Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Corrected. My apologies
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I´m sorry to disagree Greg, but that´s not what 12A1 says…
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play ceases. So, 45C4a doesn´t apply. There´s no contradiction. 45C4a refers to play only. TD adjudicates the claim (once again there is no play).

And per the WBFLC minutes, which are considered part of the Laws, the irregularity is not to be accepted, so you can´t give 4 tricks.

You cant use 12A1 because it doesn´t apply (the Laws provide a remedy, we can´t make up one)
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because play ceases the moment the claim is made, and you need to limit the scope of claims to legal plays
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It really doesn´t matter the discussion if declarer´s statement might mean King then Ace or Ace then King, finishing in either of the hands before trick thirteen. It is undisputed that declarer did not know that the 9 of spades was good, so without claiming he would randomly start with the King (getting the lucky three tricks) or the Ace (getting the unlucky two). So, he gets the unlucky two. Unless the TD is convinced that the player meant “King then Ace then spade in case it´s good…”
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
73.1739%… Equivalent. Quoted from SuitPlay
April 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The context under which cases show up is important (year, event, specific rules), especially when it is old cases and you want to analise the TD and/or the commitee´s decision…

I regularly read old cases (I have cases dating back to the 80´s), and it is fascinating to see the evolution of TD and AC decisions…

Herman de Wael used to calculate the BAR (Boards/Appeals Ratio), and it´s downward trend is very consistent over the years. I remember Europeans and Worlds with much more than 20 appeals. IN the last years of ACs they were on the single digits, if I recall correctly.
April 24, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment April 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the one… It was in Tenerife, indeed. Good times, those. We went for dinner, 8 TDs and 10 different nationalities (two of us had double nationality). A guy in front of a restaurant “English? English?”, and we “Do you really wanna know…?”
April 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The appeal is from which year? I remember an old claim case where the eventual possibility of 12c3 came up, before the wbf had issued any guidance, causing a lot of discussion. Is it this one? If it is recent i am amazed, i thought it was a clear and known point that one cant use 12c3 with claims.
April 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ruling is long gone, I was curious to see the reactions to this “3D FG as a passed hand”, more from the point of view of technical bidding than because of the ruling. FWIW, the 3D bidder intended it as a transfer, and partner was adamant that it was a FG natural bid. And Rui sometimes plays a little, answers polls, makes polls of hands he played, etc. :)
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural Forcing to Game, sorry, forgot to add
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let´s say that there is a rule “you can´t appeal a decision in qualifying stages or KOs if your team qualifies or survives in any case”. Now, lets have a triangle between team A (you), team B (Meckwell, Levin/Weinstein) (or any good combination of top players) and team C (intermediate players, having their lucky day). With the decision and no appeal, A and B qualify. If the appeal reverses the decision, A and C qualify. Now, the result of the appeal does affect your chances of winning the event… Would you agree with such a rule?
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AWM should not relate to the importance of the appeal to the ranking of the pair/team, but to the merit of the caser itself. Your team is unaffected “in the qualifying”, but affected in the final result of the match.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is potentially an excellent argument for change…
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If that is so, maybe show HQ how current regs are contributing for the clubs´ decline?
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I´m amazed at the number of people that think that bad, awful rulings are normal, acceptable and supposed to be accepted in clubs just because clubs are like that. Can´t clubs change and get better?
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is enough interest, I will gladly write some lines about that. My expectancy is to do it sometime in April (now in the middle of an unrelated major project to conclude this month)
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You synthesized my point beautifully, Bud. Many thanks.

I managed to transform a 3-4 table club into a 20-22 table powerhouse by providing players with duplicated boards, hand records, online results after the end of the session, results in two minutes after the end of play (pre-duplimate), tournaments running on time, digital clocks, barometers, duplimates when they were introduced, and some more. This, twenty years ago (probably a bit more).

Treat club players to a Spingold-like experience, and they will flourish. Give them “just a club game”, because it´s just a club game, and the club game will wilt and die, or survive on oxygen.
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, hence my suggestion of using “internet buddies”, BBO friends, etc., as pollees
March 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
64C indeed leads to “assigned adjusted score”, which leads in turn to 12C1, including 12C1c (meaning that we can assign weighted scores when adjusting a revoke for equity under 64C)

“… Law 12C1c is applicable only where an assigned adjusted score is awarded under the laws”
March 9, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top