Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scoring across the field in ACBL-land…
Nov. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
19 AFAIK
Nov. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as the Laws go, a competent td doesn't have to know them by heart. But as John said, (s)he needs to know where and how to locate the relevant information in order to rule adequately in most textbook situations.
Oct. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, Anthony, I suggest that you don´t leave the table until all the effects of the ruling are gone, and the “expansion” is important because you dont want a player saying “I didnt prohibit because I thought that he would just cash his ace and then continue the suit..”
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gordon has it right. Case closed…
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that sometimes the major difficulty for unexperienced TDs is to locate the correct law(s). Here, for example, I understand why the TD has trouble finding the applicable laws. (S)he will think “Exposed card” (49)… “Lead card”(?)… “Premature lead” (57)… Maybe search the index under “Play”… There you see Lead (44), and Premature (57). Some of these are dead ends, others are a “late start…” I didn´t completely check but I think the the TD decision at the table was derived from locating Law 49 only…
The TD will need to think “Lead out of turn” to start on the right foot (53A, Lead can be accepted, if not the lead is made from the correct hand and 47B applies). 47B leads to 49 (Exposure of a defender´s card), establishing the J as a PC, which in turn leads to 50 (Disposition of PC).
An experienced TD will have the basic principles all sorted out (identify the !J as a LOOT, therefore a PC, and also the 50E part (information derived from the PC), so he might need to consult one or two details but he can rule without reading from the book, using it only if the player wants to check the ruling. A not so experienced TD will always have trouble with this. To minimize trouble and errors, I can only suggest to thoroughly read and get familiar with two things: What I call Law 94 (the Index) and Law 0 (the Definitions). Seems nonsensical, but these two things can save the day in more occasions than one might think.
Oct. 20, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anthony, you forgot “if you prohibit a heart lead, the prohibition will remain while partner retains the lead”. And translate “partner, player” to “West, East”. It helps. Or the name of the player. Even better. Also, and if you want to be thorough, there are UI implications from the MPC.
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the strong arguments in favour of Big Deal, and there are many, is that it is not possible to predict a hand from a previous hand.
Aug. 26, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I stand corrected :) although the theory seemed appealing
Aug. 19, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) Why do we restore equity? I agree that it will be a very rare situation, but IMHO restoring equity on a revoke from dummy can go either way. Otherwise, why include revokes from dummy in 64c and not treat them like the “others”?

But I'm thinking about it…
Aug. 19, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We apply 64C even if it is the defender's side that gains an advantage because of dummy having one card less.

Editing for Correction: Henrik is right, 64c only applies if the NOS is damaged.
Aug. 19, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure if I understood right, but if I did there is a simple solution: just inform them of the vulnerability, get the board, move on.
Aug. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The art is to manage to speed up the slow pairs without having to resort to PP, which often do much more harm than good. With care and attention it is possible to do it.
Having said that, if in an extreme case one has to take one board away, then 60/40 is already a “strong enough penalty” in the eyes of the slow pair. I don´t remember having to take more than one board away from any pair in a given session. But I rarely would take boards away (maybe one every ten sessions, or something like that). Usually when the slow player sees the board taken away, with the right approach, he speeds up… One also can take the smart approach of sitting a fast pair after the slow pair, for example, coach them on not losing time between boards, help the move, etc. One thing I used to do was to be standing by the slow table and immediately after they finish one board rush them into the second, putting the second board on the table, writing the result on the bridgemate for them, etc. Another, when the slow pair finished late the previous round, would be to immediately remove a board from them and tell them they wouldn´t get it unless they finish the first one or two boards in X minutes. The players naturally speed up with this approach.
But if the TD sits on his table until someone calls because a pair is late, not much can be done to correct / prevent the slow play.
Main focus must be prevention…
Aug. 18, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!!
July 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
July 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick was a great friend. I'm sad, and I will miss him so much…
July 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO even if the named card was not in dummy the revoke would be established.
July 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Laws don't regulate polls. The polling process was developed through the years in order to ascertain LA's. It is common practice at the top level, in this type of situation, this type of question. The way polls are conducted can and probably should be regulated by NBOs ( but with awareness for the dangers of excessive regulation). In this case the most important piece of info is not what players would do with the hand in question, but what players would think about the hesitation. Does it show anything? If all polled players say “no”, then where is the “useful UI”?
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robin, I understand your point and maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. However, I do think that basic TD training should include all the mechanical situations like 12-14 cards, 53 or 51 cards, cards from wrong board
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robin, I don't think that you will be able to find a law that says that 17d effects cease when the auction finishes. The OP problem would be interesting if the offender was in 3rd of 4th and had called only once, like for example in 1s pass pass pass. Like it is, it's just plain application of the law
July 5, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top