Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found it a bit odd (the mechanics of the case) because if the opener bids something the BIT before 5H doesn't seem to show anything but if there is a pass if sure looks like UI is used, especially if it's a regular partnership
Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And so it is… 5H passed… Case from a fellow TD. 5H bidder argued that 5D had no meaning in the system (!) but 5H was to play (!!!)
Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And second question, a long hesitation before 5hearts, what does it say to you?
Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The TD could have done a better job on this one…
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A “genuine mistake” is not a reason to accept a change of bid. Did the player intend to (mistakenly) bid 5 hearts? Did he miscount? If he doesn't convince me that he pulled the wrong card, he doesn't change. It's s judgment call. I believe all players are honest, but if the evidence doesn't support the player's version, i tend to rule the call as intentional. And that didn't change in 2017
Sept. 8, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment Sept. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, we can adjudicate the claim on its merits. Play ceased.
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or because he is not paying attention anymore?
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are u sure declarer is not thinking that there are other higher hearts out? Declarer seemed to be in a cloud… and technically did the td allow declarer to play out the hand?! That's the worst part of it all
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm out of adjectives for this ruling… if facts were just as written. Did the td really allow declarer to play it out ???
Aug. 9, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wrong ruling unless the declarer can convince director that he absolutely knows the hj will be high. And even if he does, there's always the possibility that, having given up on the hand, declarer will not even notice the cards that the defense plays. Declarer just gave up… so, it depends somehow on the true facts but sure looks like a bad ruling
Aug. 9, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably it was wishful thinking… I think that “phones off, and on the table” is way more effective than “phones off, and hidden”
Aug. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My bad… “The electronic device policy at NABCs allows players to bring electronic devices such as cell phones into the playing area provided that such devices are turned off.
Further, any such equipment must not be visible during the session. A violation of the policy will result in an automatic disciplinary penalty of one full board (or 12 IMPs at that form of scoring) for the first offense. A second offense will result in disqualification from the event.”
Aug. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I recall correctly I saw in one of the first bulletins (maybe the first) that the new policy is “phones switched off, and on the table at all times”, not inside the pockets…
Aug. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spot on, Steve. Matt is one of the very best, and always a pleasure to work with. We directors learn a lot by watching what to do and what not, and Matt is one that I observe in order to keep learning.
Aug. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quoting one of the regulations that I am aware of: “ Any action chosen by the player in receipt of unauthorised information, qualifies as a logical alternative for that particular player.” This comes from Australia, but the EBU have an alternative interpretation of law 16 (white book) that leads to the same end resilt
July 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My comment addresses the fact that for the application of
2007 Laws: 16B1(a)
…the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The bid chosen by player is defined as a LA, in order to allow the TD to disallow it, otherwise because it was such a goofy bid it could not be disallowed because… it was not a LA
July 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A number of NBOs have defined the action under scrutiny a LA for the player in question. So 3s would be a LA for that specific player
July 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jane, what are the correct agreements of the pair? It seems that everybody is discussing potentially three different cases: West is right, East is right, none of them is right …
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that I went overboard on my comment above. But some decisions cause that effect on me sometimes. Maybe one thing to improve the general situation would be to create a pool of selectable people for ACs and have them take a course on the laws for acs specifically
June 12, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment June 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But there must be a way to stop the kind of AC decisions like the one from the OP
June 11, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top