Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Aphelion” day?
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That must have been a very long time ago. Though I don't have a copy at hand, I am pretty sure the 1963 Laws contained the “restore equity” provision equivalent to today's L64C. I also thought the automatic penalty (now “rectification”) was two tricks until 1975. Of course Richard's father may have profited even with the two-trick penalty.

The reason I'm pretty sure about the 1963 Laws was because I was on the wrong end of what I believe was an intentional revoke. I had AKQxxx in an otherwise entryless dummy in 3NT. The suit should have run, but the defender with Jxx revoked. The Director gave me back two tricks but not the three the revoke cost. I was pretty sure that was wrong, and I remember verifying later. Of course the Director was never going to rule in favor of some kid, as I was at the time, and against a long-time customer.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I looked up past laws, and the one Paul mentioned was in effect from 1987 until 1997. From 1975 until 1987 and from 1997 until now, it has been one trick plus the revoke trick if won by the revoker. I don't have the 1963 Laws at hand, but I _think_ under those it was two tricks (or more if needed to restore equity). So the OP's Director was just a wee bit out of date.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One way to think about this is to consider partner's (here advancer's) possible problems. Dave Waterman above had the same idea.

Suppose advancer has a weak hand with 2=3=4=4 shape. With no irregularity, after partner doubles a 1 bid, advancer will have to guess which minor to bid. If the double was preceded by a withdrawn 1 bid, there will be no guess. This means double is not comparable.

All that said, it wouldn't be ridiculous – though I wouldn't rule that way – for the Director to rule that double is comparable and see what happens. If advancer holds some hand for which the 1 bid is irrelevant, the table achieves a bridge result. If the 1 bid is relevant, and the offending side might have gained, L23C requires an adjusted score. The OP didn't give advancer's hand, but such an adjustment might have been appropriate in that case.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would partner bid if holding Jxxxx xx Jxx xxx ?
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“no requirement to explain what a bid might have meant in a different situation.”

Might be true, depending on what “different situation” one means. You aren't obliged to explain in the OP case what an opening 2 bid means, for example. That's a different situation.

Edit: poor example, though the point I was trying to make is valid. If EW had a natural 2 opening bid, the fact that East didn't make it is relevant on this deal. A better example would have been “…aren't obliged to explain what form of Blackwood you play.” That really is a different situation. –end edit

In the OP case, the fundamental fact is “no agreement,” but there is another relevant agreement that may be helpful in inferring what partner intended. Both sides are entitled to know it. If there are possibly relevant meta-agreements, those should be disclosed, too.

“Tell them what you play” is good advice.
June 26
Steve Willner edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim's partner is an expert, though of course anyone can have a bad moment. She seems to have signaled very emphatically for clubs. Could she have started with six of them? That gives declarer a strange 2NT bid, but people sometimes make strange bids.

I'm still not seeing where we are getting five tricks, given that partner didn't open the bidding and declarer's line of play, but I'm nowhere near Jim's level.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He needs to give a full explanation when first asked. That includes what the bid would have meant by an unpassed hand. Mike Shuster, above, has it right.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The companion history article by Mr. Rosenkranz himself is at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039128X9290085N

Unfortunately it seems to be behind a paywall. I have access through an academic library, but most people won't. Your local library may have access, though, through interlibrary loan arrangements.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First comment by Andy has the right ruling. In practice, I might give 6+1 for simplicity, depending on how serious the event is.

2 would be natural in my partnerships whether East is a passed hand or not. 2 would also be natural for us. I don't know whether that's best, but we have x, 1NT, and 2NT to show the majors.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all votes and comments. At the table, I passed. Partner had a 9-count, and our finesses were the ones working, so we were due a plus score. I was perhaps unduly influenced by a different opponent, who on a previous week, passed AJxxx AJxxx x xxx in third seat.

It's a bidder's game, and I was probably too pessimistic. As Gregory wrote and Lynn implied (I think), we might end up with a plus even when Deep Finesse thinks we shouldn't.

It's also an interesting question what to do if opponents are good. They won't have passed an opening bid, but they won't slop tricks in the play.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The thread is at
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/coffee-housing/

When writing my reply above, I had originally include a parenthetical “unless the pause is prolonged” but deleted it because it didn't seem germane.

Even if the pause is prolonged, as it was in the other thread, I don't think “could have known” applies. In my view, the relevant Law is 74C7, “varying the normal tempo … for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.” If that's what happened, L12A1 – often overlooked – authorizes an adjusted score. The key difference is that L74C7 requires the Director to find intentional wrongdoing, whereas L73C and L73E2 have no such requirement.

My opinion differs from the rulings@acbl one. I'm happy with mine.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Art. Dreadful choice (or oversight) on the part of the D22 CoC writers, but it's too late to change after the event is played. I hope they (and other Districts) repair that next year if they use VPs at all.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It took awhile, but I've finally found a good example.

A defender, playing the last card either defender had in some suit, takes awhile to play it while thinking about the rest of the hand. That's certainly “no bridge reason.” Declarer now draws a false inference that the defender had more than one card to play. I don't think the defender “could have been aware” declarer would draw a false inference about the count.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what Ed (“why”) meant, but I don't see how knowing whether “short” means zero, one, or two would affect anyone's action. When would it make a difference?

In contrast, knowing the hand types that are included in 1 may very well make a difference. I almost always say “Please explain” to find out what those are. (The usual answer is simply the minimum length, and then I have to ask a bunch more questions, but that's not my fault.)

The basic point, though, is that an announcement is an alert, not an explanation. Opponents are expected to ask questions if they need more information.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to be in Nic's conversation for the full story, but I doub't I'll be at an NABC any time soon. I was one of the vast number of people Henry Bethe communicated with early on, but I don't remember adding anything of substance other than saying the new scales were great.

The mistake the WBF and ACBL are making is rounding off at all. To preserve concavity, VPs should be calculated to full floating point precision. Then, at the end, if you want to require 0.01 VP margin (or some different value) for a win, that's fine.

Getting back to D22: somebody wrote that the CoC had the old integer VP table in it. Did the CoC also contain the Bethe formula? If so, using the old tables was a huge mistake.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Peg. I think I understand the event format now. There are several ways the problem could be mitigated. A good one is to score Day 1 by VPs (proper ones, of course). Unless one team is crushing both the other two, a team that's -100 isn't likely making it to Day 2.

Second, allow the -100 “Team 2” to withdraw after Day 1. Either declare Team 1 the winner, or Teams 1 and 3 play each other on Day 2. If the team behind after part of Day 2 wants to withdraw, fine.

I don't see a valid reason not to have carryover. My preference would be full IMP carryover, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, partial carryover isn't ridiculous.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL alert rules have not changed since 2016, and there were only minor changes then. There are supposed to be new rules “soon,” but that will be the ACBL's version of soon. The Alert Procedures document is what you want. It has some contradictions in it, but here's what I believe it means. Page references below are to that document.

If 1 is non-forcing but could be fewer than three cards, announce “may be short” (p2, p16). My comment: opponents may well need more information and can ask for it by saying “Please explain.”

After a natural NT “opening, overcall or rebid” (p2), red-suit transfers to the next-higher major are announced “Transfer.”

When announcing, players are required to tap the alert strip (or show the alert card) in addition to the oral announcement (p3).
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark

For a 4-team final, if one team doesn't want to play, either bring in the 5th-place team or play a 3-way on Day 2. Unlike other people, I don't think it's so bad if you play one session, send home the lowest-ranked team, and play a second session head-to-head (with full carryover throughout). Nothing is perfect, but worst is forcing a team who doesn't want to play to do so.

Peg

I still don't understand your scenario. Did the “down 100” team want to play or want to go home? If they want to go home, by all means let them, and figure out (from the CoC) what to do next. If they want to play and the CoC say they can, they have a right to do that, and how well or badly they score is their problem (unless their bad play is deliberately, which is a conduct offense). If another team happens to benefit, that's the way it's supposed to work (again unless the bad play is intentional).

Personally I'd allow withdrawals during Day 1, but I can understand not doing so. As I understand it, though, your scenario was requiring play on Day 2 after Day 1 was finished. No reason I can see to do that. If you want to write CoC that disallow a -100 team to continue, that's probably a good idea.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy

As I wrote elsewhere, there is room for varying opinions on what the carryover should be. In the BB, there is a multi-day RR with 6-person teams. In the GNT, it's usually one day with mostly 4-person teams. The different formats seem to me to merit different carryover formulas, but using the WBF one wouldn't be terrible.

Peg

I'm confused about what happened, but if a team is -100 and doesn't want to continue, why not let them withdraw? Then the other two teams play head-to-head against each other.

If the team down 100 wants to continue and is allowed to by the CoC, why is whether they play well or badly anyone's problem but their own?
June 19
Steve Willner edited this comment June 19
.

Bottom Home Top