Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've forced opponents 1 level higher than they would go under their own steam - so I hope I can get it off! 6 could be a phantom.

And why didn't I bid 5 on the first round?
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if partner has 2 hearts, there is a good chance of them disappearing on AKQ


June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just hate 763 - this sort of screams 3 losers. Looking at HCP then either partner has a bust or West has bid on a diamond fit as well.

If I am going for a brilliancy I'll lead 2 ow else am I going to get my diamond ruff?
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West is unlimited (other than he hasn't made a slam try) so 4 is probably bid to make. Since you need quite a lot opposite a weak 2 to make game (especially Aces and Kings as partner is usually short) I don't fancy going for 800 or 1100. (partner will REALLY be annoyed if he has spade values, which was the reason he couldn't bid over 2)

(Thank god for skip-bid pauses.)
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can east have psyched and now trying to force you to run e.g. partner has KQJTXX and a powerhouse? If so partner would have passed 4X.

The next question is: what do I want to play in. It seems partner has a minor suit and spades so: do I want to play 1 level lower (4) on a possible 5-2 fit or go for the minors.

I'll go for the minors.
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT is the practical bid - the only question is to see if we could get to a spade contract. This depends on partnership agreement. If 3 would be a Fit Non Jump then everything is easy. Partner shows support if available, if not we play in N diamonds. (4<N<8)

June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT (with my fingers crossed) - at least I can blame partner for not understanding my splinter bid if/when things go wrong. We are committed to 5 anyway and if partner has 2 Aces + Q then we had better hope he has the right one and K
June 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner reckons to have 9HCP - if he has strength in hearts we wont set up many heart tricks, if he has strength in clubs we may set up more defensive tricks. (We may get a working ruff as well)

The small heart may prove disasterous if partner has JXX for instance.
June 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob - in the UK we are actively discouraged to say what the bid might be - as it can give UI to your partner. As Steve says - we should alert a bid that might be conventional and , as we don't know the meaning we call the director. (In theory at least)
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO - I would disagree - the irregularity is in not following suit - which happens before the revoke is established.

I certainly agree (now) that the director cannot stop the irregularity occurring since, until it has occurred there hasn't been an irregularity.

However the irregularity is failing to follow suit, it is not in making a revoke. So the Director may penalise the pair - by making the played card a major penalty card etc, but will prevent them from digging a deeper hole when one or more tricks may have to be transferred should the revoke be established.

The director has the right to declare a card NOT to be a penalty card under Law 50. He might have decided to apply this in the interests of equity.
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - I agree that there is no revoke established. Just a major penalty card.
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At MPs I don't want to give away a trick by leading from K (especially as partner rates to have a singleton), leading the K may in some circumstances help declarer gain an extra trick e.g. AJX, a club bid is still likely to be natural so surrendering a tempo seems risky. Ergo: a heart - with a club as second choice.
June 6, 2013
John Portwood edited this comment June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So is there no irregularity until the revoke is established? Or is there an irregularity as soon as the player fails to follow suit (44C). For non directors the full wording is

“In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.”

Note the importance the lawmakers assign to this specific rule.
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Iff the MI and the adjusted scores were agreed.

You say you won 5 imps ( 170 - 210) - since you obtained +110 I am guessing that your team mates scored +100. If the MI is found then you lose 1 imp (+100 - 140) and gain 4 imps (+100 + 50) - which averages out at +1.5 imps.

So you lose 3.5 imps and the match by 0.5 imps. I hope that this wouldn't have affected your qualifying.
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no penalty if a person makes a second revoke in the same suit (64B). However the Director may restore equity (64C).

Law 81C

C. Director’s Duties and Powers

The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:


1) to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game.

2) to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

3) to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

4) to assess rectification when applicable and to exercise the powers given him in Laws 90 and 91.

5) to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

6)to adjust disputes.

7)to refer any matter to an appropriate committee.

8)to report results for the official record if the Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with any other matters delegated to him by the Tournament Organizer.

So under this law he should rectify an irregularity (3) as he is aware that a person has failed to follow suit.
June 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KQJ XX XXXX XXXX?
June 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East is claiming damage based on 2NT should have been alerted for the minors, not showing values and saying that they would have bid if it had been known that 2N was for the minors.

So the question is: should the bid have been alerted and, if so, was EW damaged by the failure to alert?

Since discussion by OP and commentators suggest that the bid should have been alerted, it is then a question of whether EW have been damaged by the MI. (By being put off bidding 3S).

Normally a poll would be done to see how many Easts would have bid on the correct auction (as I understand it) and if the bid is reasonable then an award has to be made. In the EBU this would be a combination of 3S making (+140) and 3S going one off (-50) with a suitable percentage depending on how likely the heart ruff would be found (pretty likely). If not then then someone would have to decide whether +140 or -50 was the correct award for EW (NS getting -140).

The TD (or AC) would have to decide whether EW were damaged and, if so, could have protected themselves better or if their subsequent actions were IWoG. We do not know - other than the fact that the TD decided to let the score stand.

I do not know of any place in the Laws of Bridge that allows a defence that it is ‘just bridge’.
June 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 2NT is not a jump by a passed hand nor a high level NT bid then if it is conventional i.e. partnership agreement and not natural then it should have been alerted - the lack of the alert being UI and the TD should have offered West their bid back (21B) when called to the table and interview EW (as he did) away from the table to find out what, if any bids, they would have made.

If there is no partnership agreement then there is no need to alert. However laws are that an error is misexplanation rather than misbid.

However EW do have an obligation to ascertain if the bid is or isn't natural in order to protect themselves. failure to do so may prejudice their position. It is extremely rare for 2NT to be used naturally in a competitive auction so any experienced pair should (IMHO) ask (although by asking it could convey UI to their partner).

If there was was a misexplanation (failure to alert) and since East cannot have her bid back (21B), the TD (if he feels EW have been damaged) should award award adjusted scores (40C). (Which would presumably be NS -140 for NS and could be either +140 or -50 for EW - depending on whether the heart ruff is obvious (12C1e). The imp swing would be based on the average of the two swings.

Was there any facility for making an appeal by EW?
June 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's hand : AT9 KQ KQ932 A83.

It seems that there is no LA for 3 from the polling. Thanks to all who voted.
June 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I never like underleading Kings and trumps is an obvious no-no I am left with a spade.
June 4, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top