Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what does law 12b2 do?

2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Should I take that with a pinch of salt and award adjusted scores for the fun of it.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can - provided you can convince the TD/ AC that your hand does not warrant the risk of a doubled game contract making.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't imagine us setting this contract by 2 tricks since
a) partner could only invite 2NT
b) west is known to be cautious - and he, too knows the vulnerability. (opponents' traits are AI by definition)

3SX making : -530
4H -1 = -50
4HX-1 = -100

Do you really think your hand is worth a 4:1 on with the double?

(And we assume declarer does not make an extra trick with the added info about who doubled).
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are assuming that pass was a logical choice. yes you are prepared to play 3 if partner can't take any action, but this hand has much less defensive potential than partner should expect and, at teams, you can't risk what could be a -530 to gain what looks like an extra +100. The odds are against it.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws are actually very interesting on this. (Law 73)

C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any
advantage from that unauthorized information .

2. A penalty may be assessed against a player who violates C1, but if the opponents have been damaged, see also Law 16B3.

Note that the law specifically states that a penalty may be issued and then mentions the adjustment - so it is clear that they expect a PP if someone makes use of UI. (Note that this is a MUST condition.

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),
”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)
“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).

Again
“must not” is the strongest prohibition,
“shall not” is strong but
“may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

So executing South seems to be eminently reasonable, even if the other side get a good result.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not going to change anything : look at it on the SW position

SW See initially

1 p

Then

1 p 1 3
6 7

Surely anyone is going to take some time to work out WTF is happening here?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North has already presumably made a slam try by bidding 3 - and South hasn't cue-bid the A
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South knows they have a 5-3 fit when North doesn't bid 3NT over his 3 call.

However I do not feel this is a bad slam to miss. 30 points and no singletons/ source of tricks do not always a good slam make.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just remember that partner knows that this is a suggestion of bidding 5 and the pre-emptor still has another call to come. Whether you have a spade stop is immaterial as you are never going to play in 3NT (whether the loss of 3NT to play is worth the call can be discussed, but the general thought presumably is that you need to know how high you can pre-empt.)
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please remember to consider what you would do after intervention. I see too many players of the Multi with no agreements after the simplest of interventions.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a XXX card to ask partner to bid his minor?
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty sure that the Rueful Rabbit once bid 7NT as a sacrifice. (although it was under the old scoring).
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
911 - I've shot my bridge partner. I think he's dead.
Are you sure he's dead?
Bang! He is now.

(Normally a pause followed by a minimum bid shows extras - which is why I think 6 should be disallowed - subject to the usual caveats about seeing if pass is a LA.)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I think there is too much of this “no agreement” basis when one player ‘forgets’. IF we can see system notes/ cards then IMHO it is much more likely to be a forgetting than no agreement. A ‘no agreement’ is much more likely to occur in a complicated auction at the third or fourth round of bidding rather than on the 1st two rounds when most partenerships will actually know what they are doing.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it seems to be a case of misbidding then, so there is no MI adjustment. As for UI, well I don;t know whether there is a LA. The UI suggests that North doesn;t have clubs, but South has 4 diamonds and one has to assume under the methods of the partnership (and not the “1m (x) transfer” which South has apparantly misunderstood) there is no LA to 3
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Still trying to work this out.

South bids 2 showing diamonds (not alerted), but partnership agreement is that this is natural. South expected an alert.
North bids 3 showing club support (not alerted) as per partnership agreement.
South bids 3
East ‘knowing’ that NS have the minor suits decide to compete the part-score non-vulnerable.
South blurts out that 2 should have been alerted before leading.
…..

1st to the MI issues.

There is a presumption of mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call, (Law 75). The TD has to find out whether there was in fact a partnership agreement and, if not, adjudicate on the basis that EW know there isn't an agreement (but who also know what related calls may mean). I am pretty sure EW wouldn't be playing in 3 all the time if told “no agreement - could be natural, we do play suit transfers in some auctions, however.”

2nd to the UI issues.

AFAICs North has no UI and so is not constrained.
South has UI (from the failure to alert) that North thinks the bid shows clubs. However: what does the 3 call really mean? Absent anything else, one has to assume that the call shows a club suit, unless South thinks there is an agreement. There is no reason why North could not be e.g. 5-5 in the minor suits and is patterning out to help South. You just cannot impose 3 as a game try in diamonds on South if that is not the methods of the partnership (Law 16B1b).
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some
might select.


South does have the spades stopped. Might he make a call such as 3 asking partner to bid 3NT with a heart stop? Well, we would have to find out if that is what they would do in similar situations, but, again, we cannot impose conventional bids on the offenders.

All of which seems to me to indicate that South should be allowed his 3 call.

So: the ruling will depend on the system card. If there is clear evidence that South forgot the system then I would let the score stand. If there isn;t then I would weigh the result as partly (e.g. 40% 3, 60% 3).

(The final question of course is whether EW have taken a gambling action/ extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction. Obviously if South has misbid then there is no infraction and I can't think that EW are gambling over and above normal bridge)

Obviously the director's ruling is absurd.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure how strong the 1NT call is, but 7NT may survive a bad club break e.g. a diamond/ club squeeze, while 7C won't.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well if I tried to proove it, my dart would probably have hit the wire that separates the areas.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fault, dear Barry lies not in the stars but in ourselves that we are not world champions
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a serious note - there is obviously nothing wrong in making use of breaks in tempo by opponents - but you do so at your own risk, and opponents cannot deliberately break tempo if there is no bridge reason to do so or to try and accentuate any (legitimate) deception.

Philosophically, bridge is a game of incomplete information. Players endeavour to provide information to each other by means of legal calls and plays and also to send incorrect information to the opponents - again by legal calls and plays. They have a duty to ensure opponents are advised that some information being exchanged is not obvious, and they must also decide whether the benefits of sending information to their partner outweighs the benefits that the opponents will gain from also receiving it.

Should we discuss these aspects with beginners/ improvers rather than just saying “This call means …, playing cards in this order means…” etc.
Jan. 6
.

Bottom Home Top