Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 205 206 207 208
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We do - it's called the Bermuda Bowl.
Sept. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only third time of asking?
Sept. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And why did the director roll back the contract? You play the board to the conclusion and only then do you ‘roll back the contract’ and only then if there is a breach of law 16B AND damage has occurred/
Sept. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this article is fantasy - the punchline is at the end

"Although they never met with Westburg on Tuesday, some of the senior citizens played bridge despite their suspension.

“Nothing bad happened,” Duseau said."

As I said - pure fantasy.
Sept. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Goldfinger cheated at golf - just proved what a cad and bounder he was.
Sept. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the telling off can be construed as a PP.
Sept. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree Law 72D2. Also agree that defensive claim has been made and play must cease as all four players have not agreed to play on.

SO the question now is: Is the play of anything other than the Queen of Diamonds not ‘normal’ - includes careless or inferior play for a person of that class.

Obviously South has made the play of the Ace - so I can't see any other possibility than to regard the play of the Ace as ‘normal’ within the terms of the law.

So I rule contract making: but I explain to North why i.e. Quote 72D2 and explain that there is evidence that the play of the Ace on the small diamond lead is a ‘normal’ play for South.
Sept. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To simplify matters - Law 73D1 covers this situation.

“1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may
work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.”

(Which answers the question about Helen Sobel - the change in manner - raising a skirt - may work to the benefit of her side - so is now proscribed. Whether the same law applied 50 or so years ago is not known to the author.)

As Skid Simon said “If the opponents can benefit from their hesitations, why can't I?”
Sept. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well if they need time to think you can't really draw much inferences from their pauses. If they don't know what to do how on earth can you?
Sept. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The default position is that when a double is of a

“(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid: Alert, unless the double shows the suit bid.”

I know what Gordon has said, but I think that (with all due respect) these P/C bids may need to be interpreted differently. Partner has shown an unspecified 6 card major suit and a weak hand.

What are you going to do with

x
x
xxxxx
xxxxxx ?

P/C on this hand is not showing a willingness to play in the denomination - it is something that you are forced to do to minimise your loss on the hand i.e. has been made under duress.

In fact under 4H1© a pass/correct bid is defined as not being natural!

4 H 1 Because they are not natural, players must alert (unless excepted by 4B4 above):

© Any ‘pass or correct’ bids e.g. 1 – 2 (spades + a minor) – Pass – 3 asking partner to pass with clubs or bid with diamonds


4 C 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings (see also 3E1):
(a) A bid of a suit before the opening bidder’s second turn to call which shows that suit and does not show any other suit. A natural bid before the opening bidder’s second turn to call shows 4+ cards, except for a minimum opening or response in clubs or diamonds which only need show 3+ cards. Bids later in the auction also only need show 3+ cards. Preference bids, completion of transfer bids and raises may be on shorter suits
(b) A bid of no trumps which is prepared to play there and which conveys no unusual information about strength or suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement
© A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

A P/C is NOT a preference bid - in fact it asks PARTNER for a preference bid.

OK - after that I have no problems in agreeing that the double of the 2 call has to be alerted and NS given the correct Burnesque meaning.

South calls the same - so basically we now have to poll North given the correct information. If South's hand shows specifically 1=4=4=4 AFTER THE DOUBLE then I am pretty happy with the adjudication.
Sept. 15, 2019
John Portwood edited this comment Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If RHO or LHO had called the director at the appropriate time (when the MI came to light) they would have been happier with the situation - of course if the TD let LHO change their action the young bidder could have changed hers as she has been woken up, not by UI, but by the question put to her by the RHO. (And unusually ended up in a worse scoring contract from having been woken up)

As they say - that's just bridge. Oppos chose their own rectification - they may have to live with it. Law 10B.
Sept. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well there is defintely UI (incorrect explanaton). The question is: has south carefully avoided making use of said UI?

We run a poll with the South hand, and give the respondents South's interpretation of the law - and then see if players would pass 4 spades or make some other call. (Players are supposed to follow the rules - it is a question whether players of SDouth's class think there is a logical alternative to 5 - which is deomsonstrably suggested by the UI (i.e. that North may not be bidding a natural spade suit but only supporting partner).

Of course it might be difficult to find players who play 1 - 2 as strong forcing since (other than rubber bridge players) I think that treatment went out generally with the dinosaurs, so you may have to tell them to ‘assume’.

“You hold the following hand. RHO opens 1 Heart. Amongst your options are : an overcall of 2, 2 (forcing) showing a strong (unspecified) hand, a weak/ intermediate jump overcall of 3, a double for takeout. What would your choice be?”

If they agree that the hand qualifies for 2 you then go on:

“LHO now bids 3 which is pre-emptive and partner bids 3 - what would your call be.”

(Unless the vast majority bid 4 I think you can hold out that this ipso facto could be use of UI) - but to carry on.

“The opponents are now silent and partner bids 4 - what action, if any, would you take?”
Sept. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If dummy draws attention to an irregularity then the director still has to be called. He handles the irregularity as usual and then may decide to award a penalty against dummy's side - as stated in law 43B1.

If a kibitzer claims a revoke then, again, the director has to be called and handle the irregularity as usual. Kibitzer's are under the control of the director and it would be quite within a director's right to ask him/ her to leave the playing area if the CoC allow.

The essence of the laws is that they must be obeyed at all times - as Law 72A implies.
Sept. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, he should not be a kibitzer - but once he spots the irregularity he has to correct it. Law 81C3 - it does say “in any manner”

Under the previous laws, then a player DID have a duty to correct an unestablished revoke when they became aware of it. Now the duty to correct an unestablished revoke only applies when attention is drawn to it.
Sept. 14, 2019
John Portwood edited this comment Sept. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh - know that - it is just that polling is usually SOP on a judgement case, especially if the TD doesn't know the conventions the players have agreed or is a different class of bridge player (good/ bad, aggressive/ timorous).
Sept. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is rather like saying to someone - we'll give you a fair trial and then hang you.

(And yes I agree with what you say - regrettably we have to go through the motions of finding out what would have happened with correct information.)
Sept. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 5 isn't allowable, you cannot include any weighting involving that contract (known in EBULand as a ‘Reveley ruling’) and is now encapsulated in the 2017 laws.

I see no reason for awarding a split score (which would only really be the case if EW did an “extremely serous error unrelated to the infraction” (or a gambling action) - failure to switch to a spade is not an extremely serious error and even if it were it would be related to the infraction.)

South should get a PP for not correcting partner's misexplanation at the correct moment (end of auction, during clarification period). Whether he gets another one for gratuitous use of UI would depend on polling - but it is hard to see prima facie why he should rebid diamonds to play when North has shown at least a decent 5-card spade suit (from the AI) and South has 3-card support with two honours.

I am disposed to award a weighted decision between 4 -2 and 4 X -2 since EW might have doubled 4 if they had known there was no partnership agreement between North and South (which is all they are entitled to know).
Sept. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe South shouldn't have covered the Queen of Hearts.
Sept. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep - you dug out the lawbook and read the riot act (I hope but doubt)
Sept. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a bit amazed that QJx wasn't a trick at the table.)
Sept. 10, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 205 206 207 208
.

Bottom Home Top