Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tom Peters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 137 138 139 140
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Continue play means I can accept a lead out of turn.”

Continue play means West is on lead. As Dummy if I even agreed to continuing play I would caution my partner against leading out of turn.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“West shows ♣K and claims a trick.”

This seems really unethical assuming it was intentional.

If West wants to call the Director and ask for a ruling that is his right. It's also a valid choice not provided in the poll.

But here West is making his own doubtful ruling on the conditional claim in hopes that his opponents will believe him. Ick.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's only a lead out of turn if he actually leads out of turn.

Instead he has claimed. Regardless of what Declarer says in his claim statement, the Director should base his ruling on a legal line of play.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no such ACBL policy. If 3 is a heart raise it must be alerted.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't imagine bidding 1 with an 8-card suit.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm trying to imagine what hand East can have for that control bid considering he passed over 1, bid only 1 over the double, did not prefer a 4 control bid, and does not have any of the cards in our own hand.

Both the natural and control bid explanations seem quite implausible. That's something a lot of posters seems to have glossed over. They see the obvious flaws in one interpretation of 4 and ignore the problems with the opposite theory.

Behind screens I would reason that something is wrong and take out insurance by bidding 4.

With UI I don't have that luxury. I think taking a poll is the only reasonable way to make a ruling. If everyone bids 4 then fine. Otherwise it needs to be adjusted away.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 showing a heart raise with a spade control is alertable in the ACBL.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16B1 refers to “unexpected alerts or failures to alert”. What matters is not the legality of the alert but what partner was expecting.

In the ACBL it is common for some pairs to consistently alert certain calls that are not alertable. This does not transmit UI.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained because until we ask East why he alerted there is no possibility of making a proper ruling.

Even if the West hand seems like it should not be alertable under prevailing regulations, there might be more to the story. For example 3 might be alertable because it is a two-way bid that would sometimes be a very different hand type.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This poll is defective because the answers assume that there must be a standard meaning. That's not true in general and may not be true in this case.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the cards are sorted into four groups it is hard to miss what is happening.

If the opening lead is a spade and a moment later you see that one of the four groups is a card short that's pretty obvious too.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Told LHO you paused. He replied, no, when did I.”

You should either call the Director or be quiet. You are not the Director and it is not your place to criticize your opponents.

Law 74A2: “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Does there have to be one specific call that is demonstrably suggested? Or can a set of calls (e.g. non-pass calls) be deemed demonstrably suggested?”

The word “over” in Law 16B1a is important. The test should always be a comparison of two calls. Is call A demonstrably suggested over call B?

When making a ruling about Law 16B you are always ruling about the legality of the call actually made at the table. You never make a ruling in advance that a set of calls are illegal. As an example suppose we are ruling on a 4NT bid by South.

What are the logical alternatives to 4NT? Pass is obvious. Perhaps a poll might uncover some other LAs, but let's suppose that pass is the only one.

Does the UI demonstrably suggest 4NT over pass? Yes or no. That's the only question concerning suggested actions that the Director needs to ask.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be if someone proposed adjusting the score to 6.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite often it is an unjustified accusation of unethical behavior that leads to trauma.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I read Law 50E3 as saying the story of how the penalty card was created is UI. It does not say that the penalty card itself is UI.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 50E4 seems to cover Kit's hypothetical situation.

“If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s).”

If dropping the 2 is the only way to avoid a damaging club return then the Director should adjust the score to restore equity.

If East can easily avoid the club return by playing normally and returning a higher heart then this section does not apply. NS are not damaged by the exposure of the 2.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should point out the enormous amount of literature devoted to the game: books, magazines, and online.

Any subject that has attracted that much scholarship is bound to be an intellectual endeavor and academics should appreciate this point.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 72A:

“Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws.”

The word “chief” greatly weakens this Law. Its inclusion suggests that there may be other objects that while not “chief” are nevertheless valid. That makes it difficult to objectively say that any particular conduct is wrong.

As others have said, I see no legal way to give an innocent pair a worse score than the table result.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a surprise.

I downloaded the 2017 Laws from the ACBL site to my local hard drive in June 2017. It never occurred to me that they would change them.

Alex and Ray, thanks for clearing this up.
Dec. 31, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 137 138 139 140
.

Bottom Home Top