Home davidcollier Comments

davidcollier

About

Username
davidcollier
Joined
Visits
253
Last Active
Roles
Member

Comments

  • In any case, yes, I feel it would be better if the TD's discretion to remove a board didn't immediately end at some fixed point in time. It doesn't mean a TD would use that discretion very often, or that players would be able to deliberately run …

  • (Quote)

    I think that may be true, but:

    • Which Law allows the TD to take away a board before it is started?
    • Does that Law actually limit its application at all?

    It does seem that the Laws are lacking a…

  • @SteveMap You're quoting me there, not Gordon. I'm the one who's confused about where WB 8.81.4.1 comes from.

  • (Quote)

    Not any more - see the updated version dated 11th October.

    Note that while the new version is a big improvement, I still don't think it explicitly addresses the original poster's question.

  • (Quote)

    Good stuff. I'd just like to say in case it's not already clear:

  • (Quote)

    Ah, maybe I'd misunderstood this. I'd been assuming that whenever "Rule of 20" was mentioned, it would apply to the meaning as a whole, not just to the individual patterns which cause "Rule of 20" to be required. That is, I interpreted…

  • (Quote)

    Ah, perhaps I had misunderstood this. I'd been assuming that wherever "Rule of 20" was mentioned, this would have to be satisfied by the meaning as a whole, not just the individual patterns which cause "Rule of 20" to be required. That…

  • (Quote)

    I remember being taught this, but I've never understood the basis for this in the laws.

    I see in WB 8.81.4.1: "The TD should not cancel a board because the table is late, once the auction period has
    commenced." But the …

  • If the club has a clock that is visible to everyone, you might consider implementing a club rule that players cannot start a new board after the clock reaches 3:00 (say) without first asking permission from the TD. Maybe this is worth considering…

  • @Jaded I apologise but I'm not going to answer this - I understand that's really annoying of me, but it would take me a couple of pages to properly explain the various things I t…

  • (Quote)

    Now that is always a dangerous thing to say :)

    No I don't think it's clear whether 2D showing 4414 or 4441 is permitted: I could quite happily come up with an argument either way. To be honest I think 7C1 is in a bit o…

  • Thank you Robin. Apologies for having hijacked the thread a little - the original question seems a good one to me without a clear answer.

  • (Quote)

    Fair enough - but let me also say, I think "rule of 20" is surprisingly strict here. Whenever I've come across a Precision pair playing a 3-suited 2D or 2H opening, the range has always been defined as "11-15" or even "10-15", which co…

  • (Quote)

    This is fine: under 7C1(d), you can play a three-suiter short in the suit opened, and "any strength is permitted if 4441 or 5440".

    But it gets a bit weird if you allow 3-4-1-5 and/or 4-3-1-5 patterns as well, which a lot of Pre…

  • Goodness, this thread does seem to have made a bit of a meal out of a very simple question. I'm sorry if my original post was the source of some of the confusion. The regulations are simple enough:

    • If the response can have 11 HCP or …
  • Indeed, if the 1NT response can have 11 points, then it should be announced. Almost certainly if a pair is playing 2/1, then they will need to announce in the sequences 1H:1NT and 1S:1NT.

    It's not so clear with 1D:1NT though, which was th…

  • I've just noticed that 7C1 allows a 2H opening that shows a weak hand with either 5+ hearts or both black suits. Was that intentional?

    (It wouldn't be allowed if the bid also had strong options, because in that case there is an additional…

  • I do think this is a bit more controversial than the previous answers would suggest. Although I would trust Robin to give the official line, in my opinion this advice does not reflect how the game is really played. If an experienced pair describe…

  • I get the point that it would be nice to distinguish between "shows the unbid major" and "take-out suggesting both unbid suits", and that an announcement is the only good way to achieve this if we want to. But there doesn't seem to be much eviden…

  • Thanks Robin, you're right I should have said "standard" rather than "traditional".

    For what it's worth, I think this aspect is going to be a tough sell. There's no doubt that 1m (1M) Dbl showing the unbid major meets the new definition o…

  • Echoing Tramticket's comments above, I'm surprised that the new draft isn't more explicit about the requirement to announce the traditional negative double 1m (1M) Dbl, showing the other major. This was previously regarded as just being a type of…

  • Alerting of doubles has been my pet peeve ever since the current rules were originally proposed (2007ish?). I still hold out hope that one day we will get something that actually works.

    I feel strongly that the general rule should be eith…

  • I think Gordon correctly describes the views of the current midweek players, who are enjoying a week at the seaside with the chance to play a bit more bridge than they usually would on holiday.

    But midweek is not sustainable with just tho…

  • Another variation would be a knock-out teams competition with an initial group stage. e.g. with an entry of 30 teams, randomly draw the teams into 4 groups of 7 or 8, with the top 4 in each group going through to the main knockout stage. The rema…

  • When I first went to Brighton ten years ago, there was a large contingent of juniors who stayed the whole week. It seemed to be the young players who were holding the midweek events together, and I think it's fair to say that they were the group …