Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 127 128 129 130
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2.1.2.2 Requirements in advance

Players requiring stationary positions, strong lighting, pre-sorted cards or any other special assistance are requested to notify their needs in advance when entering tournaments, and arrangements will be made for the TDs on site to deal with the practical arrangements.

2.1.3 Sorted hands
The TD may arrange that a player receives their hands sorted, for example by asking the corresponding player at the table passing the boards to sort their hand, when returning it to the board.

EBU White book.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was quoting a phrase used inter alii by Terence Reese. It is not ‘cheating’, but the lesser offence of ‘coffee housing’ or ‘walking the dog’ - which is, of course, against the rules, but no more steps on the realms of ‘cheating’ than if a soccer player makes a clumsy tackle, or if a quarterback makes a forward pass ahead of the line of scrimmage.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please note that the action a player takes does not have to be a logical alternative, provided the alternative is a logical alternative.

So the question then is merely:

“Is 5 demonstrably suggested over the logical alternative of passing 3NT by the UI (That North doesn't have an obvious 1NT opening)”

The short answer seems to be no. There are many reasons why North might have thought his 1NT bid was incorrect, that may result in 3NT being a better contract than 5.

It does not matter (in terms of the law) whether 5 actually was the winning action.

Of course if North mis-pulled e.g. wanted to open 1 then he should have called the director - I don't know what happened at this point in the auction.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double for penalty is a bit naff - these days everyone has a runout.

If you pass ‘with the air of someone going to their own funeral’ then you might get to double 3NT.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doubletons aren't that bad - because you only have two cards in the suit declarer/ dummy probably have a few so if you can set up winners in partmer's hand then he will probably be able to cash them.

(Obviously singletons are marvellous - not only because you may get a ruff directly from partner but you also might be cutting declarer's communications.)
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought that seeding would be done retail i.e. order players pairwise by ability and then place them in specific positions. The suggested method is wholesale - grab a group of good players and then place them in specific locations irrespective of their individual ability.

This method does reduce the randomness of the draw (and hence entropy of the tournament), but isn't seeding as we know the word.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this a case of anti-randomising rather than seeding?

With regards to the OP, seeding obviously is easy to do at teams since it is a straight-forward knockout (usually).

I don't think that seeding (as we know the term) can actually be done at Duplicate. The correct way would be to have the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th best pairs play one way and the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th best pairs play the other - run it as a Mitchell with no arrow-switching - and have everyone play the full movement - 16 tables, 16 rounds.

This is impracticable so not only do we have to arrange that the seeds play in the correct orientation, we also have to ensure that they are spread suitably throughout the tables - this would involve re-seeding the players and sitting them appropriately. Again we have problems - since some peoplw will not play the same opponents.

Since the EBU has NGS grades for all regular pairs then in theory this could be done throughout the whole movement

Any better ideas for seeding duly awaited.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose someone had to bid North's hand for him.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on whether she had mis-pulled or realised her bid had a different meaning to that intended. If the former then she could change the call (as she has not changed her mind).

There is nothing illegal about calling the TD if the call you make is not the one intended. The TD will ascertain the reason and either allow the call to be withdrawn (if partner has not subsequently called) or .. not. (In the latter case of course there is UI - but giving or receiving UI is not normally an infraction).

(left in - but does not apply in this case as partner has called. Life gets more interesting if partner had alerted or failed to alert unexpectedly but since it was a 0 at BAM then no damage.

BTW - what IS the procedural penalty in a BAM contest? Loss of board (as in match-play golf) seems a bit hard.
Dec. 7
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope - clear loss of concentration. Amended call can be accepted, but if not UI will exist. “Without pause for thought” no longer exists in the laws.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - it imposes a very strict regime on people who make such calls/ plays.

example: 1NT : P: (pause)P : ?

Player in passout position had a method suitable for take out of the (mini) NT. The pause (on virtually a 4-3-3-3) Yarborough, suggested some values and therefore could be construed as an attempt to prevent opponents entering the auction.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 10C is the closest we have to this situation

C. Choice after Irregularity
1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available.
2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.
3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

Although “the most advantageous action” may not extend to finessing with ‘100% safety’; although in this case, as discussed above, it should have been an ‘unsafety’ play.

“If only people didn't spend so much time righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many wrongs to right” - OO
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is - because you don't know what the call actually means - only that it doesn't mean what it would do usually.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe we can get our RAs to allow us to announce natural jump overcalls. To paraphrase the EBU Blue Book the ruling would be: - “All jump overcalls are either announced or alerted”.

Maybe the contexts in which they are made are too complicated.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh yes - I agree the TD probably shouldn't allow S to change his call since it was likely to be unaffected by any MI - and as you rightly say it is too late for North to be given the option.

There is, however, a possibility that S may have thought that EW were having a bidding misunderstanding or that the pass was a mechanical error. Once S knows that the bid was non-forcing then those possibilities vanish.

S may be more likely to protect under these circumstances.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it is NOT your call that would be allowed to be changed - you haven't called so it would be your partner's.

Of course if you had raised the argument that asking for an explanation would be ‘solely for the benefit of partner’ and hence a naughty thing to do, then that is worthy of discussion.

EBU

It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

(NB - note the restrictions on the duty to protect yourself, many rulings are made simply on the basis that the player ‘should have known’ the call was meet to be alerted, without considering the defenses available.)
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the point is that the hand making the call (not having previously passed) is essentially unlimited so their partner will respond. The next player can therefore expect the auction to come round to them again. They may need to be told that this will not be the case - and so the call should be alerted,
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If bidding 1NT is not an infraction then LAw 72C doesn't come into play - it only comes into play if the player could have known at the time he made the infraction (which an IB now is) that it would damage the opponents - I would be very unlikely to make that ruling.

The changed call is not an infraction (unless it is also an IB or an illegal double/ redouble) even if it is a psych. (Unless you have an agreement to psych in that position).
Dec. 1
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When it is your turn to call and the auction looks ‘funny’. you can ask questions - if it turns out there is MI then your partner will still be able to have his call back if the director feels he has been damaged by the MI.

I would have thought that in the pass-out position this is a pretty obvious thing to (at least for an experienced player)

If the auction does look funny and you don#t ask questions then this could fall under 12c1e

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:

(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non‐offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is selfinflicted.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, how much can go wrong in a simple auction.

1) Call should almost certainly have been alerted as opponents may have need of an explanation.
2) Opponents should have called Director before volunteering the correct explanation. The obligation of either player is to correct the call by the end of the clarification period (the person who did not alert) or after the final pass (the player who did not receive an alert from their partner)
3) Director would have allowed the last pass back if he felt that such an offer is equitable.


NB - the right to have a call changed on MI is NOT absolute

a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent.


4) Dummy (The 1NT caller) has not given preference to spades - this suggests that he has gambled that his partner has forgotton the convention (again). This is not a fault per-se, however is more evidence that 2 shows “Hearts or Hearts+Spades”.
5) Whether such a convention s legal depends on the RA. In England it is legal even at level 2 - since one suit (Hearts) is specified in all meanings.
Nov. 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 127 128 129 130
.

Bottom Home Top