Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ken Gamble
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the early 90's, Billy Miller had a Calcutta event comprising of the Bay Area's finehst players. I remember Hug was auctioned off at a very steep price, well beyond my means. I was able to kibitz him for awhile and was amazed how simple his card was.

Don't remember where he ended in the final standings. I think his partner was Peter Pender but could be wrong about this.
Nov. 21
Ken Gamble edited this comment Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Got it. Thanks
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
21B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent
1. (a) Until the end of the auction period …

I am confused with the above wording. Isn't the auction period over after 3 passes?
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, the 3D contract produced a bottom. The responder had xx xx KJTxxx KQJ.

The player had under 100 mpts and would have been perplexed to figure out what a comparable response would be under the pressures of the moment. With guidance she may have understood a pass or double might allow her partner to continue the auction. But as mentioned above somewhere, the director could not be too explicit in explaining her choices.

Also, the director is relatively new and I'm sure this is his first case concerning comparable bids.
Nov. 14
Ken Gamble edited this comment Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Knowing this pair, they aren't playing control or transfer bids. But how would you rule if they did?
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't at the game, but I think the director was called at the time the 2D bid was made. Responder then bid 3D. I changed the OP statement.
Nov. 12
Ken Gamble edited this comment Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 27B.(b)
if the insuffcient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law
23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification.

So the question centers around the 3D natural response being comparable to a 2D waiting response. I can't understand why a bid showing a long diamond suit is not a subset of “any possible holding”.



Correction - removed sentence about double,
Nov. 12
Ken Gamble edited this comment Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ran some computer simulations for a 2S West contract. With both club and spade leads, I get -140.

Our club has small games so it might be difficult to get enough players to conduct a poll. Would you run computer simulations in lieu of a poll?

I used a computer bridge program for these simulations. I wonder if this is acceptable for obtaining a weighted adjustment. The advantage is that the director can make the runs during the game so players don't have to wait around.
Nov. 2
Ken Gamble edited this comment Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Afterwards, East commented to North (flt-B player) that a better option is to pass which forces South to redouble or bid a long suit. If redouble is done, then North can now bid the lower of non-touching suits or pass.
In this case, I guess North would bid 2D. I don't know how the auction continues but EW would probably be doubling on further bids.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East/West are very strong players but had not played that long together. East said that the double showed a two-suiter but he forgot to alert.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The PAR results were:
EW: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3NT
NS: (5), (5), (5), (4), (NT4)
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can anyone point to any of the 10 examples that may have a different ruling with the 2017 laws?

I was surprised that many of the rulings took a less draconian interpretation than I expected. I see:
“intent is incontrovertible”, “cannot be reasonable to think he is doing anything but…”, “Declarer has solved the bridge problem here”, “Here the line of play is so clear that …”, “His intent is clear and incontrovertible”.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Martin

So doesn't the first example applies here to allow declarer to change to a low spade?

“Clearly this is designed to resemble the
famous ”Oh, SH**“ ruling from Vancouver
in 1999, the case that propelled the Law
Commission to clearly explain Law 45 C.
4.(b) with its opinions shared in Duplicate
Decisions.
Declarer's intent here is incontrovertible
and the ace should be played”
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To bad the event wasn't held in October when the new laws took effect. I think law 20 may now allow this bidding change until partner bids next.

L20.A Unintended Call
1. If a player discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make, he may, until his partner makes a call, substitute the call he intended for the unintended call.

2. If the player's original intent was to make the call selected, that call stands. A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action.

3. A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in A1 above are met, no matter how he may have become aware of his error.

Both 1 and 3 seems to favor her change of call.
Oct. 31
Ken Gamble edited this comment Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Ace
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I got this example from the November 2010 issue of the Bridge Bulletin. Mike Flader was doing “Ruling The Game” then.
Oct. 30
Ken Gamble edited this comment Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction occurred yesterday at a sectional. The director handles both regionals and sectionals, and seems to give competent rulings.

He asked one question at the table - “Do we play Lebensohl?”. I answered yes, it's on our CC, and we had discussed this before the game. Partner just zoned out with his response.

He ruled 4S was the final contract with no adjustments.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My hand was: xxx AJxx Q AKQT8
The PAR was
NS: 3H, 4S or 5C
EW: 3D
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But he did take advantage of the 2H misinterpretation. What do you do with the 4S bid?
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, precisely my concerns. BTW, I did have 17 hcps and 4 hearts.
Oct. 29
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top