Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Robin Barker

Robin Barker
Robin Barker
  • 7
  • 3
  • 3
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
May 9, 2012
Last Seen
5 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Started playing bridge at Cambridge University in the 1980s.  Started directing at national level (EBU) in the 1990s.  Some directing at zonal level (EBL) in 2000s.  Now (2010s) National TD for EBU and still playing: mainly in teams knockout competitions.

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Is this a correct ruling?
I think Gordon agrees that 3 is played. It had not occurred to me that declarer's "incontrovertible intention" could be an illegal play. If we rule that declarer's "incontrovertible intention" was to follow with Q, then declarer can change the card played to any spade.
Is this a correct ruling?
For the play of cards, only unintended designations are relevant. This means considerations of whether a card was unintended only really apply to call of cards from dummy. 3 is a played card and cannot be unplayed, regardless. Declarer intended dummy to "follow" so that designation was not unintended and ...
Change of Call
The next hand can accept 1NT (Law 25B1) There may be lead penalties, whichever call is made (Law 25B2)
Runout Systems Poll
"Hinden Escapes" XX strong, bids natural except 2m then XX shows other suits
Which Movement Do You Prefer with 7 Tables?
If it is a seven-table pairs final then (obviously?) we expect an all-play-all howell. Otherwise I would play 3-board rounds (double hesitation mitchell).
Movement Question
If I played two 9-table sections playing a scrambled mitchell (arrow-switching 1 round of 9) and scored across the field then I would rank all pairs as one field. The 17-table combined mitchells with arrow-switch has more interaction.
Movement Question
I have run this movement more than once: the last time was less than two months ago. I played it as a one-winner movement by arrow-switching the last round. It is available in EBUScore as "Combined Mitchell (Sitouts at T9)" or "Combined Mitchell (Sitouts at T17)". I did not play ...
Insufficient advance
Offender made an insufficient bid, the opponent did not accept it, the offender replaced the bid with a Pass. The ruling starts from Law 27B2. Pass is not permitted by Law 27B1 (in particular, Pass is not a comparable call). So offender's partner is silenced for the rest of ...
Insufficient Bid
John: "Mine is August 25th" Snap!
Insufficient Bid
It is likely that Pass is comparable call whatever is shown by 2(P)2. The Pass leaves the auction free to continue.

Bottom Home Top