Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said elsthread, it depends if the agreement re attitude leads is ‘suit-led-oriented’ or ‘hand-oriented’. I think experts are split on this.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it happens - please don't give up.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony R: Nice to know you might support me.

For your last paragraph I understood you. I would be very happy if I lost the event under the conditions stated. Or, rather, happier than I would be if I won after the other table enforced that trick.

Let me see if I can explain my ‘non-bridge’ position better.

Let's say there's a lead out of turn. Current Law is the Director is called and there are a myriad of options.

These options trigger a series of thougts in the non-offender's minds as to how they can benefit. Compel the lead from the other hand; accept the lead from the other hand; accept the the lead and have the ‘wrong’ hand declarer; treat it as a penalty card (I don't know the Law well enough to know whether major or minor penalty card is an issue here).

All these options create a convoluted artificial atmosphere. To me, it's as if bridge is temporarily suspended and ‘something else’ (which I call non-bridge) takes over.

Now let's look at my way. The lead is picked up and the partner leads what he ‘would have led’. The knowledge of the card and the fact that partner chose that lead is all UI to the offending side.
And, if it is deemed they used the UI, there can be redress. But no other penalty.

Often (I'd guess more thyan half the time), there will be no problem. When there is a problem you might say ‘that’s non-bridge too'. But I say UI is a constant part of the game anyway - so it's still ‘bridge’.

For me, compelling opponents to play or not play a card, at a certain moment, or changing the declaring hand - all that is departing from our game.
Whereas my way way is simpler and cleaner - and feels to me a lot more like bridge.

If you agree, maybe you (or others reading) might think about not only supporting my effort, but also openly advocating for the change - and also following my suggested policy.

Again, I repeat that I'm not averse to different Laws for different levels of play. I'm not trying to destroy anybody's club game.

Yes, I'm an anarchist!
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“5C as choice of games seems obvious”

Only if 4 is defined as COG
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Absolute” in the sense that, with the agreement, there is never any doubt about which card to lead. Partner is aware, from each holding, which card you will lead.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why I prefer 4th best. A ‘robotic’ count card makes more sense to me than a ‘robotic’ attitude card. Count is absolute. Attitude is not.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John C: I think you're correct - it's a problem. What I was thinking was that if West IS 4-4 it would be reasonably obvious. However, let's say West has a doubleton and discards small and 9 (RHO discards the 5th ). You won't know if he's 3-4-2-4 or 4-3-2-4.

I'd probably always play for 3-4-2-4 - partly because they have to find the spade falsecard (whether 7 has been played might also matter to me). But, unless I'm now missing something else, your point is definitely valid. Thank you.

However, this does not affect my opinion that playing low at trick one is best.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the saddest hijacking of a thread about a really fun subject that I can ever remember.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony R: “If my partner revoked on that trick and we lost the trick, I would accept the loss. Not because I think he law is a good one, but because that is the law.”

Presumably, then, you Would be ok if the Law were changed so that this could not happen. Because then THAT would be the Law.
Also, presumably, you would be ok if the Law were changed so that my suggestion becomes the Law. Because thewn THAT would be the Law.

Presumably you're ok with my lobbying to change this Law.

You're not ‘ok’ with my following my policy of not enforcing this Law at the table. I'm going to continue to do it. I never say anything negative about anybody who enforces the penalty - against my partnership or against anybody else
.
Meanwhile, I guess you hope somebody ‘catches’ me and I (eventually) get suspended or expelled from bridge. I'm not sure what else you would think should be done to ‘deal’ with me.

* * * * *

“The fact that you choose to not follow the law under some circumstances has an effect on every other table. ”

I've heard this argument ad nauseam. I guess it means that you are fine with my adopting my policy in a KO match.

But, in a matchpoint field, yes it ‘affects’ other tables. Just as the grand slam made missing the trump ace affects other tables. Imagine a vul grand slam in imp pairs. Every pair who defended a small slam making will now lose 13 imps rather than winning 17 imps. I can't see those players agreeing with your position (because most players like what is in their self-interest!).
Every horrible bid or play at another table affects your table. You have no control over all those things. Yet you want to ‘control’ this one thing - the ‘irrelevant’ illegal play that creates a swing.

As to your last paragraph hypothesis, the answer is YES, I'd be happy. I'd be MORE than happy, because I'd feel that maybe my actions were having some effect and helped to serve justice.
On the other hand, I'd feel rotten if I found out that I won an event because somebody lost a trick in that situation. I would prefer that not happen.
For me, it's not about what's in my self-interest. It's about making the game better by doing what I can to change a Law that I believe is inferior.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Graham C: I'm not understanding how Option (2) “would have caused almost as much aggravation as option (1), and would have soured the atmosphere for the rest of the match.”

How could anybody expect two tricks when the most they can legally get is one?

As to what I would do in ‘normal’ bridge: I would think RHO was having a blackout - not seeing the K in dummy - and think he was ‘winnin’ the jack. So I'd choose option (1).

In your particular situation (feeling certain to win the match) maybe I'd go for Option (2). But why does it matter what anybody does in those circumstances?
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony R: “But, Michael, you aren't preventing illegal actions. The illegal action has happened. What you are preventing is the law from taking its course.”

Ok, I'll try to express it better. As far as is possible, I don't want the illegal action to be a part of the bridge result

“Could the laws be better? Yes, of course they could. However, they are what they are and if we don't follow them then we are playing a game called something-vaguely-resembling-bridge.”

If a law is inferior, anf not following it makes the game better (as I believe) then it's simply ‘better bridge’. I remind you that I would never follow such a policy (not enforcing the law) in my own self-interest.

“Your ‘non-bridge’ outcomes are not ‘non-bridge’ outcomes. They are real bridge outcomes according to the laws of the game.”

So a grand slam making missing the trump ace is a ‘real bridge’ outcome for you? It isn't for me. If you're going to respond to this comment, I'd like an answer on this point.

“The outcomes you are trying to achieve by condoning errors and mistakes are the real ‘non-bridge’ outcomes.”

Of course, I disagree.

“Allowing someone who has thrown away an unbeatable contract by making a mistake is not a real bridge outcome, it is a ‘non-bridge’ outcome.”

To me, a “mistake” is a legal bid or play that is inferior or worse.
To me, an illegal action should, as far as possible, not be part of the game. My mind likens it to them playing a chess piece or backgammon tile - or saying ‘I’m all in'. Of course, those things are ‘different’ - but I'd like a revoke to have more or less the same effect.
If/when the game goes electronic, I'll get my wish.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Victor: Those are all good questions.

“Will you allow revoke to be corrected without penalty in very important match, like Bermuda bowl final?”

Well, I've only played two of those and nobody, AFAIK, revoked. But I have been ‘blessed’ with revokes in Vanderbilt and Spingold Finals, In Trials Finals and Semi-Finals, and other major events.
The answer is yes - I always follow the same procedure and have never accepted a revoke penalty.

“Will you allow revoke to be corrected against people who will call director if you revoke against them?”

Yes. As I already said, it doesn't matter if it's my best friend or my worst enemy.

“What you do if partner or teammates does not agree with your approach and want to call the director?”

I tell my partner and teammates my policy in advance. Almost all of them have been (surprisingly to me) comfortable with the way I handle this.
On the rare occasion I've had a partner who insists on taking whatever penalty is afforded by the rules, I suspend the policy for that event. Everybody is still treated the same.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. But it could be in my interest to do that - if the ‘extra room’ would help my side. I just want bridge.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My approach is to prevent illegal actions because they lead to ‘non-bridge’ outcomes. Contracts making that can't make; contracts defeated that can't be defeated; ridiculous bids because partner is barred; ‘non-bridge’ plays because we are no longer single dummy. etc, etc.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without screens it's pretty rare. With screens, more common. Not sure how to mquantify either one. But with screens I don't even know what the Law is - I just tell them and they change it. Since there is no UI, it can't be a problem.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. My offer to ‘take it back’ needs to be consistent. And I don't feel right about offering a ‘takeback’ when they've just made the winning play (eeven though it was probably accidental).

That's why I go with “illegal play”. That offer to ‘take it back’ IS consistent.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, well I would with xx, Qxxx, Axxx, xxx - and might on your ‘flatter’ example (definitely if you switch hearts and clubs). Therefore, with two extra trumps, I'd feel very uncomfortable making the same bid.

Looking at xx, Qxx, Axx, 109xxx. When I have xx the other 11 are somewhere. If partner has two that is worst for offense - but opponents have a 9-card fit. If partner has three I have a ruffing value - and they still have an 8-card fit (good chance they make 4). if partner has 4, maybe they have no game but now offense is better.
Overall, I'm more worried about us not bidding enough if I bid 3c than I am about partner bidding 5 after I bid 4. And even when 5 is losing opponents won't do the right thinmg 100% of the time.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roger P: Not certain what you are saying. My position is that when the illegal action occurred, we stopped playing bridge.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill: As I said elsethread, I'm not averse to different Laws for different levels.

For me the current law on insufficient bid correction. leads to non-bridge - pretending there is no UI when there often is. I want bridge, not non-bridge.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't you bid 3 on a hand of similar satrength with only 3-card ? I would.
Oct. 15
.

Bottom Home Top