Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Gordon. I'd missed that change even though it was made in 2008. I'm not sure it was a change for the better. Presumably the LC was thinking about a tournament, where having a much better player declare could be a big advantage. Despite that, it eliminates what might be a good practical solution in a club game.

Law 16D2a also has a requirement about “the player with information about one hand,” so maybe it can never apply at all when the information is about something other than one hand.

On checking, I see the provision for a substitute player also went away in 2008.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's very difficult for a player to “educate” newcomers about the rules. As Ed implied, that's the Director's job.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn nailed it. The key is to make the Director call seem normal. After an insufficient bid or revoke, they know they've done something wrong and expect something to be done. I've had luck with the phrase “Uh, oh. That doesn't look right. We better find out what to do now.”

Whatever you do, it's important to avoid making one's own ruling at the table. Either let it go, or call the Director.

I might let the meaningless revoke – the one the player might not be aware of – go. If it's obvious to everyone, then I call the Director.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if you become declarer in a board you know too much about, you can suggest that partner declares the board”

Seems allowable under Law 16D2a: “adjust the players’ positions at the table.” Nothing says such adjustment can be done only before the auction begins. In fact, I've had a TD allow partner to declare instead of me when I'd seen something at another table that my partner hadn't. By good luck, all my calls had been completely dictated by system, so there was no problem during the auction, but my play might have been tainted.

If the board is really unplayable, I think avg+/avg or avg+/NP are OK. You have to give avg+ to the pair who have done nothing wrong.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand the reasons for asking. I just don't think they outweigh the reasons for not asking, not the least of which is that answers given under pressure are not reliable.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One can easily sympathize with South, who faced an unfamiliar and difficult situation and therefore took some extra time. Regardless of our sympathy, though, the extra time placed legal restrictions on what North can do.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polling can be useful in assigning weights in MI situations. If a pollee says double is ludicrous, it will probably get a low weight. If a pollee says instead “I wouldn't, but it's worth thinking about,” the weight would be higher. Assigning weights is more art than science, but having opinions such as these can help.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John has the right idea, but “no further rectification” is too far. There's no further rectification for the final pass (if the player lets it stand) or the subsequent auction (if the player changes his pass). However if the failure to alert caused damage earlier in the auction, that has to be rectified later. I think John knows this but wrote a little carelessly.

Asking players away from the table what they would have done with a proper alert is common in the ACBL but deprecated in other jurisdictions. I believe the other jurisdictions, as usual, have it right. Players shouldn't be distracted by having to rethink past actions in a different situation than the one they were faced with.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as I know, the official rule as passed by the BoD is that passes, doubles, and redoubles are always immediate alerts. However, the regulation Ed quoted says (middle of p. 7) “…conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over.” In contradiction to that, Ed's quote, which is on p. 5, refers to bids. I think what happened is that there was an improper edit changing “bids” to “calls,” but the result is an inconsistent document.

Passes, doubles, and redoubles _should_ be immediate alerts – if they are alertable, opponents almost certainly need to know right then – but one could be forgiven for believing the ACBL rules say otherwise.

If anyone with official authority is reading this, how about getting the document cleaned up one way or the other?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“IF opening leader has authorized information from the comment and that information overrules all else…”

Then nothing but a lead would be a LA, and there would be no adjustment.

The problem is that first poll showed that the comment didn't “overrule all else.” Even with the comment, 3 of 6 pollees led something other than a . That shows other leads were LAs, even with the comment.

Like others, I wish the writeup had been clearer about what the second group of pollees were told. Maybe the final writeup will include that information. (Writeups in the Daily Bulletin are by necessity only preliminary.)

If you accept all of the following:
1. North had UI from the slow return of the tray.
2. That UI suggested a lead.
3. At least one other lead was a LA.
4. 13 tricks would be made on a non- lead.
Then the adjusted score is required.

One can argue against any of the first three, but I don't see that any of them is clearly wrong.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vice or vise? (Is this a difference between British and American spelling?)
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Michael's approach (all Open+ events, 6+ boards on Open), but the BoD didn't. Multi was on an early draft of the Open Chart but was removed despite legal now on the Midchart.

Contrary to some others, I don't mind the requirement to provide a written defense. Eventually one would want to get away from that, but I see no great harm in it.

Oh and by the way, the Bridge World – which I rely on for terminology – refers to a weak-only Multi as “Wagner.” I don't know where that comes from, but it's easily understood once you have seen the term defined.
Nov. 18
Steve Willner edited this comment Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you think North's 4 bid is the worst double-shot in the history of bridge, Law 12C1e1 applies to the OS score.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We can argue about the exact weightings – and a Director should consult before deciding – but Jacob's process is right.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some facts that might possibly be useful in your eventual application:

1. many US universities have bridge clubs. The ACBL can probably give you a lower limit on how many. These clubs typically have had long lifetimes.

2. there is an annual, national competition with prestige to the winning university. Also, I think, modest scholarship money.

3. bridge is recognized as part of the Olympic movement. I believe it's the only card game so recognized. (I realize this recognition is not an unalloyed blessing, but one might as well milk it for all it's worth.)
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for being slow on the uptake (and slow to find this thread), but why would having Argentina drop out have been a disadvantage to Italy?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the point of the “critical footnote” is that class of player should _not_ affect the ruling. In effect, I believe the footnote is saying “Even a world-class declarer can have a careless moment. Treat that as normal for claim rulings.”

David's point seems to be – as it often is – that the language used in the Laws is so unclear that nobody can tell what the right ruling is. I agree with him here.

FWIW, I believe custom around here has been to allow unstated lines of play when something remarkable will happen in the course of a stated line. That's OK with me: despite the facetious (I hope) comment below, the Laws are designed to encourage claims. However, disallowing the unstated line in this case looks consistent with the Laws text.
Oct. 22
Steve Willner edited this comment Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I just ordered from “jeremy,” who seems to be cheaper than BB.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the information. I wish it had been available from an official source.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In general, the Open chart will allow a wider variety of competitive methods than the GCC does. Over natural openings, a known suit will still be required in most cases, but the bid to show it need not be in that suit.
Oct. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top