Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another advantage to Nigel's way is that responder is likely to have at least 3 HCP. Over the strong bid, responder can usually just bid game without caring about opener's exact point count. As others have mentioned, if responder has slam interest, there's room to invite.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't 75% mean at least one pair on each team won't be eligible to drop in? Was that your intention?
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And to that, at most 12 pairs will be added and probably half that in practice (though no one can know until it's tried). It's not exactly polluting the event as long as the carryover is fair.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see any reason you couldn't be face-to-face with one other opponent. As far as I can tell, Richard is proposing only that partners should be separated. That's not too far from what screens already do.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a question for the Director to rule on. Like any ruling, it's based on bridge judgment and is appealable.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A reason” is that L70A includes “as equitably as possible” subject to “any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.” A line no one would ever take doesn't seem to me to constitute a doubtful point.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the guidelines cover this case. It's fine to “make declarer play” A first, but then is declarer required to play a known loser? Or is he “deemed to play” presumed winners before losers?

The guidelines also don't cover whether trumps are played before or after non-trump suits, at least that I can see. They would be clearer if “non-trump” were removed from guideline A.

FWIW, before seeing the guidelines above, I voted down 1 on the line trump first, then defense cashes two hearts, and declarer has the rest. I think declarers will either play the trump first hoping to pull any lurkers or will play trumps last, cashing winners first, but won't switch back and forth between trumps and non-trumps. Also, they won't play known losers unless they expect to establish a later trick. Those are based on my idea of equity, not any official guidelines, but at first glance they look consistent with – though not required by – the guidelines.
April 26
Steve Willner edited this comment April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just so we all know what we're voting on, how many tables are there likely to be in the second day of the BR if no dropins are allowed?
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm coming to this very late, and I play against much worse opposition than was the case here, but could there be any merit to returning the 5 at trick 2?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think “collusive” is the right adjective at all. I'd be happier with “premeditated.” Is there any difference between a player who agrees a signalling system with partner and a different player who arranges for a spectator to signal to him? Of course in the first case there are two guilty players, and in the second there may be only one, but I'd say the offenses are equal.

Contrast this with a player who seized an opportunity that arose unexpectedly. Say, perhaps, a player who peeked at an opponent's cards when briefly alone at the table. That's bad, but it doesn't seem quite so vile as premeditated cheating.

Of course collusive cheating is by definition premeditated, but it's the “premeditated,” not the “collusive,” that in my view makes the offense so heinous.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know Frances by reputation and therefore what Richard means, but his words could be misinterpreted as the opposite of what he meant.

If Frances has never played in Flight B, it's not surprising she finds the quick 5 bid difficult to interpret.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What does a very fast 5♣ bid suggest?”

It has been a long time since Frances was a Flight B player. To me, it suggests no doubt that 5 is making. I haven't seen the player's actual hand, but I'd bet on void, clubs good enough to play for one loser opposite a singleton, and lots of high cards besides. I'm surprised to see two aces left for partner's hand, so I expect very long clubs as well, probably eight. An in-tempo 5 shows some of this, of course, but not all of it and not with the same degree of certainty.

A very slow 5 could suggest lots of things: weak for the bid (thinking of bidding 4), spade support (thinking of 4 or maybe 5), doubtful club suit quality or only six of them, or alternatively a heart void and wondering whether to cue bid. None of this is relevant to the OP question.

This is the type of hand where the best action can be figured out with sufficient thought. However, the UI makes the best action obvious even without thought.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In an MI case, the most fundamental thing to know is what was the actual agreement. (“No agreement” or any of the things Robin suggested is possible along with many others.)
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That 1NT opening is a definite no-no, and misguided!”

It may be one or the other, but I don't see how it can be both. If both 1 and 1NT are LAs, whichever of those is suggested by the BOOT is illegal. As Bud wrote, it seems that 1 will let partner bid a normal 2/1 in whatever suit he opened, so perhaps 1 is suggested and therefore illegal. On the other hand – cue David Burn – L16C2 uses “information arising,” and it's not clear what that means. If it means the information that partner has opening values, it's not clear to me that suggests either bid. Only if it includes the information that partner will have a legal problem does 1 seem to be suggested.

To Bud's note just above, I can't imagine giving a PP when the legal situation is so murky. However, if 1NT was illegal, and opponents were damaged, an adjusted score is required.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow. $250K/yr seems tiny.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polled in 2014:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/acbl-bridge-bulletin/

No guarantee the results would be the same now, of course. And as others have mentioned, BW readers may not represent the bulk of ACBL members.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“we can save over $1.2M of annual expenses by making this an online-only publication. Even if we assume advertising revenue is reduced, there is still over $1M of net benefit by eliminating this cost.”

What is the current amount of advertising revenue from the Bulletin? What do you think it would be for an all-electronic version?
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. Perhaps I should have written “infraction of another Law,” but that wouldn't have been quite right either.

To put it in simple terms:
1. when an opponent accepts the insufficient bid or call out of turn or whatever, the auction continues, and the table score will stand unless there is a rare special case.

2. when the illegal call is rejected but nevertheless the auction is allowed to continue normally with no one being forced to pass, there may be an adjusted score at the end if the NOS is damaged as a result of “the assistance gained through the infraction.” That doesn't mean any good score for the OS is adjusted away, but if the infraction itself led to the good score, that advantage is taken away.

2. when offender's partner is barred, typically forcing offender to guess the final contract, there won't normally be an adjusted score at the end, though in special cases there can be one.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 2 WJO might be comparable for a pair that didn't have a natural, weak 2 opening available. That's consistent with what Bud wrote (“few, if any”).

Just for completeness: in the OP case, the Director should have given OP's partner the right to accept the POOT.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If offender makes a non-comparable call, and his partner is barred, the table score will stand with no later adjustment (unless there's an additional infraction somewhere).
April 4
.

Bottom Home Top