Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Karl Junk
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If, like this case, a defender revokes in second seat and recognises his revoke after his partner has played, I think Law 57 should apply. I doubt that the current text of the Laws supports this view, but I suggest to add a reference to Law 57 into Law 62.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO 2 is not a reverse here, as it is cheaper than 3.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I need to be declarer if partner has 2 cards as Nikos suggested. I could have some wasted Q or J. But instead I have 2 Kings and J10. This is more than my partner will expect, so 6.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like this 1 4 example as it is more simple than the original case.

Do the 2 partners have an understanding of the 4 bid here? Obviously not, because they have not discussed it, and the opener has no experience nor awareness (Law 40A1a) as he does not even know that something like splinter exists. Responder thinks that there is an understanding, but realizes that this is wrong in the very moment when opener passes. There is no understanding and there never was one - responder had just falsely assumed that there was an understanding.

In my copy of The Laws of Duplicate Bridge there I cannot find a reference to “falsely assumed understandings”. The regulating authority is empowered to define alerting procedures for “Special Partnership Understandings” by Law 40B2a(iii). If there is no such understanding, I would feel it is illegal for the EBU to require an alert (which cannot be given, as the opener here has no clue) or a correction of mistaken explanation (Law 20F5).

Law 75D1 underlines that when saying “… and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist.” For sure there is no mutual understanding in this partnership that 4 is splinter.

Of course, in real world cases it is most of the time doubtful if there was a partnership understanding or not, and the director is required to assume false explanation.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is entirely possible that each defender thought that the other still held a higher club.
April 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If director rules 3nt-1 making, he rules against E/W, and if he rules 3nt making, he rules against N/S, who are customers as well. So whatever he does, he cannot comply with rule #1.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To my surprise when discussing an auction that contained this sequence with my partner (we happened to find it in some booklet) we realized that we had different opinions. For me it was clear that 2 is forcing for one round only, and he was sure that it is gameforcing. We immediately scanned some books for a definition, but failed to find this sequence (or similar) or some general rule that covers the situation. Later when I did a little web search I again did not find it.

My view is that some bid that creates a game force has to be mentioned in the system description. As the short descriptions of the 2 German standard systems do not mention this sequence, I assume it is not gameforcing. Maybe in some other system like SAYC, SEF or Polish club this is different?

In the pro-gameforcing comments here I failed to find some explanation why it should be gameforcing. Of course one could say according to the poll the overwhelming majority plays it as gameforcing so it must be gameforcing, but I am not satisfied with this.

My main point why I think it should be forcing for one round only is that it is a good idea to bid a 2-suiter if you got one, so opener knows your distribution and can make better decisions. This is not only true if responder is gameforcing, but also if he has only invitational strength. If in this case he was not allowed to bid the 2-suiter, he would have to bid 1 first and never mention the clubs. On the other hand I fail to see the big disadvantage for the opener if he does not know if responder has gameforcing values or not. If opener is strong enough for game even with a minimum responder, he can easily force to game himself with forth suit forcing or 3nt or above. And a minimum opener can easily bid 2nt, 3, 3 or 3 non-forcing.
March 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Law 20F requires players to give correct information. If they fail to do so, no matter for what reason, this is misinformation, and this is an irregularity (Law 21B3).
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People tend to focus on one aspect of a problem and ignore another. In the real world, if everybody always judges a situation from all possible points of view, consensus would be reached far more often, and there would be no religion.

Here South focused on opps' bidding and their explanation. Even if South saw the pass cards in front of North, the conclusion that these pass cards meant he has at most 11 HCP and therefore EW must at least have 26 HCP and therefore their explanation must be wrong did not occur. This does not qualify as a serious error, and not at all as an extremely serious error. And as noted before, even if it was an extremely serious error, it would have been related to the infraction, as without the infraction - correct information given - no damage would have occurred.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, 1 opening includes all unbalanced hands with longest suit .
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1nt opening by North would have shown 15-17 balanced, therefore after 1 North shows 12-14 or 18-19 if it was a balanced hand. This time, it was 18 balanced.
Dec. 5, 2017
Karl Junk edited this comment Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your Votes. The reason for the poll was that North took some time before her pass after the 1nt, and South bid 2. The poll clearly suggests that pass was a logical alternative for South.
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The German Regulation (“Turnierordnung”) tells us to alert a bid if it is artificial or has an unusual meaning or strength §(15). In this case, the strength of the 2 bid may be unusual, depending on the environment where this is bid - if in some bridgeclub several pairs are known to bid a new suit nonforcing after a jump overcall, it may be not unusual, but in general this is not played nonforcing and therefore has to be alerted. North is misinformed an should have called the director before South's call. If he succeeded he should be allowed to change his pass. South is not misinformed, as East's pass shows that the 2 was non-forcing, and he can never change his call.

If it is too late for North to change his call, he can call the TD after the hand in case N/S is damaged by the misinformation, and the TD may adjust the score based on Law 21B3.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did the ABCL add anything substantial to the Laws? Unless they did, I would rather think that the copyright belongs to the WBF. Generally, IMO any laws should not be published under copyright. E.g. there is no copyright for German laws. The main web page where all German laws can be found (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/) states: “The legal standards in German language are available in all offered formats for free use and further use.” (Translation by deepl.com, new and outstanding)
Aug. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP's 3. choice was: ‘Players should be allowed to “game” the system by intentionally revoking and hoping nobody notices.’ Surprisingly, this is possible under the 2007 as well as 2017 Laws if the player is in second seat for the 12th trick and dummy leads. Example (nt contract):

………Dummy
……… 3 2
? ?……….9 8
………Q ?

East knows the distribution and the owner of the Q by now, and knows that there are 765 missing. Normally it is not relevant who has which card. But if East decides to revoke, West will claim 2 tricks with his 76 or 75. If declarer happens to have the 7, East says “sorry, I revoked”, and shows the 8 which gets it's trick. This might even work earlier than trick 12, but in trick 12 there are more situations where an evil defender can benefit from this lack of the Laws.
Aug. 30, 2017
Karl Junk edited this comment Aug. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Imagine in the middle of some future EBL event it is discovered that a pair has radio transmitters in their shoes and radio receivers in their ears. A tap with a toe generates a sound in partner's ear. I guess the committee would rule that cheating cannot be proven, as no radio communication had been recorded, and if such communication was recorded, no correlation between the signals and the strength of their hands could be found.
Feb. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understood that East said that his parter would not alert the 1. But the TDs seem to assume that East said that his partner will tell South that 1 is at least 3 cards. What did East really say?

If East really said that there will be different explanations at both sides of the screen, and not just no alert by his partner, North should have called the director immediately, and the director should have have awarded ave+/ave- for this board and instruct E/W to agree on a system.

The actual decision is ridiculous, no matter what East said.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If South has eg. AKQxx xxx xxx xx, we make 9 tricks no matter if we play or nt.
Sept. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the votes and comments. The whole hand was:

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?b=3&d=s&v=e&n=sAKQ3dQT82cQT543&en=Karl&e=s8hKQJ6dKJ7cAKJ62&s=sT654hA8732dA9c87&a=pp1cp1hp1sp2sppxp3dppp

Only 3 times East or West declared resulting in top scores for N/S. North declared a contract in the other 11 cases, and most of them won at least 8 tricks. 2= was 69% for E/W. Club tourney with a few experts.

Edit: minor changes
July 11, 2016
Karl Junk edited this comment July 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The word “illegal” is not used in Law 7. The term “illegal call” is used in the Laws only twice - in Law 16A1a and in the footnote 10 for Law 31A2. Law 16A1 states that illegal calls can (sometimes) be accepted. In order for that to be possible, an illegal call cannot auto-cancel itself.
July 9, 2016
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top