that any call above 1 that could show fewer than four of the suit specified is not natural - and thus is alertable.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have an agreement (explicit or implicit) that 2 can be made on 3 cards then in the EBU this would be alertable.

If you have never done this before or partner has no reason to believe you might do this then no alert would be required.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If South thinks North has borrowed a King - shouldn't North also think 'My hand is a King better off"? That would suggest a cue bid or something, or even 2NT - if played as strong balanced.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those aren't breaches of law, only regulation. Not sure what the position is in Trudeauland, but in England clubs are their own regulating authorities.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you only get the squiggle if there is BOTH an unrecognised word AND a suggestable alternative (meaning a right-click will open up the suggested alternative option).
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would ‘the relaxed game’ have a different category of masterpoints awarded ‘Brown’ or something? If you want your masterpoints to count along with everyone else's (and emost people do!) then surely you have to play the same game to the same rules?
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - but it is a question of semantics.

If the RA feels that the opponents are entitled to know that you have no agreement then the call is alertable. - See definitions.

As I am sure you know law 75 deals with ‘mistaken bid or mistaken call’

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual
understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.

3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.

The question therefore is “Is a null explanation” a description of an agreement.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
all I am pointing out is that experienced players should try and protect themselves whenever possible. There are possible meanings for the double (and the ACBL don't seem to have guidelines as to whether such a double is alertable) and the end of the auction is the best time to ask since you are declaring and thus not likely to be passing UI to your partner.

Put it like this: 15-20 seconds at the table could have resulted in a good score - you had to call the director anyway - and as a TD I would prefer to be called before the play started. Even if you don't want the auction re-opened, you can tell me (away from the table) what you would have done had you known the correct information - which may make me more predisposed to rule in your favour if you are damaged.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe as a matter of course, after the auction (but not the auction period) is ended, you should ask for the explanation of any calls the opponents have made. It won't give you 100% protection but on occasion you may pre-empt a disaster.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You aren't fooling partner - but your LHO is entitled to know that your HSGT do by agreement include values in the suit.

As you surmise - the traits of your opponents are authorised information.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It's just bridge”
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to know how the same bidding system can result in one player playing in a 4-3 fit and not the other.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes such an arrangement can be legal - e.g. after 1NT: playing transfers then jumping to game if you are the client or playing a forcing response if you are the pro. As long as both players have the same meanings to the responses then more than one response can have the same meaning (bad but effective bridge in this case) i.e. an agreement.

I would actually disagree with Mike on his assertion that the record of the % the pro declares not by itself indicative. You can look at a large number of hands and see if the Pro declares a higher percentage of them compared with other pairs. You could also look at the pair's record by itself - out of 1000 hands at random that the pair declare you would expect the pro to declare on 500. If he declared on 650 then the chance that there isn't some agreement (undeclared) for him to do so is minuscule. (< 1 in a million)
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a VM story (inevitably) about HH throwing away masterpoints, but someone retrieved them, and submitting them to the EBU - resulting in him obtaining the lowest possible rank (Club Master)

I certainly remember the masterpoint box at our club - some had been in there for 10 or more years - and I think that, unlike some RAs, the number of masterpoints being awarded at events hasn't changed over the years. (Although the ranks awarded have)

One good? thing about the EBU website is that you can go back and see your history (yearly totals) for 25 years!
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's very dangerous - absolutely nothing on ‘comparable calls’ for instance and comments on Law 12 refer to a procedure that isn't allowable.

Basically it should be consigned to the incinerator - or bleach-wiped.

The danger is that some Club TDs accept it as Gospel.

For a small fee ($10,000 or so) I'll offer to re-write it.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Next hand: client has 15 HCP and the pro opens 3NT. (American, not Acol).
March 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 179 180 181 182
.

Bottom Home Top