Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst I understand that point of view, basically all you have to do is decide what partner's BIT demonstrably suggests. If you aren't sure then it doesn't demonstrably suggest anything and you can bid what you would have bid without the pause. In such a situation it is defintely NOT a non-win position.

Unfortunately “what you would have bid had partner's bid been in tempo” doesn't quite work. You might have bid 4 - obviously: you might have bid 3 obviously: then there is no problem. The problem is if you have doubts as to which of those choices will be best AND you can work out what partner's BIT means.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to compliment East for his ‘stripe-tailed ape’ double on hand 1.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually Ed - there is no UI from the withdrawn 1 call in this situation.

“(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.”

'D following' relates to whether the OS end up in a better contract due to the help of the IB. (paraphrased)
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably not true

“2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).”

If the TD judges that the opponent might be trying to mislead declarer - whether by making him think he has the queen, does not have the queen or even by sowing doubt and confusion - then he should award an adjusted score - say 70-30 in favour of the finesse working. This opponent obviously knows what RKCB is from the manner of his question. Even if he is asking it for the benefit of his partner he is (as he should know) committing an infraction.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first round of bidding - yes! if you have no agreement (Not that anything has come up like that - I would expect most regular partnerships to have made a 10 second agreement such that opening 5 level bids in a major - natural: request partner to raise with King or Ace of trumps. Natural 6 level bids: natural: request partner to raise with Ace of trumps. It doesn't take long. - Especially as you have probably spent hours discussing continuations at lower levels)
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They were produced on the software that goes with our recently purchased duplimator. Although you CAN fix hand paramaters, these hands were (pseudo) random.

We certainly don't get 9 and ten card suits every week.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I alert the fact that I have no agreement (as required by the EBU) and then (as required) I explain what possible alternative calls in similar situations might have meant. That is all I know about my partner's call - so that is what the opponents are entitled to know.

Note Law 75d (above): the EBU regard that if you do not alert a call then you have an agreement that the call is natural - and the fact that you have NOT alerted (a negative inference) is sufficient to describe a partnership agreement when non exists.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since it doesn't take too long to count to zero - and responses to King asks are fairly well known -it seems pretty obvious from the UI that North has extra values that he thinks will be useful for a grand slam.

He also has a pretty good idea that North has the King of Spades since a) he hasn't got it and b)South wouldn't be going after the grand slam with several spade losers.

Thus the flowchart works out as follows (subject to polling)

1) there is UI: North has additional values
2) The UI suggests bidding 7 hearts (or 7NT) since it indicates extra values in spades
3) Maybe

What was that that someone said “Your partner's hesitation has prevented you from doing something clever”?
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 75D applies everywhere

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.

So does Law 40B5

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

So yes! this complies with the rules in my jurisdiction.

EBU Blue Book

4 A General

4 A 1 The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw to the opponents’ attention a call by partner that may have a special meaning. If a player is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, he should alert (see also 2A2).

4 A 2 Announcements: instead of an alert in the traditional manner, the partner of a player who makes an announceable bid makes a specified statement about the bidder’s hand.

4 A 3 Alerting and announcing are compulsory; a player may not accede to a request not to alert or announce.

4 A 4 A player must alert or announce only partner’s calls, never their own. (Special regulations apply when playing online or with screens.)

4 A 5 Even if a player cannot explain the meaning of partner’s call, they should still alert (or announce) it if they believe that it may be required.

4 A 6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is an understanding (explicit or implicit) for the meaning of the call that does not require one. See also 2D2
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does ‘normal man’include ‘careless man’ or ‘inferior man’?
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players should be careful when they make lead inhibiting bids and then explain them as ‘just bridge’. Law 40B

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Although to a player of West's high standing inhibitory bids are well known, it is doubtful whether such knowledge is “generally known to bridge players”.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You do enforce disposition of a previously exposed card - since the rules still apply. The only benefit is that if the non-claiming side have the penalty card then if the director rules, he will rule in the most favourable way that the defence can organise for the the penalty card to be played (and vice versa for the declarer). (Since information about the penalty card is AI, there is no problem for the side with the penalty card arranging for either the person with the penalty card to obtain the lead, or their partner.)

MY interpretation of law 50 is that it applies to cards that are not already penalty cards i.e. the cards that are prematurely exposed during discussion of the claim.

“A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).”

Of course no non-claimer in their right mind would accept playing on - the law exists purely as a sop to stupidity, lethargy and ignorance.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Six losers is not enough to force to game opposite a 1 Spade response (especially as these days people bid with less and less). I would bid 3 Spades. With one loser less, I would splinter. (Although I would be concerned about the quality of my trumps)
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep - given as one of the four main reasons why declarers mess up playing their hands. (Although the book is geared towards rubber bridge so the importance of b) is slightly overstated)

a) Failure to plan at trick one.
b) Failure to make a safety play
c) Failure to make a loser on loser play
d) Failure to count the hand.

(For a moment I thought you were discussing Mrs Guggenheim!)
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case I thinkk the correct explanation of 4 is in fact kickback - there is a difference between forgetting an agreement and not having an agreement in the first place. East knew they were playing kickback - just forgot which bid meant it.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not - declarer can ruff the first club with the King and the second one with the 8. If all trumps are drawn then all remaining trumps are of equal value. Note declarer said “cross ruffing” - which means they can't play a diamond and throw away the losing club.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting problem

The defintion of misexplanation is

“the failure of a side to accurately disclose partnership method or understanding, as and when required by law or regulation.”

West AFAICS has fully disclosed the meanings of all calls accurately - therefore there is no misexplanation.

(And yes West has committed an infraction by explaining what his own calls mean)

Although East could have called the director and stated that in their opinion the explanation of 4 was incorrect, they could have checked their own convention card under Law 40B(2) to ascertain whether they had made a mistake.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least the board will have good company in the trash.

(And if I was to rule AV-,AV- I would rule AV,AV since both parties share the blame - note that this is only possible if no result can be obtained or if the results are numerous or not obvious)
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so.

is a bit misleading - you could read it that if the player takes more than a normal time to make a call then it IS an infraction if he doesn't draw attention to it, however I presume it just means that writing “sorry, I took some time there” is allowed or presumably calling the TD and stating the position is permissable.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct - it is not established (unless East or West makes a claim). There are various rules regarding ability to change cards after the revoke is corrected (including the lead to the next trick), and, as you say there is a major penalty card situation. (Which is why it is important that the TD has to be called and the players not try and sort it out themselves)


When declarer realises that an opponent MUST have revoked he can:

1) Call the TD immediately - and gain any advantages from a penalty card situation.

2) Wait until the revoke is established - and then call the TD, gaining an automatic one (or two) trick penalty in most cases.

3) Not do anything - dummy can comment on the revoke after play has ceased of course.
Oct. 16
.

Bottom Home Top