Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 160 161 162 163
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course if the ACBL and other RAs adopted the EBU NGS model there would be no problems at all - worldwide! Everyone would have a (transferable) absolute grade.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say it comes under 74A

2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of
the game.

To add on something - it is perectly alright to try and read an opponent (subject to the above), but you are not allowed to try and convey false information by putting on mannerisms deliberately. - Law 73

2. If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

The question of course is : are you an ‘innocent player’ if you try and pick up a ‘tell’? consider.

1) Opponent groans in the auction as you reach a slam. Is there a demonstrable bridge reason for this? You take a 2-way finesse into his hand and… he turns up with the Queen and you go down.

2) LHO opens with 3. You look towards him (like the player in the OP), to try and pick up what he thinks of the pre-empt - and he manages to so disguise his demeanour that you guess wrongly. Are you innocent?
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No John - it is definitely a claim

A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim ‐ for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

Nothing there about showing cards to both defenders.

I am also pleased that it was an ‘ex-partner’ of Ray since his action is a breach of bridge etiquette - law 74B and thus presumably falls foul of ZT/ BB@B.

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You shouldn't be telling your partner anything - it is up to the presumed declarer to make the choice without conferring.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Practice makes perfect.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a line of play that will result in you not losing a trick then you can include it in your comprehensive claim statement. e.g. “I will cash the AK, if the Queen, Jack falls doubleton then I make 10 otherwise only 9”.

Failing that, you do have the right to call the director to check the hand during the correction period and ask for the concession of the trick to be cancelled if it could not be lost by any normal play commensurate with your claim statement.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the EBU perfectly fine at level 4 (usual tournament level). 8 points is the minimum and conforming to the rule of 18 in 1st and 2nd.

At level 2 there must be 11+ points or 8+ points and obey the rule of 19. Since beginners aren't expected to have to cope with such a barrage.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regrettably this is becoming more and more a problem.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when he plays a card. The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play.”

Nothing in there about a player having the right to ask partner if he wants a review of the auction or the meaning of any calls.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that technically you are allowed to ask “Any questions partner?” since that is “solely for partne's benefit” and thus a breach of law 20G1. Yes partner has the right to ask questions, but not the right to be informted by you that he does have the right - it is up to him!
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing to stop you having fun - but if you are talking in loud voices and disturbing the concentration of other players then they have every right to ask the TD to intervene.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One peeve I have is the opposite - players who leave the results of the round they have just played still displayed on the Bridgemate when they leave (during a Howell). No one at my club has yet done it, but technically the director should be called.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that your “it wins” would come as a concession.

1. Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

And then 68C comes into play

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does it refer to other tricks?

“For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress.”
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a director - not being called to the table at the appropriate time. It almost always a) makes the ruling twice as hard and b) gives the side ruled against the impression that the innocent side are trying to win through the lawbook what they lost at the table.

(Yes I KNOW you can ‘reserve your rights’ following UI however it is much better getting the director since I estimate that 90% of bridge players don't know the ramifications.)
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lengthy postmortems probably come under ZT (or BB@B) as being discourteous to other bridge players.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South should have bid 7: if North has 3 key cards and a heart void then 7 will most likely make. If North only has one Key card and a heart void then (as we see) 6 doesn't.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To bid RKCB missing one of he top honours is unfortunate, to do so missing two smacks of carelessness, but to do so missing three is criminal.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends what is on the CC. I suppose if partner plays very light third in hand (which is on the CC) but you don't then that should be added. Similarly if the CC asks for strength of jump overcalls.

A magnifying glass is obviously going to be an essential part of bridge equipment soon - if not microdots and a microscope.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The EBU guidelines on style are (partially)

D 3 Members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Any relevant information about style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where appropriate, disclosed on the system card.
Sept. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 160 161 162 163
.

Bottom Home Top