Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My mistake, this thread got so long that I thought it was another one about a claim with a revoke… and it was the year of the world championships in Philly. And this makes me go back to a suggestion for posts about directing cases: include in the title something that helps to identify the problem, like in this case: “incomplete designation of card by declarer, incontrovertible or not?” Helps a lot…
April 17, 2017
Rui Marques edited this comment April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See reply below, this comment was for a different case. Doesn't apply here

For those who have a problem with “all tricks”, maybe this will help: WBF Laws Committee Minutes, Philadelphia, 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
Rui Marques edited this comment April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
50/50… I tend to agree with the first two lines, and to strongly disagree with the next two… and it doesn't even depend on the level of players, IMHO
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The letter of the law calls for a high diamond. This looks like a terrible ruling, if the facts are correct.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like zero (though the story is hard to follow). A lot of info missing
April 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually you can do 300-320 bds / hr, at least
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Molva: Relative positions are correct. Diagram is rotated 180. It looks a bit confusing, I agree. My apolohies
March 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - Of course we use our cell phones. The purpose of forbidding cell phones in the playing area does not apply to TDs and officials.
2 - I think I mention it in the article. Yes, it is a possibility.
March 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Example on page 9 revolves around a BIT but it's not about the usual BIT questions, it's about a potential intention to mislead the opponent (73F). Also, the article was not directed to ACBL-land, and that's the reason for omitting the ACBL specs on polling.
March 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When discussing wrong movements… always comes to mind that even with the right movements in place I often see scoring across three or four sections instead of across the field, and that is “insaner” also!
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing like a poll to plug the hole…
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing special. Natural, invitational by nature
Dec. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No… but people always think there's a case behind a td's question!
Dec. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not a case…
Dec. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barometer scoring is one thing, posting the scores is another.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And maybe some didn´t know that the afternoon session was longer
Dec. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why worry about everybody playing the same boards, and not worry about getting 43 or 49 MPs for +140, for example, depending on which group of sections you are?
Nov. 30, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top