Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
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
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
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
John Portwood edited this comment Sept. 14
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
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
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
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
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
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well a pure Howell only works for a certain number of tables (where you have one round less than the number of pairs). Most include a bit of a Mitchell tagged on - which can be useful if more than one pair needs to be stationary.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Howells - you play more pairs, it just takes longer to play 12 rounds of 2 than 8 rounds of 3.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can always play part of a Mitchell - e.g. for 16 Tables put 32 boards in play and then play 12 or 13 rounds only - or you could play a web Mitchell if you can duplicate the boards. That can go up to 22 tables at least. bridge scoring software should be up to the task.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For seaing arrangements:

Well at the supervised pairs on Mondays they sit where they like - no one seems to mind sitting NS or EW. (there are usually a couple or more ‘expert’ players to host or make up a full table.)

On Tuesday afternoons (social players generally but some good ones play, well relatively good anyway) players again don't seeem to mind - we play a Mitchell with a couple of arrow switches in it for e.g. 12 tables, with less we'll play a hesitation or double hesitation Mitchell.

On Tuesday evenings players draw positions at random when they arrive - movement is usually a Howell so most are moving - any who have difficulties moving between tables are allocated one of the stationary NS positions. Again no one seems to mind.

Whilst you cannot agree perfect competition between everyone by arrowswitching, you can certainly have enough competition so that the result is reasonable - just by arrowswitching just over 1/8th of the boards. Then it does not matter if the strong pairs are NS or EW. When you play against them as EW - that is competition: when they play against other EW pairs then they are doing their best to help you. Without arrow switches the two cancel out. With arrow Switches then for the rounds when they play in the same direction as you they are competing against you again. (This varies but of course it is usually TWO sets offor each arrowswitch round - the ones where they play EW and you played EW earlier and the ones where you play as NS and they played as NS earlier. For pairs where the same board is arrowswitched on subsequent rounds this doesn't apply.)

I don't seed - doesn't seem necessary in a balanced event.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless that is in your agreements then no. You can't atart manufacturing agreements just to get you off the possible hook.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually you can't - you must “carefully avoid” taking advantage of the UI - and taking 3 as a cue bid is obviously an attempt to not raise the heart bid by partner.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why are you going up to the three level vulnerable with no guarantee of a fit? When your secondary honours are badly placed? When partner almost certainly has 4 or 5 spades (and thus fewer cards to support you and you are likely to get forced in the long trump hand)? Everyone says that they would balance - but with no fit the three level is dangerous.

Sorry - but you need rocks in your head to balance on the East hand.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is Upper Bhumpopo - I mean they did well at Chennai.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I may put in my oar - 4432 15-17 points, I will open the major suit first, being ready to rebid 1NT or 2NT as appropriate. If partner does not want to play in No trumps he can take it out. The point is: you plan for problems that might occur in the auction.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You want the opening lead through the strong hand?
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not announce 1NT : 13 normal distribution with a standard deviation of 1.5?
Sept. 3
.

Bottom Home Top