Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 66 67 68 69
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because declarer didn't remember there is a trump out doesn't mean you can make them ignore their own eyes when it actually shows up. That's crossing the line between “careless or inferior” and “irrational”.

If the N/S or (even the E/W hands) were reversed, then the defenders would be able to overruff the 2nd diamond (the 9 beats the 7 or 6). But not with this layout.

Ruffing low when you think the opponents are out of trumps is not irrational. Underruffing once you see that forgotten trump appear would be.
Oct. 18
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Demanding” everyone counts their cards again isn't so unreasonable. If you do it before the revoke is established, I'd think it's actually a rather charitable act.

I've had it go the other way where defenders complained that I *didn't* say anything after I “noticed” their revoke, asking why I didn't say anything at the time.

“Because I thought I had miscounted”.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is something I've never quite understood – I expect because I've seen so many crummy rulings that they've made me confused as to which one is the wrong one.

EDIT: Answered Below. It's 64C2(a).

Say we have just the first part of OP's case: More than one revoke all in a single suit.

The adverse trumps should fall when we play ours from the top and we realize somehow has made an established revoke while we're playing the suit. We also realize that if they were to continue to revoke in the suit as it was played, they'd hold on to what would now be a high trump and would be be able win a trick later.

There are two ways this can unfold.

Case 1 – The director is summoned and they get told before the suit was finished, “Hey you revoked. You can follow suit. Play that trump now and we'll deal with the correction at the end of the hand”. This happens, and since then they later won a side Ace, then this means that they didn't win the revoke trick but won a subsequent trick so they get a…one trick penalty?

Case 2 – They get told nothing, and continue to revoke in the suit. Declarer moves onto another suit which eventually they get to ruff with a trump they weren't entitled to still have in their hand, and then get that side Ace. Again, they didn't win the trick they revoked on and won a subsequent trick, so still the same one trick penalty?

That can't be right.

You'd think that by holding back that trump to the point they'd win a trick they weren't entitled to, that would count as “winning a trick they revoked on” (or at least directly because they revoked on it). That ruling would be a 2 trick penalty coming.

Or is the 2 trick correction in case 2 something the director assigns under his right to establish equity?
Oct. 17
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
*A* trick must be won. It doesn't need to be that one.

There is no automatic trick adjustment following an established revoke (but see Law 64C) if:

1. the offending side did not win either the revoke trick or any subsequent trick.

108. it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established.




But this is the issue raised by the OP. There's no additional penalty for a subsequent revoke in the same suit, so enforcement here is tricky. If the offending side realizes they have revoked and know they have a subsequent trick coming to them, there's no benefit for them to not continue to revoke, and you'll never prove that they did it on purpose later on.

So on the one hand, the declarer can get the director to make them NOT revoke again in the suit, thus gaining the trick back that their continuing revokes in the suit would have gained them (and had been restored by the 1 trick correction).

But on the other hand, is that what the Law intends? If they revoke and win a later trick that was coming to them anyway, they are always losing that one trick for the act of revoking.

The rules give the offending side a conflict of interest. I don't want them to ever be able to benefit from continuing to offend.

I once had an opp do precisely this (winning a trump trick he should have played under my higher honors had he not dropped it on the floor) and I incorrectly thought I was due one trick from the revoke (old rules in force. I was due two).

When I pointed the revoke out, he responded that had he played his trump when he should have, he wouldn't have been squeezed on the last trick and so the actual result should be deemed as equitable (I think that was his point). I didn't think the offending side was entitled to 20/20 hindsight when being pseudo-squeezed, so I called the director and wound up with TWO tricks.
Oct. 16
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm frankly appalled that the ACBL doesn't go to gaming conventions and run duplicate bridge events. The market we're not reaching is *totally* into board and card games.

Heck, even offering to pay some of ACBL member's GenCon membership if they'd just wear some t-shirts advertising the game would probably be cost effective.

But no, we're going to rely on the poll results from the dwindling number of NABC attendees we currently have.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you David for saying it better than I could.

Along the same line of thought, there have been NABC appeals which turned on the presumption that declarer is entitled to think that a defender is out of a particular suit when he revokes (or that there must be no outstanding trumps if a revoke results in a trick where neither defender follows suit to a trump lead).

“I must have miscounted” is not a serious error in that situation. I think it's actually a pretty rational assumption.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah. I thought you were replying to my comment above. I was saying give West KJTXXX and the QX while east has the AQ.

Yes the lead won't be the same. But it would have been a plausible distribution. I agree E/W have to be giving 4 making at least. There's an argument upthread that with the correct explanation, they would likely make 5.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So swap the red queens and change west's distribution of spots slightly so he still has 6 hearts. Yeah, he'll return a heart then (and the King won't be lead), but now we're asking what constitutes a serious bridge error for south not to be able to figure out who has what.
Oct. 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should South have received a correct explanation? Yes.
Should South have figured it out that she did not? Probably.

Was the lack of correct explanation connected to the damage? Yes!

So what if she should have figured it out? By the time she “should” have figured it out it's already cost her the overtrick, right?

I'm not letting E/W benefit because South didn't figure out they had misinformed her. You can argue whether N/S are entitled to 4 making (or arguably making 5), but the best score E/W can hope to get from me is 4 making.

Now, I am quite curious what South would have claimed if it happened that West had Qx such that the Queen could have been dropped.
Oct. 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Omar Sharif.

Said he was fine walking through a casino. He could even watch people gamble without a problem. He felt no compulsion to gamble himself.

When a spot at a table opened up, and he was asked if he wanted to play himself, even that wasn't a problem for him. He said that he could take it or leave it.

But if he said yes…after the moment he sat down and started to play…it was at that point he was utterly unable to stop.
Oct. 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But when you do that only when you're going to treat it as a mis-bid, now you've documented what it looks like when you think partner has misbid. Your partner now has UI about that as well.

So in this case (as well as the one I had last night – 1 (1N) 2 (X) P, and the NT bidder not sure about the double and so wanting information on the 2 bid), my response is something like what I said last night:

“We have no unusual agreements. I was the guaranteed partner tonight. We've played together one time before. We've discussed this sequence just about as much as you'd expect under the circumstances”

You need to put them in the situation of knowing everything about your agreements that you do. So, “N time partnership” is relevant to how firm your understandings are. But “I think the hesitation implies they forgot” statement is a bad idea for the previously stated reasons

You're fine with, “I can tell you that this is what we've agreed to play and this is how much experience I have playing with this partner”.

I think you might even want to disclose, “Partner has forgotten this sequence in the past with Q degree of frequency”.

But the likelihood of it happening now based on what happened at the table (including the UI you got)? Nope. They saw that hesitation just as well as you did (or maybe they didn't)… and actions following hesitations can't be part of any agreement, so you speak to this not at all.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The wrong party had to appeal.

Avg/Avg?!?! What law did he base *that* one on? Solomon's?

I'd rethink playing at this club.
Sept. 26
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, he should verify the claim that the bid was weak. I'm going to assume he did via the time-tested, “Looked at the Convention Card” method.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's true too. You won't get clearly self-serving statements as nobody knows what would help.

Years ago in an NLM game I had my LHO bid 4 and my partner ask what it meant. Got told Control/Feature. After a long tank and a 4 bid, LHO, after their own tank, bid a slam, and before the opening lead explained that 4 was intended as Gerber.

I asked “So you bid the slam based on partner showing 1 Ace?”

And I got a totally honest response. “Well no, not after that explanation I didn't”, and while I appreciated the honesty and correct timing for the correction of the mistaken explanation, I still had to call the director.
Sept. 26
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be shocked if that was agreed to.

Things I'd want to know:

When the 2210 comment was supposed to have been heard?

Did the next table actually make 2210 on this hand? It's an awfully specific claim to make up. An overheard 1460 could result in an otherwise identical story.

I've got no sympathy for the defender who only after the auction claims he overheard it. He needs to either call for the director or find him on his own at that moment. If it was just overheard by (either or both) the defenders, then they might get told to play the hand out and not make use of it.

Then it's just up to the opps to try to deliver on the grand but I suppose that scenario also might result in a “Did you overhear it too?” type of question. As always, call he damn director asap.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With C players, that hesitation often is the time it takes them to realize they are not actually on the hot-seat, that they've already limited their hand, and their partner still gets to make the final decision…oh hey, I can pass here!

This is why it's tough for me to make hesitation adjustments against newbies. Who knows what the particular hesitation implied?

Did you hesitate the first time you had such a decision at the 5 level? Probably. Do you remember why you did? Probably not.

And good luck finding C players who think sufficiently alike to be of the “same class” of which to poll.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aha. They changed the 1 alert/announcement requirement at some point. Good, because that was annoying.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally with you. And if you asked me which part I found worse, the improper “Transfer” announcement or the MI because it's NOT a transfer but, in fact, a relay, it's easily the MI part.

I gave a lecture to 199ers a few weeks ago where I listed the announceable bids and made it clear these were the ONLY announceable bids.

1) A non-forcing 1 opener as “Could be Short” (A “short 1 opener” as on many precision cards is alertable EDIT: No longer! Thank ghu).

2) A 1N response to a 1M opener as “Forcing” or “Semi-Forcing” if it is. The reason for this announcement is to warn the opps that opener's rebid, if a minor, may be made on as little as a doubleton.

3) The point range of your 1NT opener (but NOT your 1NT overcall).

4) A 1N opener responded to by either 2, 4, 2, or 4 as “Transfer” to the next bid. Same for 2NT and 3. 3, 4, and 4. This applies only for transfers to the Majors and Just for NT openers. Minor suit transfers? Alertable. 1N was an overcall and you play systems are on? Fine, but those transfers are now alertable (hardly anyone does this. I often wonder if they changed the rule to make them announceable too and nobody, including myself, noticed).

My understanding is some non-announceable bids also become alertable too. Say:

(1)-P-(P)-1N
(P)-2.

That's stayman? Alert it.

It's fine to play systems on after a balancing NT overcall, but the conventional responses are now alertable, even if they didn't require so much as announcement if made in response to the same bid when opened.
Sept. 23
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael. Doing that during the hand is totally fine. Stretching out a particular play to get that data is when it becomes dicey.

If youre the declarer, and you play up to the dummy, and what the LHO did didn't tell you what you needed to know, and nothing either opp has done during the hand so far has told you what you need to know, I submit that at that moment you are not entitled to any more data. Waiting in hopes of the RHO giving something away before you play your card from the dummy is the line. Youre not playing bridge there. He's certainly not. He's waiting.

Everything you did up until that point is fine, including watching the LHO on that trick carefully. But there's no more data from the RHO to be gained until AFTER the card is chosen. Trying to extract it from RHO at that point is the issue. Your LHO played to the trick and you have legal inferences to draw there. You have legal inferences you can take on previous tricks from both opps. And again, from LHO on that trick itself. But changing your actions there to try extract anything else from a RHO that has yet to play is a problem.
Sept. 20
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is why I'm so big on both enforcing AND explaining to novices. I've got a rant here about how in Regional B events that my directorial experience has helped me shut down what I thought were attempts to intimidate less experienced players. They simply didn't work on me because I knew what the laws said.

When you both enforce the rules AND explain them thoroughly and gently, youre teaching the novices self defense for dealing with people like this. Ex: The declarer can lead out of turn and the opps get to accept this just like a declarer could if they did, but many bridge players don't know this and think the declarer can put it back into their hand without any redress. The novice who learns that early becomes an intermediate player that knows this is a time to call the director when an advanced player tries to enforce the incorrect but popular misconception on the table.
Sept. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 66 67 68 69
.

Bottom Home Top