Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Burn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 333 334 335 336
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, the detailed analyses by Craig and by Kurt are entirely commendable and entirely correct - my own comment was merely an indication of why the answer was closer to 75% than 67%.

I confess, I'd be interested to see the full hand.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, I see - this is another example of your position that if you act on information that is (or that you believe to be) authorised you are doing nothing illegal even if your action is also suggested over another action by information that is not authorised.

As I recall I have not said much about this position in the past; all I would say in the present is that it looks to me to be a distinction without a difference in most cases, though I could imagine cases where it might be relevant.

As a practical matter I would tend not to adopt it; after all, it could be used by the ungodly as a justification for doing something bent that would not be spotted by the opponents or by a TD. Still, it certainly has it uses in terms of drawing a distinction between actions that are dishonest and actions that turn out to be judged illegal - an important distinction in these interesting times.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The regulations differ from country to country; if you are unsure what regulations apply to your action in removing 2 from the box having intended to bid it but (before placing it on the table) suddenly realising you should not bid it in your system, you may call the TD.

I suppose that if instead of calling the TD you decide to allow the removed 2 to be your call at that turn, you could argue that you had deliberately chosen to misrepresent your hand.

Certainly if a player chose 2 knowing that it showed majors but hoping thereby to inhibit opponents from bidding majors while hoping that partner might not be inclined to bid them, that player would have psyched because his action was deliberate.

Not such a foolish idea either: opponents might well not choose to explore major-suit fits even if they could, and might well end in 3NT off the diamond suit with 4M a better spot.

So, a player in the position of the original poster could indeed “continue to bid 2” as a deceptive manoeuvre since (per the Swedish regulation) he had already “bid” it anyway. That is what David Carlisle means, and he is not wrong (whereas many of his respondents clearly are, and the rest may or may not be).

But the OP did not resort to that strategy; he was concerned only with his legal obligations following a call that was an accidental misdescription of his hand. Decent of him to confess, if the truth be told - David Carlisle and I both know one or two players who wouldn't.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, we know. What I don't know is what this has to do with anything.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because we don't know what you know unless everyone knows it. Only you know why you bid 2, and we aren't expected to take your word for it (nor should we be, for reasons already given above). But we all know why you treated partner's calls as if they were facing majors.

To put it another way: if you try to get out of having misbid in the same way that a villain would who did not know he had misbid until his partner told him, we will treat you just as we would treat that villain. We have no reason to do anything else.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Difficult to plan the play without sight of declarer's hand or dummy's, but down seven should be close to a top.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then you might be more inclined to believe them. As I say, if the TD has what seems to him good and sufficient evidence that the agreement is X and a player was damaged by being informed it was not-X, then the TD should adjust the score.

But in general I am disinclined to believe a player who has diamonds and doubles, then says that the partnership agreement is diamonds while his partner says something else.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, you should raise to at least 3. But if you have three spades and a maximum, you should raise to 4 (or perhaps splinter with a singleton).
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The knowledge (actually not knowledge but supposition) “partner will think I have majors” is authorised before partner alerts.

The (actual) knowledge “partner thinks I have majors” is unauthorised as soon as partner alerts.

Since actions predicated on the latter are illegal, they may not be taken even though they are the same actions as would be predicated on the former.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, you can do your best to recover. But you are not allowed to know that partner thinks you have the majors.

Say that over 2 partner's 3 would be a game try of some kind in one or both majors. You're allowed to pass it, because you must treat it as a raise in diamonds.

But say that partner bids 4. You know he's “supporting” your “hearts”, but you're not allowed to know that - you must treat 4 as an offer to play there opposite a diamond overcall. Of course, at this point you will hear a lot of bleating that partner can't have such a hand because he passed as dealer. Ignore it.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The testimonies from North-South suggest the agreement is diamonds, and South forgot”

If you as a TD decide that you have enough evidence to presume that the agreement is diamonds, you are at liberty to do so and to rule accordingly.

I have rather stronger requirements for evidence than that, chiefly because in my time on various committees and at the table I have heard an awful lot of people talk an awful lot of bilge about what their agreement “really” is.

The testimonies from North-South suggest to me that as usual they don't know what they're doing, so I will rule as if they don't know what they're doing and their opponents were so informed. The reason I like this approach is that it results in correct rulings, whereas believing self-serving bilge does not.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If West and East both have at least one trump, the chance that West has one or two is obviously the same as the chance that East has one or two, namely 50%. If declarer succeeds if an ace is onside (50%) or West has one or two trumps (50%) the chance of success is 75%.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If W knew the double was just diamonds”

He’s not allowed to know that, because North-South don’t know it. There is no such thing as “the actual agreement” in this case (unless North-South can show that there is), and as I have remarked many observers and some Directors are in error if they assume that there is.

Sure, both East and West were misinformed. But they would not have been correctly informed if they had been told “our agreement is diamonds” either. Their actions should be judged to be what they would have been with the information “we don’t know what this is, but it’s either diamonds or majors”.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure there is any “general” principle regarding the extent to which players are supposed to protect themselves from damage due to MI. Much depends on the class of the players and the nature of the information.

Here, for example, East-West might have agreed that in a strong club auction they can still bid majors naturally even if an opponent has shown them - after all, people intervene over a strong club without necessarily having much in the suits they show. Or, East-West might simply have an agreement that bids are natural unless they can't conceivably be natural. Or, East might just have decided to bid his hand. None of these is anything like a serious error.

I suppose that if North's double was by agreement a strong major two-suiter, and he actually had one, and South failed to alert, and East bid 1 with this hand not because he did not know what the double meant but because he was not paying attention and had not noticed the double, that might be a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Even then, one might argue that if South had alerted East would have seen the double - but in some very foolish jurisdictions no doubles are alerted anyway.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could argue that East is actually entitled to explanations from both North and South (as might perhaps occur in an online environment). I don’t think that’s an unreasonable fiction; I just don’t think the present Laws support it.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He might. But West might then think East had diamonds, and when South bid several spades and East doubled him West might think that was for takeout (or, West might support his partner's “diamonds” vigorously before East had a chance to double spades). East-West might then end up in rather more diamonds than they actually did.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In this case you would definitely want to rebid the hearts”

Well, you might want to rebid the hearts. Remember that you are not automatically entitled to know what the North hand actually looks like. You are entitled to know that one of the opponents believes North has shown diamonds and the other believes North has shown majors. But unless you can deduce who has what from other legal information, your partnership must guess to some extent.

Some serious partnerships have adopted an approach to this kind of situation along the lines of “if they tell us that they don't know what they're doing, we act as it they are doing what we would do in their place.” Others may adopt “if one of the options is natural, we assume natural.”

If in a case like this East tells the TD “I don't know what we'd have done if we knew they didn't know what they were doing”, the TD may adjust the score giving some weight to the possibility East would bid hearts and some weight to the possibility he would not. But such candour, though commendable, may not always be forthcoming - if East says “had there been any doubt then I'd have bid hearts” a TD would very likely believe him.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, the TD should do all he can to determine whether there was an actual agreement - but he must not accept any evidence that is not strongly corroborated (by, say, a set of system notes or a recent previous occurrence of the auction attested to by other players).

Failing that, the TD must rule “no agreement but…” and assume that this explanation was given to East (even though of course it could not have been given to East in actual play).
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As usual, the correct explanation is “we don't know what we're doing but among the possibilities are diamonds and majors”. Armed with that information, what would East have done?

The actual ruling appears to me to make no sense at all.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main reason the number of appeals has declined in recent years is this:

In former times the TD used to give a ruling (usually in favour of the non-offenders) and the ruled-against side made its case to an appeals committee. That committee decided matters of bridge judgement and upheld or amended the TD's ruling accordingly.

In recent times the setting of questions of bridge judgement is carried out by consultations, polls and the like before the TD gives a ruling.

So, nowadays there are fewer actual appeals because the judgement aspects of the ruling are dealt with prior to the ruling instead of after it. Whereas the polling system is not without its flaws, the current procedure seems to me a small net improvement on its precursors.
May 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 333 334 335 336
.

Bottom Home Top