Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I am superhuman and I am sure there are very many who would agree but I think I manage pretty much to suppress my reaction to partner's mistaken explanation and correct it at the appropriate time.

Moreover I would certainly accept a penalty if I did not.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most times a forgetful alert is tolerated. And if there had only been a forgetful alert here there would have been no problem. Well except that I can't imagine that 1 X unalerted would have prompted a question from my partner. Then there would have been no explanation and then there would have been no comment from explainer's partner.

Who knows what would have happened now? We would have got the result that accrued from the player's own misunderstanding. He would either have woken up or not woken up as the case may be and there would have been no issue.

His alert and the prompted query and explanation created a situation in which his partner expressed disapproval of his explanation which woke him up and we now live in a universe where no one knows what would have happened.

As I suggested even if you do not adjust the score it does not seem unreasonable to impose a mild penalty to remind players that they should not give information to their partner during the hand except by bids and plays actually made.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil made no claim that the comment was inadvertent and I find it hard to believe that the comment was inadvertent. Certainly the opponent at the table did not express the opinion that the comment was made inadvertently.

Even so, I think it is possible to suppress such inadvertencies if you assume that is what it was.

By making a further assumption that the comment was inadvertent I suggest that it is you who are mischaracterising this situation.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to play a game where players comment on the auction in progress and in particular their partner's misunderstanding of that auction then I suggest that it is you that needs to play a different game.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Precisely.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pretty much
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No they were not playing 2/1.

I wanted the question to be as general as possible. So the bids were natural and the opening was five or more cards.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This isn't about a pound of flesh.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None vulnerable Matchpoints

T4
J64
A862
KT98

P P 1 X
1 ?
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a presumption that highly unusual doubles will have been prealerted either verbally at the beginning of a round or match or there is a place on the front of the card for pre-alerts.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polls of a handful of people are almost completely useless.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course Dan. When I said “You can say …” I did not mean to suggest that that answer was the only option for various partnerships. It happens to be the answer that I eventually extracted from the opponents at the table.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is unfortunate at best.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The NZ Bridge rules say that normally the non-offenders should be given average plus or some similar words if there is damage.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the players involved knew the alerting rules. Yes I accept that failure to alert was probably an honest mistake.

Making a comment in a live auction is not something that anyone should do. I think that showing disapproval of your partner's explanation is flagrant or something approaching that.

Again I don't suspect it was done deliberately to gain an advantage. However I think the game would be much better off if this sort of action was penalised as a matter of course.

Not penalising leaves the non-offenders thinking that they might have done better if their had not been an illegal communication between the opponents and letting the offenders have the best of it seems completely wrong to me.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sadly I think it is standard operating procedure.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The effect of playing an illegal convention is not the advantage when the convention comes up but also what it allows you to do with other bids.

For example I doubt that any forcing pass pair would say that the fert bid is the strength of their system. They might even be losing on hands where they fert. The good results come from their other bids.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have twice had rulings against my opponents playing illegal conventions.

The first on the second day of a three day event where a pair opened an illegal 1 catchall bid in a transfer opening system. The director gave us 60-40 on the board is question and imposed no further penalty on the pair who had played for a day and a half with an illegal method.

The second a pair played an entire event with a HUM. The director decided to penalise them a small amount after the event that did not change the overall result and made no adjustments to any boards where the pair had obtained an advantage using the illegal system.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick I suspect some who like David Burn's comment don't necessarily agree with what he said but are rather amused by it.
Aug. 4
.

Bottom Home Top