Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None vulnerable Matchpoints

T4
J64
A862
KT98

P P 1 X
1 ?
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a presumption that highly unusual doubles will have been prealerted either verbally at the beginning of a round or match or there is a place on the front of the card for pre-alerts.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polls of a handful of people are almost completely useless.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course Dan. When I said “You can say …” I did not mean to suggest that that answer was the only option for various partnerships. It happens to be the answer that I eventually extracted from the opponents at the table.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is unfortunate at best.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The NZ Bridge rules say that normally the non-offenders should be given average plus or some similar words if there is damage.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the players involved knew the alerting rules. Yes I accept that failure to alert was probably an honest mistake.

Making a comment in a live auction is not something that anyone should do. I think that showing disapproval of your partner's explanation is flagrant or something approaching that.

Again I don't suspect it was done deliberately to gain an advantage. However I think the game would be much better off if this sort of action was penalised as a matter of course.

Not penalising leaves the non-offenders thinking that they might have done better if their had not been an illegal communication between the opponents and letting the offenders have the best of it seems completely wrong to me.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sadly I think it is standard operating procedure.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The effect of playing an illegal convention is not the advantage when the convention comes up but also what it allows you to do with other bids.

For example I doubt that any forcing pass pair would say that the fert bid is the strength of their system. They might even be losing on hands where they fert. The good results come from their other bids.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have twice had rulings against my opponents playing illegal conventions.

The first on the second day of a three day event where a pair opened an illegal 1 catchall bid in a transfer opening system. The director gave us 60-40 on the board is question and imposed no further penalty on the pair who had played for a day and a half with an illegal method.

The second a pair played an entire event with a HUM. The director decided to penalise them a small amount after the event that did not change the overall result and made no adjustments to any boards where the pair had obtained an advantage using the illegal system.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick I suspect some who like David Burn's comment don't necessarily agree with what he said but are rather amused by it.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How is this different than the option above in the poll?
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree with your opening sentence. In response to what 3 shows you can say “11-15 hcp with four or more clubs” and possibly some other inferences whether or not you know others play it differently.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit that there is an ambiguity in the words I used.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I asked a follow up question. I got abused by the opponents. I called the director. The director got them to repeat their explanations which was “clubs”. The director asked me if I was satisfied. I said “no” and he asked again and I still said “no”. Then there were more disparaging comments from the opponents and the director chimed in on the abuse towards me.

The game is in very poor hands when experienced pairs think that it is fine to give almost no information about their bids. I mean I knew that 3C was clubs on the assumption that it was not alerted. I really should not have to tell the opponents what I want to know as that gives information about what I think my problem is on the hand. They should just answer the question in a straight forward manner.

After the abuse I misdefended the hand (twice) and they probably got a top. I hope that they are satisfied with their abuse of the rules to make like difficult for the opponents.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David in addition in many places three card suits are considered natural and you might not be told that could be held systemically unless you ask.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opening post begun with “In the play …”

Imagine a defender wanted to know precisely what 3C showed - 4 or 5 clubs as Frances explained or maybe fewer and whether or not extra strength has been shown as others have alluded to.

A defender might want to know this information in order to decide on an appropriate defence. It is usually a losing option to play declarer for something that they cannot hold.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That illustrates another thing that is wrong with the way polls are run.

Also defining peers by the number of masterpoints and not how they think about the game is an abomination.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you are mistaken Andy.

1. It is not unlawful for their to be overlap in a system.

2. There is no obligation on me that the opponents understand. Law 21 A covers this “No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.”

If my explanation accurately coveys our methods and you make an additional assumption then it is your own misunderstanding not a problem with the explainer.

Similarly if my explanation accurately conveys our methods and you otherwise misunderstand then that is your problem not mine.
July 31
.

Bottom Home Top