Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Gold
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 70 71 72 73
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed.
I was a little rude to Richard Fleet it is true, please accept my appologies Richard.
Aug. 9
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He is a nice guy, who doesn't want ill feeling so he threw you a bone. I didn't insult or attack anyone so I don't think I am being at all hypocritical.
Plus it is my business- he is one of my best friends and has talked to me closely about it. Actusally, You made it everyone's business when you made this post.
Aug. 9
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You did attack him. He feels the same way that I do so it isn't just me who found that statement unclear and non complimentary.
If you make a public post be prepared to read points of view from all sides.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you largely.
I don't think publically attacking a player who very reasonably called for a ruling is a nice way to do things though. Your post states ‘best described as “mercurial”’. That reads to me as using the meaning reffering to unpredictable mood rather than lively and is not complimentary. If you didn't mean it that way- it is your fault for not being clear.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have given a split ruling then.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry didnt realise Tom was at the table. Just to be clear. A top heart was lead originally but ruled to the jack of diamonds lead with correct info.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North lead a top heart and needed to find a spade shift to beat it two. Having seen the dummy he of course knew that declarer had the majors. He didn't find the switch, playing a diamond instead, and partner didn't play a spade either, fearing K indeclarers hand. Had he been warned before the opening lead (and it is clear that he should have been) that there was no agreement over 2C he would have been live to the likely actual majors on his right. Then he would have lead a diamond. After this lead the defence much less likely to go wrong.
A split ruling would probably have been fairer but I do not know if that is legal.
Aug. 9
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course her reason for not saying anything is because she didn't realise that she should. Damaging opponents unintentionally happens all the time, opps still get some protection though.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This thing about much better venue is clearly personal taste. Imo it is a much worse venue. Agree with everything else though.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think id have asked for a ruling- I've already stated that. Go on about lawyers as much as you like and the ruling was on the harsh side I agree- However, Kay should have said something before the opponents lead a card-not saying gives declarer an advantage as her hand type is concealed… Then none of this would have happened. (I know she did nothing deliberate to misslead opponents, everyone concerned is a very honest player).
Aug. 8
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven't given an opinion on the ruling from a judgement of what the defence might have done differently point of view- haven't even thought about it to be honest.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Going back to the ruling this post is about. To explain-simply.
Louise could not alert 2C she thought it was nat-not her fault. Kay who bid it certainly knew they did not have the agreement of natural. Thus, before the lead is made she should tell opponents that her partner possibly should have alerted 2C since it may not be natural. Not doing this means opponents are entitled to assume you have clubs. This is why her side was ruled against. Based on many comments here. Many believe the director made an incorrect ruling.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt itll cause UI and if it does I expect us to cope with it.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not everyone's ‘normal’ is the same. I would alert bids you made that I think are alertable, whether we had discussed them or not. I want my opponents to know what we are playing and what we are not playing. #fulldisclosure.
Aug. 8
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Kit and Andy.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You do not alert all undiscussed bids and I don't think anyone here has claimed that you do. However, for example if the auction goes 1S 2S from opps and your partner bids 2N which you intend to take as 2-suiter (basically knowing you are right even though it hasn't been discussed) you must alert it-if asked say“no agreement but I think it is likely to be a 2-suiter”. For what it is worth I know high-level players who play 2N as natural there so I would not assume anything. But when a 2N bid here is made that we HAVE NOT agreed opps are entitled to know that it is not agreed as natural-if nothing else.
Say my partner cancels and at the last minute I play with a scratch partner. Our system discussion was literally. 2/1, 3 weak twos. Lets just say we know eachother and it isn't our opps problem whether we have played together before. On the first hand I open 2S, partner bids 2N. We have no agreement so I should not alert it presumably, ai show my feature and partner does not alert that of course. Next hand I open 1N, partner bids 2C-if it is stayman I need to anounce it… but hey we didn't agree it so I say nothing and bid 2D with no major which partner doesn't alert either. Infact come to think of it- we dont even need to play with alert cards-nothing is alertable since we have no agreements. Yipee!
Aug. 8
David Gold edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It isn't a new rule.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very funny Tom. If you read David Burn's posts he has explained what the ebu rules are better than me. You may not like them but they are the rules and you think you do not have to follow them.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do you think this?
An alert is there to warn opps that a bid has am unexpected meaning-or that it might have (and you might be treating it as such crucially).
Aug. 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 70 71 72 73
.

Bottom Home Top