Join Bridge Winners
TD calls and 'failure to play bridge / subsequent or consequent?

Tom Peters at

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-would-you-rule-mi/?cj=200631#c200631

Raises a very important point. Any aspiring Appeals committee member should consider this when debating the issue of subsequent/consequent damage.

In my personal experience (notwithstanding my recent post about the 12 significant errors in the average duplicate game) the worst plays I ever get to see come more often on boards where a TD has been called.

It isn't so far from the truth to say "When the TD is called for UI/MI normal bridge stops"

Here the offending side revoked after a failure to alert. How often does that happen to you? My guess is that while I encounter a revoke every month, the number of 'revoke-equivalents' after a TD call is dramatically higher. So Appeals Committee members and wannabes: next time you see a failure to play bridge or something that fits that category, remember the TD call caused it.

A very typical scenario. Someone pulls a slow double of 4 and then gets to defend 5 and 'revokes'. Down only one not two. The non-offenders say we should be given 4x making not down one since they would have made the same play against 4x. No: the TD call caused the revoke.

 

8 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top