Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would have overcalled 2 with these colours. Now 5.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. No reason to panic.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have realized that some are discussing acbl rules/policies while I have been assuming world bridge federation standards as default.

Is it still acbl policy that the director should tend rule against the offending side and then have the “onus” on them to appeal?

Which is very different from WBF TD policy.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Highest pip count for a 15-17nt?

But is seems to involve that something strange has happened in the diamond suit at trick 1.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 2 is presumed to be a club raise, partner's natural 2M is forcing for one round. If partner jumps, I would take that as a splinter for clubs.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good hand for the 2 treatment. Heart suit with an out in spades.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's fitcue then 2 shows 4 spades hoping for a 4-4 fit in spades. We are not supposed to raise with 3.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once they open 4, hearts is not a special suit anymore. So X doesn't promise 4 hearts more than 4 of any other suit.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2. If LHO competes to 3 I have a cheap 3 bid.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree.

The director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. (81C)

Once summoned it is the director's responsibility to enlighten the case and make an objective ruling.

It is not up to the players to lawyer their case.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4. No problem … yet.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2, but 1N rebid at mps.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We can hope, but I guess we could also discourage from a doubleton.

I find the combination:
trick 1 = count, trick 2 = smith
to be an effective one.

Obviously off, if partner leads A or K that could hold.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree.

The objective of score adjustments for the offending side is to take away any advantage it has gained through the infraction (12B). Here 12C1b will then lead to a split score.

The discussion whether the non-offending side could be said to be “damaged” is academic. Because that is not the criterion for adjusting the score for the offending side!

Also, I think your interpretation goes against the WBF laws commentary.

http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscommentary.pdf

On p1 there is an analoguous example, I will refer:

NS bids 4. EW competes to 4 illegally through UI. Both contracts have 9 tricks.

However, NS goes on to 5 (doubled) through a wild or gambling action. Should be thought of like a bid from close to outer space. Note that the laws equals “serious error” with “wild or gambling action”.

A split score is awarded. NS keep their 5X-2, while EW get the score corresponding to that the infraction didn't occur, which is 4-1.
Feb. 24, 2014
Michael Askgaard edited this comment Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That case is a full two versions of the laws old, however.
Feb. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Andy

Hopefully the term “serious error” will be much clearer in the 2017 laws.

WBF laws commission has stated in a minute from Veldhoven oct11 that the laws need clarification regarding “serious error” and that it should be part of the 2017 laws.
Feb. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those theoretical considerations are not relevant on this board, because the defensive error was unrelated to the contract. Hence my word ‘here’ that you forgot in the quote.
Feb. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any adjustment to 5, should be ruled to make 6 not 5. Table play stands here.

I think dropping a card is a serious error in the sense of 12C1b. So a split score is called for = the second option.

If one doesn't think it is a serious error, the score should be corrected to 5+1 for both sides.

Those are the two “lawful” rulings here, assuming that the raise to 6 was illegal. It seems we are supposed to assume that.
Feb. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not signaling away our tricks. Pard could have KQT2, so I'm retaining my 9.

5 to show odd number and then a positive smith later (probably, we need the full hand to decide that).
Feb. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Signing off in hearts it more likely to get raised.
Feb. 22, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top