Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once found a missing score sheet one year after the tournament…
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might. If you say i'm not claiming it doesnt. You can say e.g. Play with open cards…
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play ceases, Ken. But “Partner, lead a spade” works as well as calling the TD and explaining it (except that the second option is better)…
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say “none of the above”. From what you explain, it seems -3. He made an incorrect claim, you take your life in your hands (kidding) and call the TD. See my thread “on claims and concessions”. You are allowed to be brilliant with open cards when contesting a claim by the opponent. Even if your partner would not find the right play once in a million years, you are entitled to it…

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/on-claims-and-concessions/
Oct. 22, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another one from the late Guido (Ferraro). Directing in some European Pairs Championship, pre-bridgemates, I am rushing the players to move. Guido and De Falco were very late but they seem to catch up and move in time with everybody else. Five minutes into the next round, Guido shouts to be previous table: “Queen”. North (previous table) says:
“One down. TD!”
“Yes?”
“Could you please register on the scoresheet 4 one down for E/W on the last board we played?”

Now that is creatively catching up when late… (I´m just sorry that I don't remember who was the N/S pair…)
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lead out of turn A, vs 4. Declarer calls the TD. I start the usual
“You can accept the lead. If you accept the lead…”
“Enough! I know all the options”
“Are you sure?”
“Of course I´m sure. Lead anything”
Opponent leads a small and Murphy strikes! A is a penalty card, must be played.
A takes the trick. LOOTer continues with a diamond… ruffed by partner. Declarer goes like this:
“Look here now, I don't accept this… It is very unfair! If I knew he could lead a diamond I would choose another option”
Oct. 22, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before 2007 play would be voided and the tricks would go back to the defenders :)
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Appeal 38, Malta European Championships. The only time I saw the great and much missed Jens Auken smile in an Appeals Committee:
Dummy (West) had A8 in , North had K7. Declarer East played small diamond towards dummy and called for the eight. North thought he heard the “ace” and played the seven. South was Guido Ferraro. I ruled the 7 was played, and South appealed.
North (De Falco) admitted that he had played before the dummy had touched the card that was called for. He pointed out that declarer spoke in a very strange accent. East also related the story, during which several members of the Committee had to ask whether he said “eight” or “ace”, since both sounded something like “aitch”.

And the more the declarer tried to distinguish the eight and the ace, the more nervous he would get and the more both cards sounded like the “aitch” reported in the AC write-up. It was unfortunate for NS, sure, but Guido (I miss you, Guido!!!) knew he was going to lose. He told me: I just wanted the committee to hear what we heard.

Deposit: “Returned, because the Committee had experienced first hand the same language difficulties that North had faced.” (quoted from the write-up, and with all due respect for every party involved)
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same tournament. Last session, last hand of the day. After “Pass Pass”, tray stays on the other side of the screen for a long time. Definitely a BIT of some minutes. Players lose their patience and call the TD. TD comes, looks at the other side of the screen… Both teammates had long left the room…
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
European championships, Vilamoura, June 1995: The hand is featured in one of the bulletins of the event (and it is also a good case for discussion, TD-wise). It goes more or less like this:
Declarer plays in 4 after a double fit auction, the play for the first five tricks is: A lead, ruffed by partner, to the opening leader´s Ace, ruffed, K (five tricks for the defense). TD is called at this point. During the first five tricks, they were all playing as if the trump was hearts! Dummy had hearts on the right, defenders were ruffing with hearts…
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: Just one remark. It is too late for South to change his bid, of course, but it would have been useful for the TD to actually ask South if he would have made another call instead of the last pass, instead of letting them play and call back, and then have South try some self-serving statement.

Maybe this was the origin of the TD´s gross mistake…
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda: My idea about director training is, when possible, an “immediate diagnosis and correction”. If a director makes a mistake, the mistake is identified and corrected, and the director instructed and trained on the spot if possible, or asap, so as to not make the same mistake again. Otherwise we identify through “Directors Memos”, or other mechanisms, the TDs that are in need of improvement, and we (re)train them, but with a lower effectiveness because the situations where the TD erred are already gone and the TD will not relate to them so intensely. Also, it is easy to produce the needed training on specific subjects than on a group of problems often unrelated.
The past errors that still haunt me today (and all the ones I´m aware of do), were good because they taught me huge lessons, not only in technical terms, but also regarding the “meta” aspects of directing.
Oct. 20, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff: You might want to have three questions answered:
1 - Is the table ruling right?
2 - What should have been the table ruling?
3 - What to do now that we know the table ruling is wrong

1 is easy. 2 moderately easy. 3 is interesting.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About the first part of the answer: This ruling is wrong, and many before me explained why. The most worrying part is that, AFAIK, TDs are trained from the start in carrying with them the Code, and to always refer to the code. Of course, as we get more experienced we don't do that all the time. Just try to go through a LOOT, with all the ramifications, reading from the Code at the same time. If a TD is not sure about a certain problem, he should read the applicable laws before deciding. It is not (and should not be) embarrassing to have do it. It is much more embarrassing to do this kind of mistake, and to have to clear it up afterwards.

Mistakes from TDs happen for several reasons. One of the most common ones is, unfortunately, when the TD thinks that he knows more than he knows and disregards checking the applicable Law. This is just an example of that.

Being licensed, or hired, or recognized as a TD is not a certificate of “knowing the Code by heart”. Giving wrong rulings is something that we may do more or less frequently, but giving a wrong ruling when the right ruling results mechanically from following the Code, shouldn't happen.

Moral of the story: Check the Code before giving a ruling.
Oct. 20, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I would just add: The best way to do that is to ***graciously*** follow the law book.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Often they don't come back because they feel mistreated, not because they get a ruling against them. And they feel mistreated, disregarded, ignored, because they get the ruling, they don't understand it, nobody explains it (I´ve seen directors take the “that´s it whether you like it or not” stance), they don't feel cherished (I know, I´m exaggerating). My point is: It has more to do with the way that the player feels treated, than with the rule itself
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, when you think that all the cards are good, and you just forgot a trump, you are usually not checking if there is a trump, you are just convinced that all trumps are out, so you can play jigsaw puzzles with the winners… is it that off the radar to play like that?
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is more the way that they are applied. “You could have known that the BIT could be advantageous” should take care of that.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One would add a new dimension to the game, certainly. But it would create something totally different. And it would legitimize new, modern systems like 1nt defense:
ask, think, pass;
ask, pass;
think pass;
etc…
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: It is probably case 8, 1998 Orlando. There have been cases like that and the approach is well established EBL/WBF-wise also.
Oct. 16, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 16, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top