Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Goalpost moving* aside there Ed, I could really buy into that.


Heck, I've had many such arguments with Wizards of the Coast when they make Magic: The Gathering rulings that seemed incompatible with their own rule book. I've even had them tell me to “Not worry about the rules unless I'm trying to apply for…(a high level judge of those rules)” – how's that for hubris? It just never occurred to them that I was playing in an unsanctioned tournament format, so yes, they do need to explain themselves if they want me to abide by their interpretation.

But I digress:

In this case though, you've got two different bodies writing the laws and the regs respectively.

So I'd tell you what I'd tell anyone who thought a law was unconstitutional: Surely a court of said law (or whomever is responsible for interpreting them) would agree with you if you are right. In this case, you probably don't even need to show you were damaged by the illegal reg.

I have a hard time imagining that this regulation wasn't already vetted and others have addressed this elsewhere in the comments.

* == Why do I think you made goal post move?

Before you said the “ruling” the directors made was illegal, now you say the “regulation” itself is.

The former I would take to mean as directors making a ruling incompatible with either regs or laws and that's the point I addressed.

I personally do not expect directors to be acquainted with what authority the ACBL has in writing its regs. That's above their pay-grade.
Nov. 1
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's legal to deviate from your agreements but it's not legal to deviate from the edge conditions of your agreements such that your deviation, if it were part of said agreement, would make the agreement illegal.

That, does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy.

Now if you want to go so far as to deliberately deviate from your agreements, you can do that, as long as you aren't trying to widen the agreement's “strike zone”

Specifically, your deviation must be both gross and deliberate.

It's the gross part that is usually missing.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I felt that way until I got zen with the idea that the opps aren't the ones that need to understand how the line of play I state will work – the director is. And so I offload the frustration to him if I think it might be coming.

So when I claim, I really do try to make it as clear and easy-to-follow as anyone can expect, but I don't try to restate it any other way. If they don't understand where those spades they thought they would get are going and insist that I explain how it is that they won't get them, I simply won't go there. “I'm playing it the exact same way I said I was. Want me to repeat it?”. If that's not sufficient for them, that's to my mind, a disputed claim, and I'll call the director to evaluate if my claim is good.

It's also safer this way for both sides. There are some people who, if you try to make the wording of your claiming statement easier to understand the second time, they will take that as evidence that you “realized” that your initial claim was not going to work – and conversely, why should any claimer get a chance to change what they said they were going to do the first time?
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think partner broke any law. Look upthread and you'll see I made that very same point about the popular misconception about dummy's ability to call the director.

What I believe is that it doesn't require one to break the law for something to be an irregularity. A disputed claim isn't a case of not following the law. I totally agree. But does that qualify as an irregularity?

On a questionable claim, do you or do you not need to wait until the opponents say something disputing it? And to that question, I think the answer is no, you don't need to wait…but I needed to think about it for a while.

I think if P tried to concede a trick she could not have not and the opps “agreed” with it, then of course you can call the director. That's when the hand is over. Your situation was trickier.
Oct. 29
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
She saw her error. Now what? So I think this boils down to “Does this constitute an irregularity?”.

I think we're more likely to blast you John if you had called the director as dummy without sufficient cause to do it. In this case, the question of if you had sufficient cause is a pretty good one.

With time to mull it over, I now think that if you had called the director, the worst that would have happened is you get told you lost your right to redress because you drew attention to the irregularity…which gets you exactly the same result as you got. So the worst I can say about not calling the director is that I might disagree with you, but only after having 24 hrs to think about it (a luxury that you did not have).
Oct. 29
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't want the bid-box exemptions pulled (unless we go to electronic bidding with a UI that won't let you make such mistakes).

More than once I've had things like what Craig describe happening.

1-1. Partner alerts. I look down and see I really had bid 2. I apparently pinched the cards maybe about 1/10“ lower than I intended. I even had one tournament assistant try to rule that my 2 bid counted and the fact I wanted to bid 1 was UI for partner. A higher ranking TD did a remarkably good job of putting humpty dumpty back together.

OTOH, as an NLM, I had a LHO that started an auction with X and after he tried to correct it to 1, the director was summoned. That's not mechanical and so now they had to play ”one-bid". That's totally not bridge, which was what I showed up to play. I couldn't even accept the X if I wanted to do so. I don't think I could even waive the barring of the opp's partner from the auction. That restriction never made sense to me.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm certainly in agreement about the 5-6 part.

Why no redouble with that hand?
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Canada lets you smoke weed in public?
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm also kind of curious what people think P should be holding for this sequence.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
USEBIO had changes put it for the adoption of it by the ACBL for the 1.3 version. This was back when USEBIO adoption was the big plan™ by the ACBL.

I caught some problems in the format (going back to 1.0) just before 1.3 was going to be released and they got it fixed. Some features of the format were not usable the way it was laid out. Apparently nobody had been using those features to that point.

But the XSD that the ACBL came up with to implement the 1.3 spec didn't have those late changes. You'll see a disclaimer on the USEBIO site about the XSD stating that “This is courtesy of the ACBL and may not enforce the complete specification”.

I sincerely wonder if the USEBIO people feel like they made all of these changes for nothing.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You gotta point there. I assumed the claim was in dispute already for there to be a problem.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if still the dummy and play hasn't ceased, the requirement isn't that dummy cannot call the director. The requirement is that dummy cannot draw attention to an irregularity and usually the very act of calling the director does that.

But someone else drew attention to the irregularity, and so at that moment, the dummy is able to call the director.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stop playing bridge, pick a field, and get real good at it.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recently found a lifemaster in our unit had died a while ago (over 10 years. was also on the suspended list for a bounced check apparently).

When I told the ACBL about this, I was told they would not be listed in the in memoriam section of the bulletin as their dues had not been current in so long.

I'd get if being suspended at the time you pass (or otherwise not a member in good standing), or even if not having the ACBL told in a reasonable amount of time could deprive you of a bulletin mention…but they specifically said “dues”.

I mentioned this to the editor of the acbl bulletin in an email since it was contrary to his stated position on BW of how it should work.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 (1) 1N (P)
2N (P) 3N (ALL PASS)

2N bidder didn't think they were inviting and felt they had “set the contract” and proceeded to read their partner the riot act for going to three (the opps complained to the director about the meltdown). Turned out partner had 10 HCPS and a heart stopper where their agreement for a 1D-1N sequence was 6-9)
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a situation where some bridgemates that were on loan didn't make it back in time for the game, leaving us with the 2 sections that already had bridgemates but all of three terminals left for a ten table NLM section… so I was going to have to teach a number of people how to fill out pickup slips.

But in the wait to find out that the rest of the bridgemate terminals would not be showing up, I had lots of people asking me where they were…to the point that I *almost* didn't give any of the three out because I knew I would be getting all sorts of questions of the “why is it that this table got them but not ours?” variety.

But I did decide to give them out (and thus brave the storm) when I realized I had 3 N/S pairs that had 0-5 masterpoints and it probably would have slowed the game down horrifically for those pairs to go without bridgemates. It was likely they wouldn't have known what scores to write on the pickup slips, even if they knew where on a pickup slip that the score was to be written.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“well so and so wants me to change the temp in the other direction. Work it out with them”

I'm fortunate that the club I direct at is notably warm or too warm unless you sit in a particular row where the a/c blows at you. If I know about a temperature preference, I can usually do something about it when I seek entries
Oct. 21
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 21
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
.

Bottom Home Top