Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stefanie Rohan
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, nothing has changed regarding taking the player away from the table. You still need to determine the player’s intention to decide whether a different call is comparable.

Obviously this law is a disaster for volunteer club directors, especially those that aren’t strong players. Going back to the pre-2007 version would be best for everyone and especially would avoid the illogic of having a meaning to an insufficient bid. This used to be illegal.
July 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another aspect to this case which nobody has mentioned. You can see it as not a question about this “obvious” hand. It is about the next hand, which is not quite as obvious, and the next, which is less obvious still.

A line has to be drawn. Will every player and director in the world draw this line in the same place? If not, then silent claims with a chance to go wrong need to be ruled against.
April 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No votes at all for 7?!?
Sept. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To the doublers, what do you do after South redoubles?
Sept. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The semifinal was short, but if you are in the B semifinal it is still in a way too long.

Even just two sessions to qualify six pairs from roughly 200 seems like a somewhat pointless exercise. Pairs with no further interest in the event had to play an additional session in the stifling heat of the tent. Plus these pairs would act as spoilers for the few who were in contention; even if they did not deliberately try out new systems or methods, it was hard to be motivated to do one's best – and for those who found it more difficult to cope with the heat, even their best wasn't very good, which helps to explain why they had no further interest in the event.

Perhaps surprisingly, there were no prizes; some of these effects could be mitigated if there were session prizes.

But a change in the format would be better. Take the first two days and create an A semifinal and a B semifinal. These could either populate only each other (resulting in an A final and a B final) or drop into the Swiss Pairs that everyone else is playing in. (This refers to the Mixed Pairs; for the mixed teams the qualifier was Swiss, and that just kept going after some teams were put into the final. I think).

I cannot comment on the Open events.
June 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is rule of 25 and unanimously legal if one of the small spades is the stiff Q. Not 100% clear to me that this is a stronger hand. I'll just have to take the EBU's word for it.
Jan. 7, 2017
Stefanie Rohan edited this comment Jan. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Played against Tom Townsend in the Year End Swiss Teams. In 3NT I successfully finessed in one suit, and then did not expend any mental energy on watching opponents' discards or even mine from the dummy, as I could not afford to lose the lead, and was planning on taking my nine winners. When I claimed nine, TT told me that his K was coming down. “OK, ten”. Putting the cards back, TT realised “Actually the whole diamond suit is coming in”.

That is how I believe the game should be played.
Jan. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I stood twice for the L&E and didn't get elected, so people who say “don't complain, do something about it” do not know what they are talking about.
Jan. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first-time partnership had had no discussion, no agreement and no partnership experience with a 2 opening. The opener in fact had little, if any, experience playing Benjy and was not aware of doing so this time until partner gave the system description to the first opponents.
Jan. 6, 2017
Stefanie Rohan edited this comment Jan. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Will Roper I don't think you know who the pair are, because what you say Is actually not the case.

But anyway, I thought that the regulation says that it is illegal to have an agreement to open this hand. With no agreement and no discussion and no partnership experience, it seems that a ruling against the pair is incorrect, even if, as if some believe, it was right to ask for one.

Also, I think it is important to realise that there were a lot of Benjy players at the tournament, and they all opened 2. Also some opened 2 when it was their only strongest bid. Now we are talking more about a principle than the specific regulation, but a regulation that makes lawbreakers out of half the room is deeply flawed.
Jan. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the disclosure is the trouble with the example hand you give. The agreement is legal.

But if a player wants to keep the Acol Two as part of the agreement, then probably changing the definition so that the requirement is no longer identical to the requirement for the partnership's strongest opening bid would be a constructive change

I am not saying that Benjy is a good system, but it is popular, and having two bids that must meet the extended rule of 25 when strong club players need only that their strongest and unlimited opener meets the extended rule of 24 seems inconsistent. I realise that the bid is a level lower.

But still. It's less troublesome to the opponents than, say, a Multi. The requirements for,the second-best bid should be relaxed.
Jan. 5, 2017
Stefanie Rohan edited this comment Jan. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The player was on the London committee, which did not discuss regulations. Also had not “clashed” with the other player except for one or two “auto AC decision losses” against her. Anyway, if you think that a decision to behave a certain way is acceptable for the reason that you dislike them, well I will restrain myself from completing the sentence.
Jan. 5, 2017
Stefanie Rohan edited this comment Jan. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, at the site, there was not even online commentary.
March 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To the OP: I sometimes need to leve the table for emergencies. As I try not to hold up the game, I leave when I am dummy if possible. I say “excuse me” as I push the cards over so partner can reach them better. So yes, perhaps your mistake was asking.
March 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that the coverage was great, especially the video feed in the bar yesterday. But I was surprised and disappointed that there was nobody doing commentary.
March 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This game would definitely be too slow, and soon effective bidding systems would be used only by players with loads of time to devise them.

A variant of this idea would speed up the game tremendously– every bid must be at least one level higher than the previous bid.
Feb. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Each match to play different boards? And score in VPs instead of w/l? LOL
Nov. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with both of your comments, Nigel, and for what it's worth I would have ruled against the claimer. I don't really care how “obvious” the claimer's partner's play is. I would only allow a claim if that player's play was irrelevant.
Nov. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The EBU use morass like these:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ebu+bridge+boards&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimotWmzafJAhUKWRoKHdbeBmIQ_AUIBygB#imgrc=KN-Bvru2F-YEMM%3A

Must be a nightmare for the colourblind. At least vulnerable players are underlined.
Nov. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am astonished that so many people think that it can ever be “wrong” to call the director. Michael Rosenberg posted some great comments about this attitude above, but other posters have persisted in criticising a director call. I would be interested to know what bad thing could happen (apart from an incorrect ruling). Also, how is it unfriendly?
Nov. 23, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top