Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian, from the EBU White Book: Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six."

When you claim on that position and do not express your intentions to extract the last trump, one can presume that you have forgotten, unless the play up to that point demonstrates that you didn't, and in that case just playing the six instead of the nine of trump is careless, yes, but not irrational. If you think all cards are high you might play them in any order…

I'm not saying that the ruling was correct, because of course there are a lot of facts missing. I'm just adding a possible rationale for it.
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Volunteer work is work. Volunteering can not serve as an excuse for bad quality work. Many NGOs select their volunteers so that work is as good as possible, because the work of those volunteers will reflect on the image of (themselves and of) the NGO. Volunteers for a job must have the qualifications for that job. BBO has great commentators. But I do think that BBO should observe more carefully the work that they all do, and either work with them to improve their work, or part away with them. A commentator that adds zero value to the broadcast should be removed or “reconditioned”
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South was probably trying to be helpful, but by definition what he said is UI for partner
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is West´s (and East´s) right to contest the claim. As a TD I would treat that objection as professionally as I would treat any other much more meaningful and substantiated objection to any other claim by whoever player might it be… but it doesn't mean that we should try to encourage Wests and Easts in this position to object to claims like this one.
I guess that Wests and Easts do it because a) They don't know better, or b) sometimes TDs get it terribly wrong…
Oct. 10, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It keeps astonishing me how many comments on a simple claim case…
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“After consulting with an off-site director by telephone, the director confirmed the provisional ruling”

This is the most amazing part of the story…
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may have (big ***may***) some write-ups archived from Maastricht, I was there (it was my first WBF event). I will try to check this weekend.
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe it´s the same appeals as in the Bulletins, didn't had time to check, but ACBL published a collection of appeals from Anaheim 2000 that included some from Maastricht: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Anaheim_Sum00.pdf
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way declarer played and claimed looks like he was thinking that west was end played. However, he said “hoops you´re right”, which is a bit confusing, when told about the heart loser. If the TD judges that, in his opinion, the player is aware that the low hearts are not high, then, would it (a) be just careless or inferior to ruff the last club and remain with little hearts in both hands, or to play hearts from both hands? Or (b) would it be irrational?
I would say (a), so making six

If the TD judges that the declarer was unaware of the fact that the hearts were not high, the decision would be different. For example, if declarer says “I completely forgot about the hearts”. Of course with all the dialog at the table that is out through the window…

Another “reason” why I like awarding six: “What would be the result at the table if the claim didn't happen?”
Oct. 8, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is a judgment call from the TD, if he believes N or not. Sometimes the key is “proper questioning”, like Gordon mentioned. To ask the player directly if he always wanted to bid 2NT is a biased way of inquiring. And it seems that the TD asked at the table, not pulling the player away, which also makes it harder for him to make a good picture of the intentions of N.
The TD has more choices than just “believing N”. That seems like coming from some TD manual saying that TDs have to believe the players. We usually do, but only if we have no good reason otherwise.
What is the TD´s first impression when he arrives to the table? Probably that North at the time he bid 2S really meant to bid 2S. And I am a strong believer in first impressions. So my questioning would tend to prove (or possibly disprove) my first impression. Maybe include
“when did you notice that you had bid two clubs?”
“what would two clubs followed by three diamonds mean?”
and others. It´s really very dependent on the flow of the (private) conversation with North.

Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It´s a bizarre complaint and a bizarre decision. And it is not the best way to keep players in the game (not even the ones that complained). I´ve heard many times the “I´ll never come back to this club” line. There are other ways tpo handle this kind of pair
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also not in Chennai, but with some free time to follow closely all the sources :)
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just reporting what IMP published, Tomasz, I have no opinion and express no opinion on both matters
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One suggestion for these “how would you rule?” posts - Put on twin bidding problems (or more than two, if we need to figure out the probable sequence), and then we have a BW “poll” to work with
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is important to give the auction and hand with one and then the other explanation, not just the right one. Lets say that for the sake of argument half the players bid 3C and half 3N with the good explanation (I´m not claiming it to be logical, I just want to make a point further ahead). Now, imagine that you just make a small additional question: With the bad explanation, what would you bid, and the ones that bid 3C keep biding 3C, and the ones bidding 3N all keep bidding 3N.
Without the second question you have 50% of players that apparently agree with East. With the second question, you have now 100% of players that say “the difference in explanations doesn't make a difference in my choice”. Quite different…
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polling players on what would they do: a) With the explanation that 2D is natural, b) That 2D is Drury, might bring the conclusion that the polled players didn't bid differently with the two explanations, so there would seem to be no damage.

Of course East will often swear that of course he would bid differently, and I grant it that in his mind he is most often sincere.

** Added: For a complete and final reply, there are some facts and information missing. For example, if South forgot to alert, or if he thought that 2D was natural, if we need to figure out the final contract. And the poll results…**

Joshua: I don't think that the quality of the DBL as a bid has no major relevance for the discussion, for it happened before the MI. The important point is what would East do with the two different explanations.
Sept. 26, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jerry Stamatov replied to Roland: “Roland, im here at the opening ceremony. We had the pressconf and then the captains meeting. And yes, we all heard the rumours and…what i cd say is…- it is disgusting that people use the todays communication channels in this improper way.”
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that speculating achieves anything good for now :)
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that at this point in time we should not start guessing. I´m sure the reasons will surface
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't know the reasons, probably better not to presume one
Sept. 26, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top