Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Misunderstanding?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something else.
Opponents should call the director. The two-way conversation (whether or not the announcement itself is “legal”) is more than simply MI or UI on its own. TD call at that point by opps would be reasonable.

If this not happen, at end of auction both TD call and explanation as above.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Andy means at the end of the auction most people inform opps of error without director call.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Blackwood prevalent Scotland. Not RKC.
Multi a few practitioners.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your winnings, Sir…
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But is there a risk of making it too Bayesian/ hypothetical/predictive such that players will not trust it?
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One would assume tgat your grading will tend to go down when you play with unfamiliar partner (or does playing straight down the line to avoid mix-ups have its own virtues).
Oct. 10
John Larkin edited this comment Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RW: Agree. Also. Rating pairs figures to be more accurate, and arguably what counts most.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SM: You are almost certainly correct that IMPs favours the strong. But, as PK points out, probably not as much as MPs do.
Some people find IMPs more like “bridge” (and you can get a rest) and some find it more fun than MPs. Others will prefer the precision of MPs.
So, mediocre players who find IMPs more fun will prefer it.
Top players who like the consitent precision of MPs will prefer it.
Mediocre players who like the precision of MPs, and top players who like the fun/variance of IMPs, will have to balance this with their wish to give themselves the highest chances of winning.
Leaving ample space for both disciplines.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have asked before, but it may not be known. Does this system assume that the ability/performance difference between averaging 60% and 50% is the same as the difference between averaging 70% and 60%?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose it depends on whether you want a rating system that makes people play a card game that you are (very) fond of, or a rating system that tells you how good people/pairs are at that card game.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just how well would you have been doing if it were Match Points?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PH: I like this, but there are still the nuances of declaring vs defending when changing vulnerability and game bonuses swing the thinking.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the more conventional direction, N had 28 HCP against us last night (around 1:50,000?).
stopped in 3N opposite 5HCP. kicked himself, making twelve.
Most other tables in slam made eleven, as predicted in the “double dummy print-out”.
We got a moderate minus.
Oct. 8
.

Bottom Home Top