You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Time for online registration.

Will also boost the pre-tournament interest for the event.

This year the “Who will win the spingold”-thread on BW died after only 6-7 posts, because noone knew what teams will be playing.

Says it all.

It's 2013.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dislike hearts. Partner showed a small doubleton and we have the worst possible holding (5 small) from his perspective.

If declarer is about to lose a club finesse to the Q it is quite likely that a spade shift is right before declarer gets his two club tricks going. If it is not then partner should have a good chance to work out to continue hearts regardless of my discouraging 5.
July 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is 4? It might be better to use the bidding problem template :)
May 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 5 was an illegal bid (which we are told) then the result should be rolled back to 4X= for both sides, if 6 fails.

Only if 6 was a “serious error, wild or gambling” (sewog) action then NS should keep their minus in 6 (with 4X= for the other side).

I don't think that 6 was a serious error, wild or gambling.

A weighted score (probability matrix) does not come into play on this hand. Weighted scores are used, when the result of an action we adjust to is hard to determine, like if we were unsure if 4X would have made, which we are not as I understand it.

ACBL may be using the term “egregious” rather than sewog but I don't see how that makes a material difference.
May 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent post.
May 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Off, both have passed, but 3 is still good. 2NT scrambling then 3 is bad.
May 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with all that Peg said.

Curiously, not turning in a found wallet is a criminal offense in my country. But I agree with Peg that the comparison is out of line regardless.
April 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No surprise, Ed.

All those holier-than-thou altruism when it comes to mechanical mistakes really have nothing to do with active ethics but instead personal preferences. Sometimes a player, who has waived a penalty to an opponent even feels entitled to apply the puppy-eyes when he fucks up himself later. That is obviously bad.

What really matters when we consider a player's ethical standard is: 1. Handling of UI. 2. Disclosure. 3. Honesty in manners and tempo. 4. General behaviour at the table. Maybe there are more.

In *those* areas active ethics kicks in. It does so because it must be admitted that passive ethics (= not actively trying to live 100 % up to one's obligations as per law, for instance by not bending that much backwards not to use UI, or by not disclosing finer details about the system) typical will be to the player's immediate advantage.

Active ethics is a sort of promise that we will actively try our very best to live up to the rules of the game. Even though we know that doing so will (narrowly seen) be disadvantageous at times.
April 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is there a score sheet on the back of the CC?

When the tournament is running, the CC is for the opponents' use, while the score sheet is for personal use.

It seems a little hard to hand out the front side of a sheet of paper at the start of each round/match while keeping the back side for oneself.
April 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Do you really believe that you can't assume there was some UI even if there is no external evidence of it?”

I believe so. I don't accept a the-cards-speak argument *IF* that is all we have. Also I support that interpretation of the laws where a TD/committee is *required* to be able to state what UI was present for a UI-ruling to be legal.

This is only fair.

Bridge is tough with all kinds of unnormal positions being taken all the time, especially by inexperienced players. Most of them fail. But when somebody finally hits his partner with magic we shouldn't be making rulings but accept that his possible success was the reason the player gambled in the first place.
April 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “as-long-as-you-dislose-it” philosophy is having problems in practice imo, for instance with actual communication and frequencies (these discussions seem forever to assume that the exact same situation comes up again and again with high frequency so we can meaningfully talk about tendencies, this is doubtful).

Here is another thing:

Frequent psyching will often be more related to the general state of the game than to some bid.

Say I play with Tilty Willy. If he fucks up the first board of the round, things are going badly, we are playing against a pair he doesn't respect, and he hasn't had a smoke for a long time etc., he may steam. I know this.

So what do I do? Start alerting EVERY bid he makes? After all, if something looks fishy I will be very quick not to trust him when he might be in the “zone”.
April 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North got it upside-down.

3 shows a strong hand with a so-so fit.
What he had was a strong fit with a so-so hand.

North should have chosen between 4/4 over 2.
April 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play unusualNT.
This NT bid looks quite unusual to me.
Ergo 3NT is unusualNT.
Easy. If he is strong he would double 2NT.

I assume minors. But if he corrects my preference then I assume a different two-suiter and will take yet another preference if my hand requires. He doesn't have the majors, because 3 would have been Landy.

Partner is presumably a sensible player. So I expect him to have his bid as always.
April 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exclusion 5 over 2.
April 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A club ruff is likely coming.
March 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get it, what is the problem with 4 when we play this as michaels?
Jan. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Tom. At this level all three suits are equally important for a takeout double. So only three hearts is not a flaw more than only three diamonds would have been.
Jan. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True that they might bid 5. But it is not so likely, and a 4N auction will not encourage them to do so, since they know that our hands will be mirror-ish to some extend when we scramble.

I think 4N is nullo. Partner could have:
AJxx, Kx, xxx, Axxx or even
AJxx, Kxx, Qxx, Axx
5X is an absurd contract opposite such hands.

If I have to overbid, I think double or even 4 rate to do better than 4N.
Jan. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exclusively East. Classic, if E is right they can make 5, partner will bid 6.
Jan. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Happy new year, I owe you a reply.

I wrote: A TD/committee must be able to specify what the UI was, if they are to adjust the score.

You asked: Is that actually a rule/law, or are you just stating your opinion and framing it as a rule/law?

No there is no law with that wording. It is about interpreting law 16. I think my statement follows by the use of the word “demonstrably”, but interpretations can be argued.

WBF's code of practice
(http://158.255.45.213/departments/appeals/codeofpractice.asp)
tells the director to ask himself:
- Does the accused player have unauthorized information in consequence of an action by his partner?

I wouldn't want to answer yes to that if I couldn't tell what “action by his partner” we are talking about.

Fwiw, the source of my statement is the official Danish interpretation of the bridge laws which is clear on this subject. I'm from Denmark so this text is what I'm used to working with. I realize of course that it has little international weight as such. But I would be surprised if it is completely off the mark.
It says (my translation to English, section 1.1):
(http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/lku-2.htm#ubef)

- The TD should make it clear, preferably by stating it explicitely, what UI that lies as the basis for the ruling. Here are some typical examples of UI: (…)
- If the TD cannot determine what the UI consisted in there cannot be basis for adjusting the score.

I think that there are other possibilities than UI when a player makes a surprisingly good guess in these situations.

Players know there are having misunderstandings sometimes, and in tough situations their trust in partner, themselves and their agreements falters. So they hedge to protect themselves from a big disaster. This is legal. It will hit the nail once in a while but we also see a lot of boards where lack of trust backfires badly.

I'm with you almost all the way in this TD case. But I need a hook to hang my hat on before I'm willing to make any UI ruling.
Jan. 2, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top