Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law may be ‘stupid’ - but it is much fairer than the ones we had previously. The thing is - we never hear of the cases where the application of the law enabled a sensible bridge result to be obtained.

Previously IIRC the 4 caller had to pass - so there was no way that a potential 4 contract (let alone a 6 contract if the Spade bidder had a useful hand) could be reached.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
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.

It does NOT say “generally known to bridge players of the class playing in the event”.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Should partner alert the 1 call as potentially showing the majors? Of course not. At the point you bid 1, as far as he is concerned you have diamonds.”

No he doesn't - he knows you may have diamonds OR both majors (assuming he has seen this before). The opponents are entitled to this knowledge.
Dec. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Also, opener never corrects to the 3-level, regardless of what responder has supposedly shown. This gives responder latitude to fool around if he so chooses.”

Isn't this a psychic control?
Dec. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good girl! At least when she next asked questions opponents couldn't pin any UI on the partnership.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for the 2nd option - then changed my mind.
Dec. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we have to decide how similar is 1 to 4 over 4. I would be inclined to allow it and rely on 23C if partner doesn't look for a slam (or fails to double 5) because the hand is limited in strength.
Dec. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So next time I will ask you about partner's forcing bid - and you will pass again? - looks like a good way to get a few good scores from yout.

If you have no evidence that partner will make psychic forcing bids oveer a 3NT you can do whatever you want. Once you know that partner will make these bids then you have to tell your opponents since your partner

“has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation” is no longer the case otherwise (Law 40C in part)

And please don't say that this is “just bridge”.
Dec. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have bid 3!
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Duke of Atholl - Blair Castle is the ancestral home, but I think he lives in South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Atholl
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an annual competition between the HoL and the HoC - used to be run by Rixi Marcus IIRC - no doubt Ruchard knows a lot more about it.
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done for both of you for a) spotting it and b) knowing it falls foul of the law.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe this comes under extraneous information - and the TD can issue whatever penalty they wish.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Grand Slam was made against David Bird's team - there is no evidence that the slam in particular involved card substituition - I am merely recounting what is in the book - and that the alleged offender was found out after making a contract on a ‘tricky trump squeeze’. This would presumably be in Hampshire. (Home of St Titus). I can't find my book at the moment unfortunately.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Bird in his book “Famous Bridge Records” recounts a tale when a player made 7 Diamonds on about 8 points - and was subsequently found to be substituting decks. (detected by a player putting a pinhole in a card on each board before they were dealt - and when a clver play was made discovered no pinhole in the card).
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In EBULand you would have to announce Ronald's 1 as

“May be 2,with 5 diamonds”.

NB Both members of the partnership must make the same announcement.

And alert 1 with the explanation: “Natural but the hand will be unbalanced” as this is a potentially unexpected meaning.
Dec. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West should remember that playing the card you are known to hold doesn't just give declarer problems. Had he returned the 7 East shouldn't have had any difficulty unblocking. (He can't have T7 since that would give South 5 spades - and presumably 2 was alerted as FSF.)
Dec. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst I appreciate your position, historically the rectification for a call out of turn was pretty severe (partner had to pass), so allowing the auction to continue is definitely more equitable.

However we have two choices: (not quoting laws verbatim here)

1) regard the call out of turn as providing unauthorised information

2) Allow the offender the chance to change their call to something else that means (roughly) the same and declare there is no unauthorised information per se. (With a backstop in case the NOS are damaged)

In choice 1, law 16 applies: this means that the partner cannot take any action demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information if there is a logical alternative. This severely restricts their actions! If they think that 75% of the time a specific call is suggested with the correct information then they still have to make the ‘logical alternative’ if the unauthorised information also suggests the same specific action.

In choice 2, they have freedom to make their own choices. Even if the choice is suggested by the extra information in the original call, then the opponents are deemed not to be damaged if the final contract would have been selected without the aid of the call.

When considering the choices, it is the increased chance that the correct contract is reached by correcting calls that makes the comparable call concept acceptable.
Dec. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only in part - the last sentence can apply even if there has been no opening lead.
Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EBU regulations

“Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)”

Law 21a

Call or Play Based on Player’s Own Misunderstanding

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

The player has acted on his own misunderstanding. Endof
Dec. 12, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top