Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 21, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 18, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 17, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 16, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Oct. 2, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 26, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 26, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top