Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 15-17, it could also be a semi-balanced hand with a singleton in partner's suit (therefore no 1NT opening). As Christopher mentioned above, opener should not be bidding 3NT with an above-minimum opening and 3-card support for partner's suit.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are going to use a bid to artificially show a minimum, it seems to me it should be 2. There's still not enough room to sort everything out, but you have one more step. For example, responder's 2NT could be a transfer to clubs or could artificially show 2-card spade support.

If willing to give up natural 2NT, you could use 2NT to show six spades, or you could follow Benoit's scheme but with 2NT and above guaranteeing extras.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David is channeling Mark Twain there, but it's still hilarious. (I think Mr. Clemens suggested letter x for the th sound.)

Isn't the real problem that English may cease to be one of the (many) EU official languages? Has any country agreed to sponsor its continuation?
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see the contradiction: some ACBL regulations are binding on clubs, but others allow clubs to make their own rules. (The convention charts and the stop-card rule are examples of the latter.) My question was which category the bidding box rules fall into.

We all agree that as a practical matter, clubs can have their own rules on nearly everything. That makes my question one of only theoretical interest.
Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about “none of the above?” As others wrote, you are certainly allowed to hold the tray to keep the tempo normal. If LHO has already taken a long time, why do you need even more?
Dec. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As others have written, the quote after “lawfully” is an ACBL regulation. Other jurisdictions have different regulations, and in practice, if not officially, ACBL clubs can have their own rules.
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is a club allowed to adopt its own bidding box regulations? For example, could an ACBL club adopt the EBU or similar regulations on this subject? As a practical matter, I'm sure they can – see John's post above – but what about in theory? Clubs are explicitly permitted to have their own regulations on lots of other things, so why not this?
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps it's worth reiterating the procedure for handling MI cases because there seems to be persistent, widespread misunderstanding. When MI is suspected:

1. find out what explanation was given at the table.

2. find out what a correct explanation would have been.

If 1 and 2 match, the ruling is easy. :-) If not,

3. work out what would have happened if the correct explanation had been given. This can be a weighted combination of multiple results and can include (or be) the table result. If this is less favorable to the offending side than the table result, give this adjusted score to the OS.

The NOS actions after the MI have not been considered to this point, but finally

4. consider whether the NOS actions after the MI were
4a. "an extremely serious error (unrelated to the “, or
4b. ”a gambling action“ (and some more words).
If neither of those applies, assign the same adjusted score as at 3 to the NOS. If either 4a or 4b does apply, you have to work out which part of the damage was ”self-inflicted,“ and the NOS may get either the same or a different adjusted score or keep the table result. This is complicated but very rare. ”Extremely serious error“ means total loss of sanity, sometimes described as ”as bad as a revoke," not the ordinary errors that all of us make all the time.

Also, be aware that except behind screens, MI creates UI, so consider whether that could have affected the result.
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As John wrote, my answer depends on whether 2M or 2NT is the catch-all. If the former, I'd put it somewhere between 2 and 3 on the poll: enough extra that the hand is firmly beyond minimum range but not necessarily “full reversing values,” which seems to mean an 18-count nowadays. With any minimum range hand, the first requirement is not to bid above 2M except to raise of responder's minor. Some might not make even that exception, but most intermediates will.
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Gordon wrote, the rule depends on the jurisdiction you play in. I believe most of Europe have the same rule as the EBU, but I'll welcome correction if others know better. Australia and New Zealand mostly use written bidding; I'm not sure what they do in events that use bidding boxes.

The ACBL rule is intended to be exactly the same as the rule governing when declarer's card is played. While I think the EBU generally have far better rules than the ACBL, here I prefer the ACBL rule. It makes for a useful consistency and gives players plenty of time to make sure the selected bid card is the one they want. The downside is occasional creation of UI, but that can be dealt with.
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. There is never a “bridge reason” for any gratuitous remark. In contrast, there is usually (not always) a bridge reason for taking a long time to think about choice of call or play. One exception made in case law is that taking a long time to think about which spot card will most deceptive is not considered a bridge reason.

Whether the other conditions for an adjustment are met is a different story. Right now I'm not seeing how they are, but I'm ready to be persuaded.
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times….
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are the new charts as presented, i.e., after taking the latest comments into account, available anywhere?
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… Law 70.D.1 that states the director should take into consideration the ”the class of the player involved“

That is the opposite of what L70D1 says. A paraphrase of the Law would be ”Even the best player can miss something, so when ruling on a claim you treat careless lines as normal even for very good players."
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were in this position, I'd bid 1NT barring partner. Do you think that would run afoul of L72C?

If opening 1NT were 10-12, I think 1NT overcall (presumably something in the 15 to 18 ballpark) would be a comparable call. It would also be a mis-description of the hand so perhaps not a good choice.

If opening 1NT were 12-14, I doubt the player ever would have bid 1.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rewording was recommended to at least some members of the WBFLC prior to the 2007 revision, but I have no way of knowing whether the issue was considered.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the 1975 Laws were the version in which handling UI via score adjustment was first introduced. Prior to that, “using UI” was a conduct offense and therefore rarely redressed.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, let me try to be clearer. Suppose East had the Q, having ducked the first round. After the revoke is corrected and dummy's play is changed to the J, can East now play the Q? In other words, has East's original low club _already_ become a major penalty card, which must be played immediately, or does it become a MPC only after the revoke trick is corrected and completed?
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Ed up to “East may change his play as well.”
L62C2 says that East may withdraw his card but that it becomes a penalty card. Neither L62C2 nor L50B is explicit whether the penalty card is major or minor, but “exposed through deliberate play” seems closer to the mark than “unintentionally.” That makes the penalty card major, and it has to be played at the first legal opportunity, which is on the second round of clubs. So as far as I can tell, the practical result is that East may not change his club play.

Is there an interpretation somewhere saying that this is wrong?
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's worth keeping in mind that “normal tempo” depends on the auction. If it goes 1S-P-4S-5H- to me, I guarantee my action – whatever my hand looks like – is going to be a lot slower than it would have been if RHO had passed.

In the OP auction, RHO's interventions were both somewhat unexpected, and it is normal to take some time to reset one's evaluation. The appropriate pause is something much shorter than the “10 s” for a skip bid, but you want to avoid an insta-pass or insta-double, either of which would give a strong suggestion about the likely hand type held. A pause of 2 s or so would be about right for most players, both for the double and for the pass on the first round. In other words, I think the OP had the right idea but may not have executed it well.
Nov. 27, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
.

Bottom Home Top