Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, the commentary was within the context of sylvia's idea
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, already past bed time here, and the example came out bad, what i meant to say was basically what you said also, to legitimize coffee housing would kill the game ( or change it into something very different ).
Oct. 15, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So sylvia when you have AQJT98 in front of 76543, you play the 7, opp tanks and plays the 2, you finesse and lose, and you think that should be ok? Your opponent says a) i had a mental block, b) i was thinking of the next tricks, c) i was thinking to deceive declarer, because i know that these new rules allow me to think for as long as i want and it is his business if he pays attention to my thinking… All cases you would feel ok with it?
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil mentions it briefly in the description of the case. If the TD decided that there was a claim, then he erred, because he should have realized that there was no claim statement at the time of the claim. He should not say “ok, gimme one claim statement now”, but instead “what did you say when you exposed your cards”, or “so you did not produce any statement about how you proposed to play”. The claim was made without a claim statement. Phil knows he got lucky… Declarer should not get the *inferior* line that worked, he should get the 75% line that didn't work…
Oct. 15, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff explained it perfectly. I just add that the TD doesn't even need to demonstrate that you knew, if there is a valid argument for “you could have known”, that is enough.

I sometimes explain to club players, about BIT situations, when they swear that they hesitated because they were thinking of something else, not to induce the opponent, that I believe they are being honest, but I´m adjusting because some other player in their place, not them, might have done the same thing with a specific intent, and the Laws force me to do it. Of course, I do not do this twice to the same player… And it usually works like a charm.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, it is not ethical to play that kind of games. It is ethical to bid in your normal tempo. When you depart from normal tempo to induce a reaction from opponent you are in jeopardy. When you depart from normal tempo because you were thinking of what restaurant to choose for dinner, you are in jeopardy too because you *might* be thinking, on a tempo sensitive situation, on how to deceive your opponents.

I remember an old case where defender, on a tempo sensitive situation, thought, according to him, about which one of his small cards was likely to deceive declarer more. He did deceive declarer. Score adjusted. Appeal. Decision upheld. He could (should) have known that his variation in tempo in itself was likely to deceive declarer.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is it ethical to pass quickly here, when you have something to think about, hoping that LHO will DBL and the opps will get into trouble?”
You are basically saying that you are varying your tempo in order to induce a specific reaction from the opponent, so I return the question, do *you* think it is ethical?

“thinking for a long time with a worse hand, hoping LHO won't reopen with a DBL due to your think” - You can´t get a more self-incriminating statement over a BIT, I think…
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanoi, the history around the symmetrical cards is more complex, but yes, the problem was known at the time and addressed. I remember vaguely, it was a long time ago, but it was interesting
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I think I know your answer to this question, but imagine that you declare, play in seven spades, an have 18 top tricks. You claim at trick one “All mine” with AKQJT96 in front of 5432. With your hard line, TD would assign you one down because you didn't say you would cash a high trump… Do you think that it would be good for bridge?
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a great example of why common sense must have a place in the ruling and administering of the game. If we strictly follow the law, you MUST, MUST, MUST (not should, not may) call the TD. If you don´t, you are technically breaching the Laws and certain TDs might even school you for not calling them when the Law says that you must, and show you the difference of “must” and “should”.
But sometimes, common sense must supersede the Law, otherwise we will all look a bit silly:
TD! TD comes in a rush. Who called. Me. What happened? Opp claimed. Turn to opp. Is it true? Yes. What did you say? “claim statement”. Any objections? Yes, I have the ace of trumps. (etc)
Of course if there is something else to it than the ace of trumps, the TD must be called.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We agree, Ed. I was just trying to justify why TDs sometimes skip procedure, not recommending it. The dynamics at the table when we are called sometimes develop in different ways.
Player calls. Hi everybody, who called? Hand raised, What happened, I just claimed, playing 4 spades making six, and said they are all mine but opponent on my left has a trick to cash, I just forgot a trump. Opp immediately flashes the good trump. Two tricks from the end, nothing
You were called and said nothing yet. Of course you can go through “repeat what you said when you claimed” “I said they are all mine” then you turn to the opponent “what are your objections” “I have a good trump to cash”.
You should by default go through 70B, to structure the conversation at the table and gather the facts appropriately. And it is very, very, very worrying to hear players say that directors “never” do that on their table, that is a very, very, very bad indicator of TD technique. But the dynamics at the table sometimes develop in such a way that the pieces of information requested on 70B (restatement of what claimer said, objection by opponent, cards held by players) come up naturally and spontaneously from the right sources.
Oct. 15, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand the point and wouldn't be shocked with that decision. The level of the player might tilt me into it also. Of course, a player that says “I have all the hearts” is probably “not on the top echelon”. But would the player wake up and count to 13 when he sees that East is void in hearts? I´m a bit divided on this one, actually…
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand what you mean, Bill, but often when players call because of a claim they say what was said and the objection they raise. This might be enough, removing the need to formally ask for the repetition of the statement. This said, it is a VERY good practice, often not followed, unfortunately, for the TD to say “ok, from my understanding of the facts, what happened was (…)” and get the agreement of all players when possible. When this is not done sometimes TD thinks one thing happened, and each side thinks something else happened…
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John: 1 - Defender didn't claim, declarer did. East tried to assent but West objected.
It doesn't affect the rights of the defenders if they agree and then change their mind. They´re in the same situation as if East says nothing and just asks West if he agrees, or if East keeps silent and West says something, or if East himself finds out.
The claimer was South. E/W as a partnership can raise objections, open cards, and be brilliant about it. 73 doesn't apply (play ceased, TD adjudicates the claim based on the statement made by South and the objections of the defenders)
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Claiming saves time and energy for everybody, and speeds up the game… Should we remove that?

Added: I always claim when the play gets down to the “jigsaw point”
Oct. 14, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You just show the ace of trumps, and if they don't agree that you make the trick then call the TD…
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The clarification statement of the claim”, i.e., what the claimer said when he claimed
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Thomson informed on the other thread that the possibility already exists. That's great news. Just not sure if all commentators know how to use it.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then I happily stand corrected. All commentators should know about then.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you volunteer as a commentator, you do it because

a) you like to do it
b) you like to do a service to the community
c) you like the recognition that comes with it
d) you like to be appreciated for doing it

In either of those cases, I don't think that a commentator likes to deliberately do a bad job. When a commentator does the routine and systematic “double dummy you go down 1” stuff, or the “try to be funny with silly things that are not funny”, or things like that, I believe that it is because he doesn't understand why he shouldn't, or how to do better.

I do not know the count on how many people are commentators on BBO (I would guess at least a couple of hundred), and from the complete pool there are some excellent ones, some good ones, some not so good and some that could use some “commentator coaching”.

I believe that we all appreciate and are immensely thankful to those that are willing to give their time for this. However, that doesn't mean that their work should be regarded as “as is”, instead of “improvable”. As should not their posture be “this is how I do it”, but more “how can I do better?”

And, for sure, the major events should have the best commentators, if at all possible organized and distributed between the rooms.

One feature that I would suggest to BBO, is to have the possibility, inside the VuGraph room, for specs and commentators to hide any number of hands, so that they can more easily see the problems from the point of view of the players. It can be done on the replay, show just one player, but if it could be done on any VuG I think it would be great. I will put this suggestion on a thread of its own, so that it wont get lost.
Oct. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top