Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's pass of 2 was pretty good too.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have the rule that any bid in a suit, actually a denomination as it includes no trumps, bid by the opponents or shown by the opponents is a cue-bid. That makes for some absurd situations.

1 strong (2) does not need an alert whatever it's meaning.

1NT (2NT) similarly does not need an alert.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first hand is opposite Q A5 AKJT QJT862.

The second is opposite - KT32 AJ43 QJ873
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A PP is for somebody who does something which he knows is wrong.”

Disagree. There is nothing in the laws for that.

Playing any other sport or game it is normal to penalise people when they do not know the rules. We have a very strange attitude towards penalties in bridge that I have never been able to understand.

Sometimes it is by penalising that people learn the rules.

I have played against a few people who for 25-30 years have acted regularly on their partner's UI. They have never been penalise but have been told many times when their score is adjusted. They often say things like “not again” when I mention the problem or call the director. Not penalising creates an environment in which they think they can keep getting away with blatant disregard for the laws.
Dec. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We can assume that with the alert the question would have been asked immediately, and had no UI, and that a diamond would have been led.”

I am unconvinced that just because there is an alert you have a free pass to ask a question without risking conveying unauthorised information. The laws include “questions” without qualification in the sources of unauthorised informaiton.

"Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.
This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism"
Dec. 21, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4 with more spades than what I double 3 with.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North needs to be educated about the appropriate times to ask questions. I can't think of a reason to ask this question except to be lead directional. And that is not a good reason.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How, in practice, are you going to make someone alert a reverse that does not show extra values when they do not even understand what a reverse is?
Dec. 21, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some might play 4 as natural.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view it is the casino who is offering the game, the player should be allowed to exploit the conditions. That is what makes it a game. You look for winning strategies.

When the casino acquiesced into allowing the player to indirectly control the orientation of the cards then they chose to act against their own best interests. I do not think the law should protect them from doing that.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Robson's Pressure bid book”

Is this a book or a chapter in “Partnership Bidding in Bridge” - Robson Segal?
Dec. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“you succeed when RHO has Jx - 3 holdings.”

I think you mean LHO has Jxx (or RHO has Ax) - 3 holdings.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“One concern I read which I do see as having some validity is the following:
”During the bidding and play the laws allow you to look at your opponent's system card only at your own turn to bid or play.“

It seems to me like this should be changed. It certainly isn't followed behind screens, and it doesn't make sense in many situations.”

Since I was one who raised this, I would like to make a further comment.

Debbie's suggestion of exchanging cards would circumvent the problem that I had earlier this year with this law, when a player at her partner's turn to bid reached across in front of me to pick up my system card making it very obvious that she was interested in what I had bid. This would not be a serious issue if she had a card of her own at the beginning of the round.

Similarly, behind screens there is no problem of this nature with looking at the system card because your partner cannot see what you are doing and indeed it will often save time as you can find out in the period of relative inactivity on your side of the screen when the tray is on the other side.

Without screens players who look at system cards with theatrics might create UI problems but at least in theory they can be dealt with under stand UI law and not with a special law preventing the player from looking at the card when it is not their turn. Having said that, without screens, not looking at the opponent's card when it is your partner's turn to call is a cleaner solution than having to deal with UI from such actions.

I do note that the law allows for the regulating authority to make regulations around the consultation of the system card that could partially or completely annul the law. “Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise …”

Perhaps some sensible regulation could improve the situation at the table while protecting the problems from UI.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does seem a bit bizarre to me.

1. The casino presents with a game which they believe is stacked in their favour.

2. The player finds an edge with the equipment they have chosen to use.

3. It is not allowed to take advantage of their game that they did not stack properly.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a standard deck a number of cards are still asymmetric. You can still do your trick by making sure one of those cards in selected. That is essentially what I did. I put the asymmetric cards in the centre of the deck and made sure the person selected a card from near the centre.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Michael that writing down the lead prior to the hand being completed is an aid to memory and I think it should be policed.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Without discussion” it is fraught with danger to assume something that subtle however what you say is what I would play.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What exactly is “edge sorting”? Is it some sort of edge marking put on the card when they are in play?
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Make a different symmetrical design.

The notion that such a generic design can be protected for commercial gain is anathema to me. I don't know what the copyright exactly protects here but I do know that the system protects some absurd basic things at times that anyone could think of.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you not play Exclusion key card?

If one does play exclusion then the void showing method is redundant on a lot of auctions.
Dec. 17, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top