Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Amos
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is what I thought and why i chose not to vote.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Vigfus

I think you should find out what has happened.

Law 82
The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

……………..
3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B

After all attention has been drawn to an irregularity or a potential irregularity - albeit perhaps in an irregular manner.

Having found out you may discover that no further action is needed.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's nothing illegal about treating a good 5-card suit as 6.

No, but if you have agreed this with a partner you should disclose it.

(In this instance I have no sympathy with North)
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Our agreement is that it shows six Spades. If we have only five and decide to bid 2, we usually put one of our Clubs in with our Spades and hope no one notices”

If we assume the correct question “What agreement do you have about your 2 bid?” then perhaps here the correct response might be “We haven't specifically discussed it” or “We agree that it shows six” or “We generally have six, but I might sometimes choose to sometimes bid it with five or even seven”

System agreements are based on experience as well as what is recorded in thick system folders.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with both these comments. One man's week is another man's fortnight.

It should never be regarded as wrong to call the director in this sort of situation. “Hello Director, we just had this situation;
do you think South's description was adequate?”


If I was South, I think it would be helpful to hear The TDs opinion about how this 2 should be described. As a TD I would advise that if the partnership has an agreement that range is 2-8, this should be what is said. (This applies to both members of the partnership) North may have deviated from the partnership agreement here.

Like Dave I would take some persuading that West would have taken different action. However I would welcome the opportunity to tell NS that they should aim to put EW fully in the picture
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
or the Queen from Q10!
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Cornelia is much closer to the right approach than some of your other responders here. Dear Amir do not think what I write is a criticism of yourself. Sure I think there is a better approach. Fifty years ago I would have approached such situations with a zero tolerance form and a director call. At that time I would have regarded a score below 60& at the club, as disappointment.

Your lady opponent is upset. You don't feel you are to blame, but how are you going to improve matters? Start by telling her you are sorry she is upset. You don't intend to upset her, but if you have you'll try hard not to do so in the future. Saying hello, smiling and greeting the partnership when they arrive works wonders. Bridge clubs are not just about the bridge, they are about people, families, divorces and cancer and tragedy. Sometimes about marriage and birth. If a row leads to one less pair, either you or them, then the Bridge Club is diminished.

Get to know this lady, Amir. Arrive a little early next week and go and talk to her, make friends. (and make sure that ZT form is placed in a waste-paper bin where it belongs)
Sept. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that this is a terribly difficult ruling. Sure we might discuss (argue) long into the night about exact numbers but really in my experience the effect of different weightings has less effect than sometimes people imagine.

Do we adjust? I think so. EW had a bidding problem that they would not have had if the 1 bid had been correctly alerted and explained. Both East and West made calls that might have been different. NS got about the best score possible on the board. It's generally not very helpful in MI cases to consider what happened after the MI. What we have to do is to try and work out likely outcomes, if the correct information had been given. Whenever it's humanly possible it pays to make this kind of ruling before you know the outcome of the match or competition.

From Paul's description in the original post, there seems to have been a calm call from the table and a very reasonable request for a ruling. The TD needs to investigate; ask EW what calls they had available; did they have agreements. Include NS in these discussions, eg “What would you bid if East bid 2 after your partner's 1?” I don't think a poll helps a lot in these circumstances, because what matters is how this EW would bid not so much how others would bid, although if lots of pairs bid slam it might affect our thinking and adjustment. It's not easy to say what you would bid if you know 52 cards, but most players try hard to answer honestly. Remarks like “It's obvious to bid slam” or even “It's obvious to save” are obviously not helping their case. Another factor might be the state of the match or competition.

I think experienced players would be disappointed if they did not reach slam on these cards, so I would adjust to a making slam at least half the time. We know that NS are likely to put up a high-level barrage, so I would not be awarding 100% of making slam. 7x might be the outcome but not for me as often as some have suggested. South might be happy to save in 5 over 4 but it's a different matter to bid 7 over 6 or 6.

Our experience in the UK has been that if players know that there is a process and know the TD has tried to be fair to both sides, they will generally accept this kind of ruling. (Even if they spend two hours in the bar later trying to persuade you that you are an idiot)
May 20, 2018
Mike Amos edited this comment May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shouldn't be hard - you Just ask four people wandering around in the foyer in Chennai. That will tell you everything you need to know. (The best way is to ask a TD which ones you should ask)
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me one huge advantage if you are defending and you can communicate your shape to partner in some illegal fashion is that it leaves you in a very strong position when signalling and discarding because you can false card and deceive opponents (David Gold has made some comments on this). You dont need to actually do anything.
Mike
Oct. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top