Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Worst ruling ever?

It seems that even without stating a line it would clearly not be rational to expect a club player to throw the Q under the K, so I don't see how its right on the laws either, nevermind obviously screwing a player who was trying to save time.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One vote for your continued participation.

Ed, one thing I have noticed and appreciate is that top players often answer these type of questions based on what they think is right. Occasionally this conflicts with the laws as written (this may be such a case); in those cases it prompts me to consider whether the laws should be changed.

That doesn't mean that the law is irrelevant, it just means that I prefer to have a discussion of both what it is and what it should be.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dunno about that theory. Pretty sure when I bid 1NT against world class opponents they defend pretty damn well and my results suck. :)
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know exactly what it means but since its the only bid below 3N I doubt it means anything super specific. 3N might be a atronger suggestion and/or having positional stoppers to protect. 3S seems like a hand with interest in 3N but some doubt and/or a desire to protect positional stoppers in partners hand?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First I don't know what a world class player would be thinking of; if I did I would be much closer to world class than I am. But Brads auction seems pretty normal to me.

Simon, are you thinking X of 1NT by east would be penalty? I suspect many play it as takeout. I think the first X was a hand too good to overcall a heart directly, and thats what X and 2H shows. Another X would show both red suits and a good hand (though not necessarily as strong as this).

In my view E's hearts are good enough to play across from a doubleton, the problem is that the SQ is out of position. Swap the SQ for the CQ and 4H is good.

3N is making, and presumably that's what 3S was looking for, but it would have been hard for me to be confident enough in my 9-4th of spades to bid 3N sitting W.

The one bid in the auction that surprises me is 1C by N. It would not have been on my radar.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another reason to open a club :)
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With that language I would probably flip my vote on this case.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be happy with that, I just don't see how 70C allows for it.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, it took me a little while to realize that's why I haven't been stuck like this!
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked what I thought was least bad, but that doesn't make me totally comfortable with it. Seeing that Kit made the same choice made me feel less uncomfortable.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they said that then I absolutely agree. If not, and they are confused, ??? I would personally be inclined to rule your way in this case in part for the reason you state but 70 C seeks to not support that.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your view feels right to me, but it doesn't appear that law 70 C accounts for that, which is what makes it hard for me.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris,
I'm not sure I like it, but when I read the text of 70C, I think it mostly obviates the claim statement, except as context to judging what play might be normal/ careless/ inferior, and whether it is likely declarer knew about the trump.

Again I am just reporting what I think the law says, not sure if I think that is a good policy or not.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray,
Law 16B1 requires me to not select the logical alternative suggested by the UI. Of course I can't conduct a poll, but I believe I must attempt to judge if pass is an LA to fuldill that obligation.
I have heard arguments from credible people that these statements are not actually directed at players, but rather serve only to guide directors in sorting out rectification. I think thats hogwash, as the lawmakers could easily have framed the law that way if thats what they intended.
I do agree that my effort to determine whats a LA won't insulte me from a ruling if I am wrong, but if I determine that pass is an LA then I avoid a ruling which might have gone against me. Of course if my determination is incorrect I may get a bad result.
Yu,
I think such statements should have very little effect on rulings as they are self serving and only rarely verifiable. But they may have some effect on my feelings about whether I am taking advantage; my point is that even there they are not absolute.
Michael,
Good point. If I were anywhere near good enough to be a pro I might have noticed that possible teaching moment :)
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 70C appears not to pay any regard to stated lines of play that don't acknowledge the trump.

While I think “at the end” implies on the very last trick, stating that you must lose it there doesn't mean to me thst you are going to play it in that order. Since 70 C requires the trump to be acknowledged, I think you lose a trick.

If instead declarer had said “ruff a club, play my last spade and give you the heart at trick 13”, I think its a closer call but I still think a claim statement that doesn't acknowledge the trump has no force under Law 70 C. Since the player doesn't know about the trump they may change their mind.

Where does Law 70 C say that a claim statement not acknowledging the trump matters?
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, I really like that system. If you win all the time you have to play up half the time.

Also after I do my time as a chimp in the Spingold getting massacred I can get back into a lower flight event with my kids :)
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't feel barred, and here I am pretty sure when I bid 2H I would have had in mind the plan to compete to 3D, so I don't internally feel like I am taking advantage. (Side issue: sometimes one has a plan set then changes ones mind, so having had a plan in mind and not changed it is not 100% guarantee that one was not influenced by UI, but this is a rare case where I would feel internally quite comfortable).

That said, in evaluating a LA, I have to think about what the players that the director decides are my peers would do. If I bid on I may take the worst of it bridge wise if I lose the ruling, and I may look bad, and in this case assuming I am a pro I lose a teaching moment to set a good example for my client. And even if I can be 100% certain I would have bid on, I don't feel that I have particularly good judgement about what others would have done, so I err towards including bids as LAs that I wouldn't personally consider very seriously.

There are lots of good reasons to pass here even if it wouldn't be on my personal radar absent the UI. But this hand I can't do it.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok I just can't pass.

Note that 8% saying they feel like they have to pass with UI is very different from 8% actually choosong to pass, or even seriously considering it without UI.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
If the N player intended to bid 2N as a transfer to diamonds and 3C is clearly agreed as a superaccept in that sequence, then how would you view things? My operating assumption is that is what occurred.
Aug. 10
Max Schireson edited this comment Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect 3D would be ok even after the besitation but I would probably err on the side of pass.
Aug. 10
1 2 3 4 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top