Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a video recorder I do not see any reason why there should not be a high quality audio recorder.

I have certainly been in a position where what was said at the table bore no resemblance to what the other pair argued when the director arrived.

In the modern age where what precisely was said or done could be crucial there is no excuse for not providing that information to be recorded.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Chris well said. This should however be so obvious as not to need being said in a forum. It should already be part of the appropriate operating manual.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I wrote the slow pass pn my scorecard and awaited dummy with interest.”

I read this with interest and wonder how many other people do this. I think in principle it is a good idea to make detailed notes about these sorts of things. And it is great with video evidence now to back up these timing issues. Personally in auctions where I am not so much involved I like to count out the length of hesitations so that I can say with reasonable accuracy that it was 30-40 sec or whatever. Of course there are times when I am thinking about possible actions for some of that time and I don't accurately get the information.

I do have a quibble though. And its not clear whether it applies. But if you write the note on your scorecard during the play I wonder whether you are technically breaching the laws by using a memory aid. Just the act of writing something down could help your memory later in the play.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“He must have considered bidding 4♦ as an alternative at that time - if he hadn't done that, it should mean that he wasn't worried about cue-bid heart already one round before (he knew that with A♦ and a figure in ♥ partner will always bid 4♦). ”

But maybe he did not factor in that he might do so slowly thus creating problems.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think your post is logical. Declarer may be willing to play the card but then gets additional information that LHO is committed seemingly to play a card as he has a card out (which is unlawful by the way). Then with this additional information you want to change your card. But then LHO wants to change too.

In my view it is entirely LHO who is employing gamesmanship in this scenario.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't the bigger problem with carryovers that good play in the round robin earns a team a carryover but the good play in the quarter final or semi final does not?
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Statistics can indicate someone may be cheating, but will never be enough to prove cheating.”

Previously, I have been trying to tell this to Kit when he was claiming that the statistics may show that it was “likely” that some pair (FS I think) was cheating.
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I haven't entered a WBF event since 2006 when I was 24 years old”

Josh: I might be wrong but I think you can get WBF masterpoints at the Zonal trials so perhaps you have effectively entered WBF events since then.
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoops think I have been in a dream for two days. Someone asked me why play for the Q onside rather than the Q and I got blindsided by the question.

Nothing like a stupid poll to clear up your insanity.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One year when I was playing with 16 boards to play we (NZ) were something like 17 IMPs behind New Caledonia and Australia were tied with French Polynesia. But normality was restored in the final set.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excuse my ignorance. What is the Billy Joel song?
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That happens Ron.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might not some interpret 4NT followed by 5 as a slam try?
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually many people embellish stories very often. Even good people.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think violence solves any problems here.
Sept. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If “logical alternative” meant what plain language suggests “logical alternative” should mean then you are right under those conditions 3 has no “logical alternatives” for those players. However in bridge law “logical alternative” is defined according to actions that other players would take.
Sept. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am often troubled by those feel aspects of play. The trouble I have is when your feel is so good how do you know you are not also, perhaps subconsciously, using that feel to read your partner.

I am not just troubled by top players who talk about table feel but also at lesser levels. One partnership I know a player often says that a play was based on “intuition”. At times the partnership have considerable, I believe, non-deliberate mannerisms. It troubles me that “intuition” might, at least subconsciously, take account of those partnership mannerisms.
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or established it as a fact from discussion with the players at the table.
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Amy the laws provide for no rectification if the non-offending side takes any action. In my view this should probably have applied here.

“The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. ”

It also occurs to me that if EW are passing the tray then there are two sides at fault. EW are improperly passing the tray and NS are improperly not passing the tray. Both should be responsible and therefore if there is a problem both should be liable for a penalty.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its like being held in custody only there is no custody so more like out on bail but with a constraint that they not play until the substantive matter is properly heard.
Sept. 21, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top