Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My assumption is the TD is someone who is helping out by running the game when there was s no “official” TD.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it is world-wide…
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But there is still the bit with the BiT before North's third pass. So may come down to a poll to see if passing is an LA to 3spades with the South hand opposite partner's silence. If it is, then rolling back to 3C by West seems likely.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right. So it was to me. Obviously I have read Law 16 (indeed more than once), as witness my suggestion to omit all of the other effects of contacting the TD (e.g. PPs etc.) and simply focus on whether I will be allowed to bid Hearts.
I was using this as a “reductio…” type argument re SK's point above, which seems to suggest that UI “trumps” the presence of any AI. Without trying to assess the posted situation, I was pointing out how an absolute “UI always takes precedence” does not stand up, using what I thought was a clear-cut example. Even if you have the UI of some loose words that said you will have a lot of hearts in your hand. When you look at your hand and see you have a lot of hearts, I think that is now AI, and the TD (having done any PPing warnings etc.) will advise you to carry on and play the hand normally.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not quite sure what this is getting at. As you say, there is no agreement for this scenario. My statement that this bid could mean one of two things was not a description of our system, but simply a way of describing the situation to my eyes. That partner's bid could mean one of two things.
Apologies if that was somehow confusing.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure of the logic behind this. Before you can compare with an LA, you must first show that the UI suggested a bid over another in the first place. The polls suggest that no bid was suggested over another by the BiT.
And your initial premise is probably not correct. The purpose of this law is an attempt to ensure that the non-offending side is not damaged in any way by the BiT. It is not its intention to reduce BiTs by punishing indiscriminately anyone who commits one. It might be argued that this attitude may result in over-zealous rectifications when not actually indicated.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder if you got that backwards?
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think most of them are analysing the UI to see what it suggests, so that their next bid can avoid doing what it suggests
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Advice to myself or previous poster?
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, it would be ridiculous to suggest I am polling players of similar ability. :)
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Must be a line to draw somewhere.
So I'm picking up my hand when I hear the guy at the next table (whence the hand came) say “that was some heart suit I had”. i open my cards to find AKQJT98 of hearts. Without getting into TD calls etc….. , will I be able to bid Hearts?
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DB: I like the bomb analogy. But it's not exactly fair. It would be a genuine coincidence (not necessarily saying a major one) for a player to bid something very unusual because of a very unusual hand, on a hand where his partner Michael Rosenberg had forgotten an agreement that happened to pertain to this very same unusual bid. Maybe?
So a terrorist does indeed shout that he has brought a bomb onto the plane, and at the same moment I am rummaging through my cabin-bag and notice that the wife has popped one into that … ("did you pack this yourself, sir?…)
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener is limited to 12-14. Partner has potentially zero points, so Pass seems safest. He can speak again with the non weak-takeout hand.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We do not have that method. I wonder if it may be better suited to 15-17 1 NT openings?
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right. “The Laws…” should have a capital T.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fair enough. Partner thinking 4H is a better contract is also ahead of “has lost his marbles” , so can see that point.h
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for comment here.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…or suggests that one of you has forgotten the system… which is, to be fair, more likely than partner has lost his marbles.
If the bid does not exist…surely, surely, this is AI that someone has got it wrong, and you can realise it is you. Alert or no.
Say you play a particular wriggle after your 1NT 12-14 is doubled. Partner bids 1NT RHO doubles, you pass. Partner correctly alerts. LHO passes. Partner now MUST redouble. He bids 2 clubs. You know that one of you has the system wrong. You think. You realise it is you. You recently decided to drop that wriggle and use one where 2clubs means….etc. Etc.
So you revert to the new sytem as well as you can. The bid…impossible otherwise…told you.
But the suggestion by many is that the UI trumps this occurence, like the impossible bid was suddenly not impossible.
And, indeed, while it is claimed by some that people are bending over backwards to get an excuse to follow the UI, it is the opposing camp who are hypothesising bizarre unlikely distributions and “more than zero possibility” scenarios when partner's 4H bid might be genuine, bending over backwards to pinish them.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you say so…
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't he just tell us?
Oct. 29
.

Bottom Home Top