Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since it doesn't take too long to count to zero - and responses to King asks are fairly well known -it seems pretty obvious from the UI that North has extra values that he thinks will be useful for a grand slam.

He also has a pretty good idea that North has the King of Spades since a) he hasn't got it and b)South wouldn't be going after the grand slam with several spade losers.

Thus the flowchart works out as follows (subject to polling)

1) there is UI: North has additional values
2) The UI suggests bidding 7 hearts (or 7NT) since it indicates extra values in spades
3) Maybe

What was that that someone said “Your partner's hesitation has prevented you from doing something clever”?
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 75D applies everywhere

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual
understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.

So does Law 40B5

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

So yes! this complies with the rules in my jurisdiction.

EBU Blue Book

4 A General

4 A 1 The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw to the opponents’ attention a call by partner that may have a special meaning. If a player is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, he should alert (see also 2A2).

4 A 2 Announcements: instead of an alert in the traditional manner, the partner of a player who makes an announceable bid makes a specified statement about the bidder’s hand.

4 A 3 Alerting and announcing are compulsory; a player may not accede to a request not to alert or announce.

4 A 4 A player must alert or announce only partner’s calls, never their own. (Special regulations apply when playing online or with screens.)

4 A 5 Even if a player cannot explain the meaning of partner’s call, they should still alert (or announce) it if they believe that it may be required.

4 A 6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is an understanding (explicit or implicit) for the meaning of the call that does not require one. See also 2D2
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does ‘normal man’include ‘careless man’ or ‘inferior man’?
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players should be careful when they make lead inhibiting bids and then explain them as ‘just bridge’. Law 40B

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Although to a player of West's high standing inhibitory bids are well known, it is doubtful whether such knowledge is “generally known to bridge players”.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You do enforce disposition of a previously exposed card - since the rules still apply. The only benefit is that if the non-claiming side have the penalty card then if the director rules, he will rule in the most favourable way that the defence can organise for the the penalty card to be played (and vice versa for the declarer). (Since information about the penalty card is AI, there is no problem for the side with the penalty card arranging for either the person with the penalty card to obtain the lead, or their partner.)

MY interpretation of law 50 is that it applies to cards that are not already penalty cards i.e. the cards that are prematurely exposed during discussion of the claim.

“A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).”

Of course no non-claimer in their right mind would accept playing on - the law exists purely as a sop to stupidity, lethargy and ignorance.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Six losers is not enough to force to game opposite a 1 Spade response (especially as these days people bid with less and less). I would bid 3 Spades. With one loser less, I would splinter. (Although I would be concerned about the quality of my trumps)
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep - given as one of the four main reasons why declarers mess up playing their hands. (Although the book is geared towards rubber bridge so the importance of b) is slightly overstated)

a) Failure to plan at trick one.
b) Failure to make a safety play
c) Failure to make a loser on loser play
d) Failure to count the hand.

(For a moment I thought you were discussing Mrs Guggenheim!)
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case I thinkk the correct explanation of 4 is in fact kickback - there is a difference between forgetting an agreement and not having an agreement in the first place. East knew they were playing kickback - just forgot which bid meant it.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not - declarer can ruff the first club with the King and the second one with the 8. If all trumps are drawn then all remaining trumps are of equal value. Note declarer said “cross ruffing” - which means they can't play a diamond and throw away the losing club.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting problem

The defintion of misexplanation is

“the failure of a side to accurately disclose partnership method or understanding, as and when required by law or regulation.”

West AFAICS has fully disclosed the meanings of all calls accurately - therefore there is no misexplanation.

(And yes West has committed an infraction by explaining what his own calls mean)

Although East could have called the director and stated that in their opinion the explanation of 4 was incorrect, they could have checked their own convention card under Law 40B(2) to ascertain whether they had made a mistake.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least the board will have good company in the trash.

(And if I was to rule AV-,AV- I would rule AV,AV since both parties share the blame - note that this is only possible if no result can be obtained or if the results are numerous or not obvious)
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so.

is a bit misleading - you could read it that if the player takes more than a normal time to make a call then it IS an infraction if he doesn't draw attention to it, however I presume it just means that writing “sorry, I took some time there” is allowed or presumably calling the TD and stating the position is permissable.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct - it is not established (unless East or West makes a claim). There are various rules regarding ability to change cards after the revoke is corrected (including the lead to the next trick), and, as you say there is a major penalty card situation. (Which is why it is important that the TD has to be called and the players not try and sort it out themselves)


When declarer realises that an opponent MUST have revoked he can:

1) Call the TD immediately - and gain any advantages from a penalty card situation.

2) Wait until the revoke is established - and then call the TD, gaining an automatic one (or two) trick penalty in most cases.

3) Not do anything - dummy can comment on the revoke after play has ceased of course.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree you personally are in a difficult position, since you mightn't even be allowed to have an agreement what partner's call means in this situation.

Law 40b2a(iv) - A regulatory Organisation

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

Your partner should have thought of the consequences before accepting/ rejecting the call.

Although I think it has been noted passim - in regards of your 4th question (should LHO be forced to bid 3) then the answer is : no! If the call is withdrawn it can be replaced by any legal call (other than double unless double is a comparable call). If it is the lowest call showing the same denominatons or is a comparbale call then the auction procedes as normal - there is no UI nor lead restrictions - but if the non-offenders are damaged by the insufficient bid then an adjusted score is awarded. Otherwise partner is silenced for the rest of the auction, lead penalties may result, and the withdrawn call is UI for the OS/ AI for the NOS.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anyone (other than dummy during play or if prevented by law) can draw attention to an irregularity - law 9.

The laws on revoking give the specific rectifications - they are not designed to punish a side or give a NOS an undeserved trick per se, they are aimed at providing a relatively simple solution to the problem - saving the TD the necessity of trying to sort out what would have happened had the revoke not taken place. (I will add that in certain situations the TD DOES have to work out what would have happened if the revoke(s) had not taken place.) (Non offending players can be compensated if they have been damaged by the revoke more than the fixed trick assignment).
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A slight simplification - if the TD determines that the player who revokes could have known that the infraction would damage the opponent then he awards an adjusted score. (72C) - this is in addiiton to Law 64C. Whether you make a contract or not is irrelevant - the question is whether you have been damaged or not (Law 12).
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the EBU - the opener would have had to alert the 2 call, not announce it as the auction is now competitive!
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On sunday (while playing) I had this auction:

1D : 2C : 1NT (partner)

RHO had pulled out his pass card (which means the call has been made in EBULand) and then said - oh that is an insufficient bid. My LHO (also a director, although I was the PD of the event) noted that the call had been accepted.

I then alerted the 1NT call.

“No partnership agreement”. (Which I have to do so under EBU rules - we don't have an agreement what an IB means).

(On retrospect this probably gave the RHO an ‘out’ since he made the call with MI and if he would have changed the call given the correct information he would have been allowed to do so - but if the call was cancelled then it hasn't been made and therefore he could now call the TD and have his rights explained over an IB).
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - and (as above) he should make clear that there WILL be options.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I usually start off by saying to the next person.

“Right you have a couple of choices. I'll explain the options and the consequences and then you must make your choice without consulting your partner.

First..”

(Mind you after I have spent half an hour explaining comparable calls they have usually fallen asleep).
Oct. 16
.

Bottom Home Top