Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Jacob Duschek

Jacob Duschek
Jacob Duschek
  • 0
  • 12
  • 2
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Aug. 10, 2013
Last Seen
9 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

EBL Tournament Director

Co-author of book on the World Teams Championships 2015 (printed, in Danish).

Author of books on the Danish Teams Championships 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 (printed, in Danish).

Author of case books covering appeals in Danish bridge 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 (PDF, in Danish).


Bridge Information

Bridge Accomplishments
Danish Teams Championships: Semifinals 2011, runner-up 2012
Member of Bridge Club(s)
One-Eyed Jacks (Copenhagen)
BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Entering leads on Bridgemates
Given what players waste their time on during play, I don't see why entering the lead should be an issue. Much more time would be saved if we do away with the requirement to enter the results. In a serious tournament, there is hardly room for discussing this. In ...
What To Do When Someone Acts on UI?
Call the director and ask for a ruling on what seems to be an illegal bid in view of the UI from partner. If this is a local club and E-W are weak players, using a recorder system would be far too much.
1NT - 2M to play: Alertable?
2 as a transfer is clearly alertable. So whether 2 as a natural signoff is alertable or not, a player cannot reasonably infer that a non-alerted 2 shows spades. Therefore, I see no justification for adjusting the score.
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
Well, you have a point. East can pseudo-endplay South by leading a small heart from his hand. South wins with the 8 (since North must play the 2), but instead of returning a heart into the AQ, South can simply play a club and hold declarer to nine tricks.
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
"... but when he makes the right play I see no justification for taking it away from him whatever the perceived reason for his making the play is. I could understand a split ruling giving E-W a score of +130 if it is judged that they damaged by the the director ...
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
"I don't see why South is not allowed to duck once partner corrects to a small club." As per Law 62C2, South is actually obliged to duck if partner corrects to a small club. He may only change his play if East changes his.
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
Indeed. Law 62C says that North can correct his revoke, and that East may thereafter change his card, and if he does so, South may change his. This would not make sense if North may not know which cards were played and could thus be changed. If the cards played ...
Ruling - a revoke and a killing defense
"You cannot give a non-offending side an adjusted score that is worse than their table result." Law 12C1 says that the TD must adjust to whatever would have been likely. It does not say that a non-offending side can never get worse than the table result. Consider the following example ...
Stuffed by UI
Also, when reading Law 50E1, it is not altogether clear that inferences from the penalty card are UI: [i]Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table.[/i]
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top