Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peter Jan Plooy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And yet, the OP states there was no psych…
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mark, sorry, I seemed to be a bit cross-eyed when read your name.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ralph, “based on his hand, he certainly thought it was some sort of strong call.”
No. Based on his hand, he certainly thought it was forcing. That's all we can conclude.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael H. “I have never heard of responding to Blackwood when the 4NT bid is not Blackwood.”

I have been playing that for about 15 years. With a minimum hand and a long suit, we show aces. Any non-NT bid over 4NT quantitative is to be interpreted as a Blackwood response, never natural, in our agreements.

So now you've heard about it.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, you do a lot of scuda biving in the Bay?
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably closer to 20…
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe we can expect 39 more polls with different possible hands for this same bidding sequence and BIT.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And Inspector Clouseau would probably pronounce them the same.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, since this was not one of the Top Twenty, there are no “other 19”.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, ask the correct question and you might get the correct answer.
“Did the four spade call show a minimum?” ain't it.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, what you're actually saying is: if you don't want to be convicted, don't do anything suspicious.
As a general principle, I don't like that at all…
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And when West doesn't accept 1 for the second time?
Groundhog Day?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would you need the Tournament Director after playing KQ? Do you expect a revoke?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, there is, Ray. But also a much too small fraction. “The internet” is not local anyway, so we have to look at the global picture.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what bidding boxes you use, but in the ones we have the 1 and 2 cards are adjacent (vertically).
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, most of the internet is powered by fossil fuels. Most power plants in the world run on gas or oil, a minority is nuclear.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, you may have missed it, but I agree with you. I was pointing out the difference between your comment and Doug's just above it.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert,

This “revokes are part of the game” nonsense is similar to the arguments used to block video refereeing in soccer. It's bullocks. Referee mistakes are not a necessary component of the game. They are a flaw. If unavoidable, we can live with them. But if possible, they should be avoided.
It's the same with infractions of the laws. In an imperfect world we have to live with them. But we should avoid or rectify them as much as possible.

Yes, a revoke penalty gives the opponents a windfall. And an unrevealed revoke gives us a windfall. Why is a windfall for the non-offenders more problematic than a windfall for the offenders?

How can I possibly benefit my side by lowering my score? Yes, the scores of other pairs are also influenced, but only for a fraction of the lowering of our own score. And vice versa: if not corrected, our revoke would give us a better score and also influence the scores of the other pairs. Why would that be preferable?

It just makes no sense at all.

BTW. It is always preferable to restore equity. So IMHO it should be possible to rectify a revoke without a penalty, if the revoke is revealed by the offending side.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is exactly the difference between the legalist school and the ‘active ethics’ (or ‘sportsmanship’, if you prefer) school. The latter group sees that they damaged opponents and want that fixed. The former group doesn't see how that matters…
April 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top