Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robin Barker
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this should be two polls - or one poll with multiple answers allowed.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The introduction says “the laws define correct procedure”, and to play the game the players need to know correct procedure, so players need to know the laws that define correct procedure.


Players can also read/know the laws that define the remedies when play departs from correct procedure; but the laws tell them that the director will be called to provide remedy, so they do not need to remember those laws.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The penalty card law applies after there has been an infraction, attention has been drawn, the director summoned, and a ruling sought.

Players are expected to know how the game works in the absence of irregularities and to call the director when there is an irregularity. Players are not required to know how the laws work when there has been an irregularity - that is for the director to explain.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assumed “WT?” was a minced-oath version of “WTF”.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SEWoG = ESE/GA in 2017
Even if it is an Extremely Serious Error, it is not unrelated to the infraction.
To be a Gambling Action, the player needs to be aware of a potential irregularity.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have lost the thread.

In Bryan's example, the call out of rotation was a Pass. So 2/1 in any suit (in response to 1S) will not be comparable - the only comparable calls will be weak spade raises and 1NT (if that is limited to less than opening values). If the opening bid is 1NT, there may be no comparable calls - almost all artificial responses to 1NT are unlimited, so not a “subset” of Pass. Given the choice of opening 1S and 1NT, 1S appears to give more chance of playing in a sensible contract, given the restrictions from the call out of rotation; so 1S is suggested over 1NT, and if 1NT is a logical alternative then it should be bid.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because?!
April 9
Robin Barker edited this comment April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did you ask anyone what they would have done when 2 was doubled for takeout and South passed?
Did you ask anyone what they would have done if 2 was doubled and West was told they talked about it yesterday and said it was takeout and they might have forgotten.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 was not a psyche. If 3 was forcing and bid on xxx then I suspect that the agreement is artificial and forcing, not necessarily diamonds (TD to presume misexplanation rather than misbid). We need to see opening leader's hand to see what they would lead if 3 is explained as “forcing, not necessarily a real diamond suit” or “forcing, no agreement as to whether it is real diamonds”.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first played with bidding boxes in England, there were EBU regulations that said something to the effect of:
whatever it says on the bidding box cards, our rules for bidding with bidding boxes, for use of stop and alert cards, etc. is what it says in these regulations …
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't think what psyche I would make. If I had a 14 count and overcalled 1NT would that be a psyche?

Presumably, if the rule is no psyching against lower-ranked players, then 1 could be a psyche because all BridgeWinners pollees are not lower-ranked. :)
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think Law 77 defines any rights or responsibilities.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can ask and the director will advise you of your “rights and responsibilities” (Law 81C2).
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking at the back of the bidding card to calculate the score when play had finished is not “during the auction period and play” (Law 40B2 (d)).
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I (as the TD) would not act as an aid to memory, calculation, or technique (Law 40B2 (d)) by working out the score for the player, during the auction. Looking at the back of the bidding card is also an illegal aid.

I guess I could read Law 77 to the player and let them work it out. But I think conversations with the TD away from the table are covered by Law 81C2 “to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder”. I don't think reading Law 77 is “advising players of their rights or responsibilities”.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except if Law 72C applies: it is just possible that a call out of rotation, and a subsequent non-comparable call, might benefit the offending side by having the offender's partner silenced for one round.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener (offender's parter) has UI and “must bid normally” at their first turn to call.

Offender does not have to make a comparable call, but not making a comparable call will silence partner for one round.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last time I saw Comic NT was when it was used against one of Frances's partners. They had introduced a modern twist - they announced a 2 advance as “stayman” - presumably only when they had a strong NT.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is weaker than 3, but 2NT is a raise.
So 2 is the minimum raise, and two of the options show a better than minimum raise. (Or does ‘better-than-minimum’ mean second weakest?)
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think Law 68D2 (b) allows implicit agreement to play on - it requires (explicit) request to play on.
March 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top