Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 97 98 99 100
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has anyone suggested that you ask declarer what he has, to help you narrow it down?
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oddly, this may reflect a subtle difference between the question asked at the end, and the question in the title.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if you keep watching the tally, waiting for an instance… what are chances it will NEVER be the same if results are close? OTherwise early leader will win.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your third paragraph, I believe, comes close to a great reply.
Just keep it at “.. but now you've asked that question…?…”
You have no agreement to adapt your style, you are simply pointing out a possibility.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FH: In possible answer to your question above, I believe the part of the Law that that MAY not apply is “special information” as I feel half of this thread may be taking a slightly extrapolated view of its meaning.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting first line…
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am suddenly reminded of finding yourself in the wrong filter lane at the traffic lights and you simply have to go onto the wrong road and hope to find a quick way back…
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Always wondered this, though assumed had to be the case as otherwise could be an occasional “ruse” and not mathematical at all.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When this quiz show was actually on, did the presenter ALWAYS open another door?
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“DIfferent standards”
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask West five times what he would do.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BY: perhaps in this case, you might argue that North might not double if, in the absence of UI, he would not wish to waken up West to the mix-up.
4H non-doubled -9 might be about right.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They've got a point.
Can't play pro poker if you think it's wrong to take money off people gambling.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed:
Have got a chess match up in Dundee today, should I take the train or the bus?
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DW: I meant you and JA can have your way. He lets the revoke ride; you can point it out. Once pointed out, however, the Laws take over. You can let the opps “enjoy the game” , but it is not up to the opps to say you should.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Back in the day there used to be an extra trick transfer if you later won a trick with a card that you could have played to the revoke trick.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is following the Laws to either point out a revoke, or not point it out. So you can both have it your own way.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since the laws are quite specific with the exceptions being dummy or penalty card, there seems to be no definite basis to extrapolate to other exposed hands unless they become penalty cards).
Interesting to note the use of “renege” for a revoke, which I thought was a Scottishism (indeed only Glasgow and Lanarkshire)
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ER: I think DC is probably agreeing with you. Crossed timings.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A number of interesting aspects, not all touched upon above.
1 This is a nice example of how people can gain by claiming. They lose the ability to make such a mistake as a revoke.
2 It would be best to accept not playing on, but this must be accompanied by a full disclosure of how you play the hand. Order of diamonds included. Indeed, you may be too late for this, though opps will have to claiM that you may make a mistake in unblocking, and TD may/may not agree this likely (“David Burn?….I don't think so.”)
3 Although you have noted a diamond in hand, you do not necessarily know at which trick you revoked. If you do not know where it happened, is the revoke “established”. You cannot check if the opponents revoked on the same trick, or later.
4 RF is, of course, correct. there is no need to bring your own revoke to the attention of the planet. Show all your cards, give them the chance to see the revoke, and don't mention it yourself…but only because you were due the trick anyway…and keep the 3NT if they do not notice this. I realise many will not do this, but please, please, do not hold it against anyone who does not call out their own revoke in such a scenario (nor slag off anyone who does) as the law specifically says they do not need to.
MIchael Rosenberg opinion on this would be of interest, as I suspect he will call out his own revoke…. but it does lead no a NON-BRIDGE result..
Oct. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 97 98 99 100
.

Bottom Home Top