Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 156 157 158 159
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you talk VERY quickly you can get it under law 12C1d. (results numerous or not obvious). I am second-guessing here but an interpretation of 12C2

2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity:…

could be that because of the UI, no result can be obtained. Obviously I have been taught that this covers situations where the hand cannot be played e.g. due to extraneous information or having been played between wrong players or a pair leaving early, or use of an illegal convention not, generally, those where a result was obtained but has to be corrected.

In this case, since the director decides that 4 was not allowed, he has to decide what would happen otherwise. This could be allowing a double (in which case West might bid 4 - this is allowed, and North might then go onto 4 which might be doubled or 5 bid as a sacrifice)

So we already have several possibilities

3 - NS +1
4 - EW ?
4 - NS =
4X - NS =
5 -EW ?
5X - EW ?

If the director decides that the double is not allowed (because East is trying to take advantage of the fact that West was considering some action), then the contract is simply 3 - making some number of tricks.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit.

The reason is that ‘revoking’ does not involve any ‘judgement’ and, uniquely, has specific rectifications. It also happens (usually) by accident - by which I mean that it is a misunderstanding of the state of the board. (The same of course applies to other ‘rule-book’ decisions e.g. calls and leads out of turn, all of which have prescribed quantitative rectifications)

If you revoke (or make another infraction) deliberately then that is a completely different kettle of fish and a different law applies. (Law 72)

B. Infraction of Law
1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe it was a psychic pause, or ‘walking the dog’ or an attempt to prevent opponents from bidding 4 my suggesting he was thinking of doubling 3 (breach of yet another law).

I have come round to the thinking that when taking a course of positive action could result in a better score, then, even though the specific action chosen is not ‘demonstrably suggested’ by the UI, it is still embargoed by the general duty to ‘carefully avoid’ taking advantage of UI.

Mind you - I still read the law book - from Friday to Monday.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East has no obligations, PROVIDING his partner has no ‘previous’ in forgetting conventional calls - assuming there was no BIT in the 2 call.
July 15
John Portwood edited this comment July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At matchpoints I would cash my Aces - if partner encourages then I'm lucky. If not then I would lead a second club on the offchance declarer had 4 of them.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was whether the phrase “arising from …” applied or was the change of conventional meaning the reason. (Novus actus interveniens) - a new action has intervened.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may be right - the question is: does the word ‘arising’ actually apply to the call made, or just the fact that partner will pass when a comparable call can't be made.

“In Jure Non Remota Causa Sed Proxima Spectatur”
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't NEED lots of points and an excellent suit. Provided the replacement bid SHOWS lots of points and an excellent suit, that is sufficient. (Also provided partner does not allow for the fact that you may not have what you say you have - although law 23C (and others) caters for this situation).

If you do design a system to cater for calls out of turn/ insufficient bids then my advice is to make sure you have no ‘limit bids’ in your system. If you play 1NT = 16-18 balanced then it will be VERY difficult to find a comparable call.

Note that you cannot have a system where the meaning of a call changes following an irregularity by your partner since the fact that your partner has made an irregularity is UI (Law 16C). This does not, of course, prevent the person who made the call out of turn from changing his call in the knowledge that partner must pass the next round - although if the auction is kept alive for another round and partner IS in a position to make a bid, he will have to assume your replacement call actually shows what the partnership agreement was. (Again due to 16C)

Example: (not a good one, but…)

You open 2 out of turn. It is not accepted and parnter opens 1NT. For some reason, if you bid 2, it won't be a comparable call, so you bid 2 knowing partner will be silenced for the next round - even though system-wise the call shows spades.

Horror of horrors: after two passes, your RHO bids 2NT for the minors and his partner then calls 3. Your partner has a maximum 1NT and a 5-card spade suit (as well as 4 hearts). Since your call shows spades NOT bidding 3 (and especially if the call is 3) is most likely a breach of law 73C - and so you end up in a 5-0 spade fit instead of a 6-4 heart fit.
July 13
John Portwood edited this comment July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually it is because the Isle of Wight has a population that is too large for a single seat, but is too small to split into two seats.

In the UK the aim is to have each constituency nearly the same number of voters. However there are geographical considerations.

Most constituencies had between 55,000 and 80,000 members in 2000. The reason for the smaller ones is that by law Wales and Scotland are over-represented and the population in England has increased substantially since 2000. These areas are very rural so it would take much longer to collate and count the votes if evenly spread.

Think of it like Butler scoring with the top and bottom 30 or so constituencies ignored.

The Electoral Commission has proposed amendments to reduce the constituency numbers to 600 and make them more equal in size. However this will remove what has previously been an inherent advantage to the British Labour Party, since in general the constituencies that elect Labour MPs are smaller than those that elect COnservative and thus the Labour Party opposes any alterations - and the left-wing press scream ‘Gerrymandering’ when in fact the opposite is the case.

(The EC is independent. Their proposals can be accepted or rejected by Parliament - but not amended by PArliament.)
July 13
John Portwood edited this comment July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would differ (of course) - in the former your intention is to try and scare the opponents out of their contract by pretending you are strong - and will run if rumbled; in the latter your aim is to keep the opponents out of their contract by making it potentially too dangerous for them to compete - but you won't run if rumbled. A subtle but significant difference.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you underbid by more than a King then that is a psych even if you have the suit you have shown. Strength is as much an aspect of psyching as suit length.

If you are in a habit of making a splinter with two small then your partner has a duty to say (on enquiry, and duly alert the call where required)- “Void showing splinter, but partner has been known to bid it with two small”.

Too many players make ‘tactical bids’ trying to hide behind the “That's just bridge” cloak.

Fortunately I don't play much bridge so my partner can't get any idea of when I make a psych/ tactical bid.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have an agreement that 2NT is just asking for clarification and could be weak or strong then bidding it would not be a psych. And you had better explain it as such to the opponents.

If your agreement is that it is strong and you repeatedly bid it on weak hands to intimidate opponents - then that is a concealed partnership agreement and failure to disclose is a breach (of law 20?)
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If West had a minimum with 5 or 6 diamonds he would have passed in sleep and East would not contemplate bidding at the 4 level or doubling. (IMHO)

Any positive action by East is not carefully avoiding making use of the information that West hasn't got a minimum hand.

Note that even if East took the WRONG action, that is not ‘carefully avoiding’.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a good story in “Why you lose at bridge” (Skid Simon) about a ‘strong’ pair who cut loose with psychic calls against a ‘weak’ pair. The weak pair just bid their cards and eventually the ‘strong’ pair played a grand slam hand in a part score, because they stopped trusting each other.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Basically a web movement (for even tables) is two Mitchells run in opposite directions. I ran a 12 table, 9 round one on Sunday. All I had to do was move a couple of sets of boards at the end of the round onto the relays (bye-stands). (The end tables were some distance apart so I did not want to risk players passing boards into the wrong section!

Odd tables is slightly more tricky. Gordon Rainsford produced an algorithm so that only two sets of boards are used and only one table shares.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the current England manager does seem to have players that listen to him. Of course many of them knew him from his days at the under 21s, where the team did pretty well.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say ‘good luck’. Next tine I hold 16 HCP including QJ stiff, I hope they dovetail so well.

8 losers opposite 8 losers isn't usually game.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure a pair used gaps between the bidding cards placed on the table to communicate information. If this is being done real-time then perhaps they have students.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A soccer football manager in England was once asked how he sorted out confrontations with his players.

“We discuss it privately in my office until he agrees I was right”. (B Clough)
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder why you write 4 +5 (for 11 tricks) but not 4 -3 (for nine)? Seems inconsistent.
July 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 156 157 158 159
.

Bottom Home Top