Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or, even more likely, declarer. When dummy has length, the pip could be theoretically necessary, e.g.:

AQ93
J842 1065
K7

Only the 8 ‘survives’ double-dummy.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try telling that to Zia…
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillip: You added the word “either”. I don't see why. If that was the intention of the OP, the word should have been in the question. The actual question permits at least four answers:

Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No/No

And I say “at least”, because only four answers is valid if only black-and-white answers are possible.

i seem to remember somebody, whom I then respected, saying something like ‘the choices in a poll should cover the spectrum’.

I don't think defending the form of this poll is a good idea for Bridgewinners.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John T: “In principle, I do not want results to be determined by how I (or you) feel towards the declarer on a particular day. It is ”right“ to call the director.”

Neither do I. Which is why I said elsethread: “I don't care if I'm playing against my best friend or my worst enemy”.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: I don't understand what you mean. Earlier, you said that, if you were defending in the OP situation, you would not get a trick.
Do you mean that, if the defense can't get a trick on legal play then they don't? If so, that's irrelevant to my question - where it's the defending side that revoked.

Please explain, or answer the trump ace question directly.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know it - and all the books in that series - well.

Character: AG (narrating)
Author: RS
Title: IDES

Early in the book.

A quote from the during the bridge game: “Damn, I wasted my queen” (OJ).

And now, excuse me. I have to go take a long shower.
Oct. 14
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is also a further wrinkle here - which I am avoiding discussing.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Qx + Jx + 10x is 9 holdings. J10x + Q10x is 6 holdings. It's ‘human’ to split from QJx - would feel bad to play low and find declarer with K10x. Some might split with J10x also.

But, if no split from J10x and never low from QJx it's not quite 3-2. The Hx's total about 14.5% and the HHx's total about 10.5%. So it's more like seven to five.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand any talk about 3-3 spades after a club lead. How is playing for that even an option?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume opener was dealer. You should give the vulnerability.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, I'll help. You are asking two questions with a total of at least four possible answers. But you only give two choices. You need a new poll.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree. There's still plenty that is considered ‘Standard’ by the large majority of players.
There's also many things that WERE Standard but are no longer. But 1m-1N denying a major is not one of those.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, therefore, do you believe a revoke that allows a grand slam to be made off the trump ace should not be penalized?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It ‘should’ require an alert when it's the antithesis of ‘Standard’ - e.g. 1m-1N
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, to the first. If East ‘splits’, the choice is to take two finesses - losing to QJ10 tight, or lead to the ace and lose to a 5-1 break. Obviously, the former is the percentage play.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What makes the OP situation different from any other revoke? Because it's simple? Because it's ‘near the end’?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shawn D: “If all we do when a pair revokes is restore equity, it seems that then the rules essentially incentive revokes because…”

Nobody is suggesting that's all we do. Because, often, “equity” will be murky. And then, any doubt will go against the revoker.

Only when there is clearly no doubt (such as the OP case) will the revoker ‘break even’.

A reasonable alternative to what I propose is an automatic penalty in terms of no. of imps/matchpoints (plus equity change if necessary).
I'm not really for that - but I would prefer it the current method which I see as ridiculous; one day a revoke costs one trick; on another day it costs two tricks; on a third day it costs no tricks. And any of these tricks can be ‘big’ or ‘small’.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That seems to me at least as good as cutting 9 to 4 with 2-day RR.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry: When I think a law is ‘stupid’, AND not enforcing it is against my own interest then and only then do I not enforce it. And I don't care if I'm playing against my best friend or my worst enemy.

I don't think that creates an uneven playing field - everyone who plays against me gets the same treatment.

My hope has always been that, the more this permeates bridge, the better the chance of having the law changed. So far, a forlorn hope.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, that's another beautiful theme. One I have a some bad history with.
Oct. 13
.

Bottom Home Top