Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len, it is too early to share the details since a few proposals are being considered and no decision has been made as to which of them (or any of them) are viable to the BoD as a whole.

My impression is that a number of BoD members are adverse to major changes in the BoD structure. However, next year there will be a number of new BoD members replacing some long time members, and perhaps the consensus will changed along with the membership.
Nov. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I read the Open+ chart, the items 3 and 7 are disallowed for segments of less than 6 bds, and do require a pre-alert and written defenses for segments of 6+ bds.

Other than that, your interpretation of Felling two bids appears to be accurate. The examples you quote have a known suit (of quasi-natural standing) and do not need either written defenses nor pre-alerts under Open+.
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, Mike said “the end result was not going to change any thing” (meaning in the final standings).

That sounds like a very good reason not to bother with a hearing on a disputed claim.
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are current BoD task forces considering suggestions to restructure the BoD and/or BOG. At least one suggestion is similar to what you have proposed. Moreover, a few BoG members are serving on one of these task forces (including me). I would suggest you postpone your proposal to the BoG until these task forces conclude their work.
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dan has it right I think. Once the session is over and while you are still within the limits of correction according to the COC, you can ask for a correction to a claim. Either, you need to get the agreement of the claiming side, or show there was no reasonable way for the claim to succeed. For the latter you would need a hand record or the actual hand, plus get agreement from the opps on how the play went up to the time of the claim.
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To add to the OPs lament: In last month's Senior Pairs ACBL-wide event, I approved a result on the BridgeMate, and then before the next board was played, my partner noted that the result was wrong, and that we deserved one more trick. The director phoned an ACBL TD who was on-call in Horn Lake. After we convinced our director the actual result was not entered correctly, she told us she was instructed to give us the corrected score but leave the other side's score unchanged.

I was flabbergasted by this, but could do little to convince our local director otherwise.
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Starting in one month, the new charts will take effect. The Basic and Basic+ charts allow a 2 opener that is very strong.
The charts define very strong as:

e. “Very Strong”:​ A hand that contains:
i. at least 20 HCP; or
ii. at least 14 HCP and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands.
iii. at least 5 Control Points and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands.

It does appear that the corrected hand fits ii and iii fairly well, so soon E/W should have no problem explaining 2 as a very strong hand.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, this is from the Common Game according to the OP, so either the director grossly mis-made the nand, or the OP mis-posted it.
Given the severity of the misdeal, I sure hope it was the latter.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I award avg + to both sides. The hand is a horrible misdeal.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“When the illegal call or play is canceled, I take it that the next player in rotation then makes his call/play.”

How does this work when there is an established revoke? Do we roll the play back to when the revoke happened and then cancel the revoke and play from there? Sounds like there might be some exposed cards that would make a difference.

One of the reasons for dealing with a revoke as the laws dictate now is that a revoke usually cannot be determined until many tricks later. A lead out of turn is either notice immediately or accepted if not.

I do agree with Michael's suggested changes in the laws once we progress to playing with tablets instead of physical cards.
Then there would be no revokes, leads out of turn, bids out of turn, fouled boards, nor fouled tricks. A simpler rule book would certainly be nice.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After an irregularity, I just say either “I am not sure what to do, let's call the director”, or if the opps know me I say “I don't make ruling at the table, that's the director's job.”
Oct. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“how about ‘This law is really stupid - maybe we should start a movement change it, and this is a good place’?”

Law 44C states: “each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.”

I hope you don't think this is the law that is really stupid, otherwise bridge itself would be stupid. So it must be Law 64 that you find irksome.

However, if that Law was relaxed, the effectiveness of Law 44 would be diminished. Players could revoke without worrying about losing a trick they would otherwise subsequently win. So if they revoked and got away with it, they would benefit with no downside.

If you ever played ‘kitchen’ bridge with someone who revoked often in each hand (probably on purpose), your frustration level would be much higher and you would understand the reason for the revoke penalty.
Oct. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law55B2 explicitly addresses declarer leading from the wrong hand. I would expect it would take precedence over the more general laws on irregularities that you quote. Clearly there is a conflict between these laws and it should be up to the Laws commission to rectify it.

(incidentally, I quoted the 2007 law 55. The 2017 Law 55 has been reworded for clarity but still says essentially the same as the 2007 law).

As for declarer deliberately leading from the wrong hand, Law 55C (2017) states: “when declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on information obtained through his infraction, Law 16 applies.”
Oct. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, see Law 55B2: “If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from the correct hand.”

There is nothing in this law requiring the director. Hence there is no irregularity on the part of the non-offending side (the defenders). So Law 72 does not apply.
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Has Zia (or any top player) ever done this?

Yes. See my post https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lead-out-of-turn-2-nzyplg70n1/?cj=707220#c707220
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to all.
Oct. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If LHO is a LOL it is entirely reasonable that she would play the ten from Tx, giving count. Since RHO cannot place you with 6 clubs, if holding Kxxx she would also expect Tx from partner.
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The D21 information is accurate and up to date; I can vouch for that even though I am only the D21 NAP coordinator and not the D21 GNT coordinator.
Sept. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Western US we usually refer to Cappelletti as Hamilton. Fred Hamilton has often quipped it should be called Hamilton when it works and Cappelletti when it doesn't.

I personally prefer Meckwell because you can most often get to interfere at the 2 level, whereas Cappelletti forces you to the 3 level if you show a Major/Minor and partner wants to play in your minor.

That said, it is a good practice to have a penalty oriented Double available against weak NT. These days, ‘strong’ NT ranges are getting lower and lower, so having such a double against them is getting more and more useful.

Another opinion: After opening 1NT, most play systems on over Dbl or 2. If you defend with 2 showing the majors, the opps may not have a systemic way to handle that (experience opps probably will). Stayman and Jacoby xfers do little good when a defender is known to have both majors.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So am I.

Interestingly, when I saved the screen with the problem box as a downloaded file and then displayed it, all was fine. But the display was a larger size than the original image, which has more black space on either side of the BW content. It is page 5 of the cited article that is the only problem display. The hand and bidding box on that page is larger than on the previous pages, so that may have something to do with it. But again, when I saved it to a file and then display the saved file, page 5 is OK.
Sept. 26, 2018
Stu Goodgold edited this comment Sept. 26, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top