Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't commentate on the ruling ( others did it perfectly). But the AC committee in this case is way out of line. When people show examples why ACs should not be abolished, they should consider that for each of those there's probably 10 of these… “Silly” is a big understatement.
June 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the quick bid by the opponent bar you? No
Are you barred from the auction because partner broke tempo? No
Should your opponent, allegedly a TD, said what he said? No, because he is just a player at the table and because HE IS WRONG.

Should you bid 5D? That´s a harder question… From your options, you can not select one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the BIT.

At the table what should you do in practical terms? Think if in your opinion the BIT suggests something, discard that something, and from the options left take your pick.

And call the TD on your opponent “TD”. If he was the playing TD, like often happens in clubs, probably the best course of action is a private talk after the game ends.
June 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If facts are correct, NS seem to have a concealed (and maybe only implicit) agreement, based on UI information.
June 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even on the 2016 Laws, the question asked (or not asked) is UI to partner, so 40B3 only applies to questions asked by the opponents or to the response by the opponent.
June 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The facts are so incomplete… Fill the gaps please.
June 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may also find useful this updated version, presented in the Athens EBL TD workshop 2017: http://www.eurobridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017AthensAboutPollingPlayers.pdf

http://www.eurobridge.org/education/td-training/workshops/
June 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If facts are correct, and if it was one of my TDs, he would have some explaining to do…
May 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, it depends on the circumstances in each case. Here, it seems that they discussed the defenses two hands before, and there's a lot of additional evidence that east knew. I might treat you and this east differently because it's different circumstances.
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But FWIW I think that we reach the same conclusion with both our methods in this case
May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand your point, Kit, but I very much prefer to get answers from the players to the separate questions, and from there use my judgment to decide the MI issue. I think that your approach runs the risk of eventually inducing more bias on the players answers. You want the answers to not be influenced by the personal opinions of the players about the problem or type of problem in hand, and IMHO the best way to do it is to start from the beginning. If 3H is more attractive with one or the other explanation it will be apparent from the reactions and answers of the players to your questions.
Also, your “comparison” approach runs this risk: The bid is more attractive with explanation A than with explanation B. All say that. So you rule accordingly. But if you ask what would they bid with either explanation, and 100% make the same bid in both cases, I don´t think there is damage …
May 15, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I talked about the poll, with the way I worded it I thought it would be clear that I thought it would support this “common sense”. Polling can't replace judgment. But it is a great help towards better judgment.
May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Poll would be something like:
“Teams, good level, board # of the match”.
“You are vul they are not, your hand, bidding goes 1NT 10-12, Double takeout, pass, this is your answering system, your bid?”
“Any thoughts about possible alternatives?”
“Now suppose 1NT is 15-17 and Double is (5+m 4M), what would you bid?”
“Any thoughts about possible alternatives?”
“What do you think of a 3H bid instead of (choice given by player)?”
May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So… Interclubs, FIRST division, screens, teams, you sit down and you don´t check among other things your opponent´s NT range? You don´t know your opponents, and you don´t know they play 10-12? NS may “get” something for lack of alert. As usual facts are missing. What were the other alerts and explanations (namely E´s explanation of the double). Did players have CCs? What was the state of the match? (might be relevant)
If I have a system of defense that depends on the NT range of the opponents I check that range before using it… East may have a way out: “As I saw no alert, I forgot they played 10-12”. But as many pointed out before, 3H against a strong NT seems to be excessive. Independently of my opinion I would poll players and ask among other things “would you ever bid 3H?” (with the information East received).
May 15, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The answer to how 8.75 appeared might be that someone tried to do 0.625 x 47 on the numeric keypad and accidentally hit one row below… 1 is under 4 and 4 under 7… thus .625x14 instead
April 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 first clue
April 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“almost penalty”, “probably penalty”…
April 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A “standard” example of the “unless a different declarer´s intention is incontrovertible”, one which I hope will help clear the minds of all those that say “declarer is stuck with a small card from dummy” is this: Playing NT, Dummy has AK2 and declarer the 3 in a given suit, three tricks from the end. Declarer needs two tricks for his contract. Declarer´s other cards are losers. Declarer leads the 3, and says “Ace”. Then says “and another”. He is not stuck with the small card from dummy.
It´s the same base principle here. The laws state that declarer “should” name rank and suit, but they recognize that often declarer just says “high, low, small, another, continue”, etc., and provide a remedy for that. If you are the type of declarer that always states rank and suit, good for you. I never saw anybody do that all the time.
Now, when the designation is incomplete, the remedy clearly stated on 46B is that an *incontrovertible* intention of declarer takes priority over the automatic remedies. If there is doubt, if the intention is not incontrovertible, the automatic remedies apply. If the intention is incontrovertible, then that takes priority. There is a judgment component involved, for sure. And the TD may sometimes get it wrong.
But I very much prefer a game ruled by common sense and good judgment…
April 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the second revoke equity is restored through 64c from the moment of the second revoke. I think we are back to zero tricks in this case also
April 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who have a problem with “all tricks”, maybe this will help: WBF Laws Committee Minutes, Philadelphia, 2010, item 10:

Having in mind a case of a disputed Declarer’s claim and an admission
by an opponent that he had revoked on the last trick played, the
revoke not being established, the Chief Tournament Director
suggested it had been an oversight not to include the WBF minute of
12th January 2000 in the 2007 laws. With a slight amendment the
committee confirmed that the minute is still valid. It now reads:
“If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a
defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the
revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction
of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible,
adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.”

It´s not exactly the same situation, but the principle of adjudicating doubtful points against the revoker applies, IMHO.
April 17, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top