Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also undiscussed is not a sufficient answer when the partnership has an implicit understanding.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately there is another class of players who hide behind “undiscussed” to be as unhelpful as possible.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is a young person's game always has been always will be. Young people get older and still enjoy playing. Unfortunately for 50 years we have not got enough young people playing.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree except that polls are not required by the laws and at times are not helpful. Players can be polled when they are dummy if they are away from the table or between rounds if necessary.

In my view polls are most often impractical and of little value especially if the sample size is small and biased as is usually the case.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I played squash, badly, and wanted to play interclub events it was a requirement for all players to attend a session or sessions on the laws of the game. That meant that players had an understanding of the laws.

The motivation was partially for a different reason as the players were expected to umpire other games when they were not playing at least some of the time.

However it seems to me that the idea of requiring players to attend information sessions about the laws of the game is a good one. Certainly the status quo of players who have no idea about some laws is at times intolerable. Basically for insisting on the laws one has to subject yourself to an earful of discourteous nonsense at times - although the director last weekend was clear in telling my opponents that I had a right to point out a tempo irregularity.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure that you should be deemed to have not accepted the lead. However what might amount to the same thing is that not calling the director immediately might jeopardise your rights. Although that seems a bit one-sided as both sides have a responsibility to call the director once someone draws attention to an infraction.

It seems to me that presuming the lead has not been accepted and leading from her own hand is just as remiss as waiting a few seconds and then saying I want to accept the lead. I don't see why declarer's actions should jeopardise the defender and the defender's action should also jeopardise the defender in this situation.

Best to call the director immediately.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not saying that it should apply here but the answer to your question is because you now have more information.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This habit of director's to make rulings many hours after the infraction is ridiculous in my view.

My record is in an eight round event for a problem that occurred in round two we got a ruling after the finish of round eight. In addition I was given a warning for asking the director at the lunch break about the ruling and again at the end of play.

More recently in two matchpoint pairs events with lunch breaks between sessions I was given rulings during the next session after the break.

I think players should have a right to know their scores before starting the next session. It creates an uneven playing field if some players know their score but other players do not because they are waiting for director's rulings.

In addition a director coming up to you during a session to give a controversial ruling from a previous session is disruptive.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always thought that partner is essentially playing you for 7-8 points and therefore you do not need to take action with an unremarkable hand of that strength.

I figured the spades were bad when the opponents could not raise; the hearts are obviously good; the diamonds are bad; and the clubs are of unknown quality. They are good if they are opposite useful cards in partner's hand and poor if they are in LHO's suit.

On the actual hand partner had stiff diamond and cAKxx so 4 was good but despite this poll eliminating more hands than I feel comfortable with, as Steve comments on, I cannot get 4H up to making close to 50% which is what is needed at matchpoints.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised that there are not more bidders or doublers.

The pollees are also passing with partner's hand and we have various partscores or a penalty against 2D.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure in practice I agree. I was discarding them from the simulations to try and get 4H making often enough to justify a raise with xxx KQx xxx QJxx
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play double as penalties. Our agreement is doubles over the primary bidder after we balance or they balance. The exception is opener's double after auctions like 1H P P 2C X and responder's double in similar auctions 1H P P 2C P P X.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Of course asking about an individual bid is bad form and conveys UI. Much better if opponents ask about the whole auction, but few do that.”

If all you get when you ask about 3C is “clubs” then asking about the auction is not likely to give you any more information.

While I agree that normally questions about the whole auction are better I am not sure that asking about an individual bid necessarily “convey UI”. Or at least not information that the questioner has clubs. Also the timing of the question may make it more or less likely to convey significant UI.

A question in the bidding or before the opening lead is likely to be more of a problem than a question after partner has led and the dummy has been exposed. But of course there are exceptions.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is very similar to what Groucho Marx said

“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others.”
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume rounded. These numbers came from an excel spreadsheet. I confess I have no idea what excel does and how much cumulative error there is from intermediate calculations.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I made any gratuitous comments about anyone.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, Peg

Yes I know how easy it is to make errors in language. I do it frequently. I published a recent poll on here where I wrote a question that I did not intend to write. As I wrote the previous sentence I had to delete and rewrite because it was going to be ambiguous. Many if not most short things I write I correct before publishing and that is just for informal communications on an internet forum. There are many other ambiguities that I let slide when I know that I could clear them up with a little bit of effort.

I had a professor who was incredibly pedantic. When he graded work he just gave an overall grade with no marks for individual questions but he would have ticks and crosses and occasional comments (at least on my work). Many other students found his style very discouraging. I found it a great challenge. He was tough. For example I submitted one assignment and out of 10-15 questions or so I had two comments that were identical “This is correct but there is a much better way. See the solutions” and I had one place in one question where I had used an exclusive symbol rather than an inclusive one or vice versa - afterwards I could not remember whether I had made an error in logic or just accidentally written the wrong symbol. He graded me “A minus”. That was a challenge to do even better next time.

Maybe it is hard to write precisely when the intention is clear in your head but it should be easy to know that the use of words like “only” in the phrase “showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened” has a very precise meaning. If that precise meaning is not what you intended then it should be obvious that “only” is the wrong word.

If you are writing casually on the internet then imprecision in your language is tolerable if not always acceptable. If you are writing regulations that you want others who may not know your intentions to understand then your words need to be precise. The use of quantitative qualifiers like “only” in imprecise ways should be an immediate red flag.

My previous point was intended to be that when I read the above regulation I do not know whether “only” is intended or a mistake. I might be happy with the regulation as written and so make no comment because I have no idea of the regulators' intention.

When it comes to light that the language is not the intention then the regulators need to take responsibility for that and if the process is too onerous to change the regulation then live with it as written.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike the problem with your question is that when rules are posted people do not know what the intention is. Some might be happy with the rules as written. That is they set a clear boundary only to find out at a later time that the rule makers because of their faulty English meant something completely different.

People making rules have a responsibility to write down the rules precisely as they mean them. Other people trying to follow the rules will be disadvantaged if they prepare believing the words mean what they say only to be told at a late stage that the words were intended to mean something completely different.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes to 9 decimal places
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently I didn't.
Aug. 14
.

Bottom Home Top