Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Seems like even the most ethical players may not know how to proceed in these type of situations. To me that means the law sucks.

This
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see. Oscar is not to be trifled with!
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Erm, you're the one that raised to 4 where 3 was plenty.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>In sum: We need to ensure that, for our tournaments, somebody knows how to handle the technology. Right now, we can't guarantee that. How have other units solved this problem?

There is no shortcut to having enough people properly trained and experienced in how to do it right.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see what you mean.

There was me making the silly assumption that this was a knockout competition.
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Nobody gets an advantage or a disadvantage. Team A has the same chance of winning the event as they did before - they have to win one specific match.

Either you've misunderstood or I have. If A beats B prior to B playing C, but B then loses to C, A has to play C, the real winner of the semi-final. Therefore, potentially A has play twice and had two chances of losing - for what advantage - nothing.

Furthermore there is the possibility that B will, if not actually throw their match with C, then be so demotivated that they may as well throw it. This makes the likelihood of A having to play twice much more realistic.
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd treat it as a weak NT and live with the consequences be they good or bad. What else?
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would not upgrade myself, but also would not argue with someone who did. To illustrate how close it is, I would upgrade if the 9 was the 10 - which, in reality, may not be significant at all.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is also the question of what the EBU and other Counties think about this as it could affect who is allowed to play at the national competition. There is potential for keeping lawyers employed here (well possibly not literally - but you get the point - the implications potentially go wider than just one county)
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, my last sentence does tend to put words there that aren't quite. Apologies if I implied something that wasn't quite so. Never the less, Team A seems to be competitive enough that they are considering putting rules above friendliness to Team B, and Team B seem to have little regard for Team C, while suggesting something that may cause a wasted weekend for Team A.

Basically, if not illegal, it is highly irregular and has potential for bad feeling, appeals and so forth. I think Team A and B should take a step back from this proposal and if that means Team B playing the final one short of their normal line-up, then so be it. They should have thought about the schedule of the event before entering/making their holiday arrangements.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered with the 2nd option, but I think Team A having the right to refuse is based, at least in part, on the normal regulations, i.e. that they need play the winners of the 2nd semi-final and Team B have no right to claim that they are that until they've won said semi-final. In other words, it is tantamount to illegal even if the regulations don't specifically say so.

Of course, if Team A and B are on more friendly terms than the OP suggests, then do what you like!
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well you've sort of convinced me. Though whether I would have worked all that out at the table in any sort of sensible time frame is highly doubtful.

And what if you bid 6NT and partner has

AQ
KQxxx
AQx
xxx

opposite the second hand and opps lead a spade and 12 tricks roll in. Then they will be crying why weren't you in 5NT passed out or 7NT one down. These UI laws seem to me heads I lose, tails you win situations to me.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>We all play bridge as a serious recreation.

Well, many of us here do. Some play professionally. However many of those we encounter (and partner) play bridge as social, not serious, recreation. Many of those would plump for 6NT and, even if we would wish not to, most of the rest of us would do too, if only because we'd be worried that partner wouldn't understand - if indeed any meaningful sequences have ever been discussed at all.

I guess that makes us all lazy!
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is quite possibly a fair point.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had I genuinely not had any of this UI at all, one of my reasonable options might well be 5NT which I (and I think others) play as forcing to 6 and inviting 7. The fact that my partner passes this and my jaw drops to the floor in surprise is not my fault. Partner is not obligated to bid. And I have fulfilled my obligation to bid as if I had no UI.

If opps are unhappy, they can recall the director and argue that 5NT was, in fact, not a reasonable alternative, or indeed that it was suggested (in comparison with 6NT). And if they can get the director to agree that, then I have to take the ruling (or maybe appeal). However, I wouldn't bid 5NT unless I thought it was a genuine best call.

We don't have the “random 7 count” to actually judge the merits of particular calls. It could have been

KJ
Jxx
Jxxx
Jxxx

(inviting 7 seems at least hoping for quite a bit opposite 28). It could have been

xx
Axx
KT9xx
Txx

(exploring for a diamond fit or simply inviting 7NT looks quite tempting)
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as you genuinely think your bid is forcing, partner (who is *not* under the same obligation as you) can pass if they think that is best.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I understand your interpretation too!
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted no, not because responder is not obligated to bid, but because the poll question was whether you're obligated to “bid 6NT now”. Clearly you are obligated to not pass and indeed not drop the bidding yourself below 6 of something. But you are not obligated to jump to 6NT, nor is opener under the same restraint (the fact that opener screwed up is AI to opener).
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> how is making someone open 2♣ on a 15 count equitable?

It isn't. The law doesn't bring equity into the equation in this case:

LAW 25: LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL
A. Unintended Call
1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.
2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If by “cards stuck together”, you mean the bidding box cards, then I understand how it became obvious that the intended bid was 1NT. Further, I understand the ruling as I don't think p can correct their bid (on the basis of mechanical error) once you've called.

I think your alternatives are 6NT, 5NT forcing to slam and inviting 7 or some other bid exploring for the best strain. I don't think you can pass.

I suppose 2 (strong) is not alertable or announceable in the US. In England it is, which would have woken your partner up to what had happened and they could have changed their bid before it became too late.
April 6, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top