Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ron Gerard
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no double squeeze unless South guards diamonds and North guards hearts.

I thought South had six spades and bid spades at her first or second opportunity, making it unlikely that she had five hearts. In that case, the theoretical losing option would have been to play for 3-3 diamonds or a non-existent squeeze without ruffing any hearts, careless as that would have been. But ruffing hearts transposes to South's having the short king, so the percentage play would have been to finesse the queen at trick one.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
16B1 covers what information a player may use when in receipt of unauthorized information from partner. Therefore, it overrides 16A under the principle that the more specific governs over the more general. In particular, see 16A1©, which refers to 16B1 as an exception.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not what “unauthorized information from another source” refers to. It includes overhearing a remark at the next table, seeing a director walk by with a copy of the hand record because of an appeal at another table and the like. Law 16B covers “extraneous” information from partner.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion is quite different. I would never be leading a diamond on the actual auction.”

The appropriate response is “I would never be leading on the actual hand, since the ace of diamonds appears to be missing.”

This is exactly why polls are the wrong way to decide these cases. The Laws don't care what you would be leading based on the personal preferences you are free to inflict on your top-level partners, they care about what would be led by a North equivalent playing in a N-S equivalent partnership on the actual hand. Many poll respondents fail to make the distinction. Given comments to the effect that it is unlikely that even Meckwell have an agreement about this situation, it is not “common sense” or “just bridge” that the real life South could be expected to act in accordance with your personal preferences.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm going to make one more effort.

It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“To bid RKCB with a void is VERY bad bridge.”

I assume you realize that this refers to Levin's other hand (the one with the diamond ace), not the one he held.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Levin could have bid 4NT directly over 4C. The only additional information he received after bidding 4D would usually have tilted him away from 4NT unless he either (1) had a diamond void or (2) made a mistake on the previous round. He didn't bid 5NT after the RKC response. Why do all the E-W defenders focus on the possibility that South, apparently a client, didn't double 7NT rather than that Levin didn't make an error in the auction?

As to the poll, Justin Lall was polled while playing in a Swiss. I'm assuming the other respondents were also involved in some type of competition. Do you think he or they took the time to analyze Levin's bidding rather than just focusing on the lack of a double? His explanation indicated that the case was closed once South didn't double, but that didn't do justice to the problem. Pollees have limited time and energy to respond to the poll, despite presumably being peers of the players involved. Whatever you think of this particular ruling, an old-fashioned appeals committee would have analyzed this a lot more thoroughly than this particular appeals committee did.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was none. It's an analogy, given that appeals committees could be deciding the winners of national championships.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “Oh, Shit” case was decided by about 20 people, not the usual 5. I was scheduled to be one of them until I recused myself. However, I have heard from some involved that the size of the committee caused procedural difficulties.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no need for a sanity check, you have correctly stated the interpretation of the Laws Commission, which agrees with that of the European Bridge League and the World Bridge Federation. This matter has been closed for some time and it is not up to individual committees or director panels to decide speculatively that they know what fact set would have occurred in an alternate reality universe.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You probably heard many things before Bergen became prominent that were later attributed to Bergen.
Nov. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You'll have to talk to Management about that. I was only chairman of the Appeals Committee.
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Judy Wolff appeal was at Pittsburgh 2005. It was written up but not included in the final casebook because it was appealed to the National Board of Directors, therefore the committee decision was not final. There were no tin foil hats. Producing casebooks involved an enormous amount of time and effort, and the existing data base through the time publication ceased was a sufficient body of precedent for anyone interested in improving their rulings/decisions.
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, by the time it got to me it was Pedro Cabral and spades but I can well believe the Crawford legend. These things take on a life of their own, including variations that grow with each retelling.
May 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pedro Cabral was also involved in one of the great table feel hands of all time. He was playing high stakes rubber bridge at Harry Fishbein's Mayfair Club in its heyday and he reached 7S with a trump holding of Ax in dummy opposite KQ10xxx in his hand. Declarer held all the high cards so there were limited entries to dummy. The defense led the suit they had competed in and at trick two he led to the ace of trumps. He noticed that all the kibitzers had stayed put, so he led back toward his hand and finessed the ten, reasoning that they would have wandered away if the hand were cold on normal play. Perhaps this gave rise to Edgar's later famous “If trumps are 3-2, I'm solid” comment, which generated much discussion about “ethically slimy finesses” when the opponents don't concede.
May 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because the ACBL doesn't run them. And I'm fully aware of the footnote, but WBF events are automatically run under 12C(1)c because the WBF has not elected to apply 12C1(e).
June 29, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 80A1 defines Regulating Authority: the WBF for its own tournaments and events, the Zonal Authority for events conducted under its auspices, and the appropriate geographical NBO for everything else. Zone 2 is the ACBL but the USBCs are not conducted under the auspices of the ACBL so they are not Zonal Championships, as opposed to the European Championships, which are Zonals because they are conducted under the auspices of the EBL.

12C(1)© is not an election, it is the default position unless the Regulating Authority makes a 12C(1)(e) election. A 12C(1)(e) election by an organization that is not the Regulating Authority (the USBF) means that your event is conducted under the wrong set of Laws.
June 29, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if the event were screenless, you should be on the wrong side of a committee if partner took action that could have been the product of UI that you had values.
June 29, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither the ACBL nor the USBF is the Regulating Authority for the USBF Championships, the WBF is. That doesn't mean that the USBF can't issue its own Conditions of Contests, choose its own directors, etc., it just means that the Laws that are supposed to be in effect are those of the WBF. That's not my opinion, it's that of the WBF.
June 28, 2012
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top