JamesC
Comments
-
Well, there was a time when it was more or less the standard view. Which doesn't mean it's not a flawed argument, just that attitudes have shifted over time. It's not so strange to see old opinions persisting. I guess we can all do our best to up…
-
With opening bids in particular it-[pppppppppppppppppp-[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[(edited by foster cat) doesn't seem all that unusual for a player to have checked the card and know what the bid means. It probably is still better in…
-
Interesting hand. Instructive to see this point of law illustrated.
-
Pretty sure not. It'd fit the hand, but 1C has a wide range of different hand types available, it's not "same or similar" to a 1NT overcall. You might argue the 1NT overcall is a subset of the 1C bid, certainly in acol most 15-17 hands with a clu…
-
In terms of absolute balance, the standard mitchell is fairer. The two winner solution will give you an almost perfectly balanced field but, inevitably, two winners. Arrow switches aren't perfect and unless you're able to make it an all play all …
-
Hmm. I think John is trying to play 3 boards against each other pair. It's hard to divide that into 2 complete all play alls without mucking up the total board count. But the interwoven Howells mentioned work well, I've never seen the one for 7 t…
-
I think the inability to comply with the requirement to lead a suit is probably UI, I cant find anything specific but I think it's covered by 16A1c as "information...arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws" A player is allowed …
-
Thaks for the Law reference Gordon. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the entered score is in some way similar to what happened and I'm assuming it's possible to form some opinion as to the likely contract. It seems most probable, for ex…
-
I guess players are more likely to raise a slightly stronger 2NT to game in theory. It's probably quite marginal. The reasoning given for the change was that all 2NT ranges are broadly similar and that probably opponents didn't really need to kno…
-
Could've been a revoke. But the players probably remember those. Just have to rule on the balance of probability what you think the likely score was I think. Worth trying a few detailed questions to see if it jogs the memory at all.
Remin…
-
If South hasn't called there's still time to change it. There is, somewhere, a clarification that Law 25 applies however opener found out they made the wrong call. So it seems we'd allow the change here. We might warn South for announcing a bid t…
-
Usually it's level 4. But a club can vary that. One level opening have to by agreement have 8 HCP (and in 1st or 2nd seat rule of 18, this is a third seat opening). It's probably a better hand than most 8 counts but does fall just below this line…
-
In my mind if you bid 2S you don't then find another bid without an invite, the subsequent two passes seem automatic.
I'd usually raise to 3S in competition non-vulnerable. 2S isn't that far out there though, it's a very weak and pretty …
-
That last hand is currently right on the edge of being considered strong, currently it'd be a deviation and quite possibly an illegal aggreement. I do sometimes think the Blue book should have a disclaimer to the effect that it doesn't apply to h…
-
Certainly, if you think they've gained by exposing the card so they have to play it (thus circumventing law 16 on UI) you can at least invoke the general get out of 72C to adjust the score.
It seems at least possible to argue that if law …
-
Hmm. A penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity. My first thought was that this was regardless of any unauthorised information, I'm just feeling the need to check the relevant laws.
-
To my mind this falls under a gross distortion of shape (and/or HCP count) and qualifies as a psych. Especially if, as we're told, their agreement is 15-17 balanced. Generally, a psych is legal..
But if they frequently open 1NT with singl…
-
It's what partnership agreement is they're entitled to. Which may or may not be clear. From the initial post they do have the agreement to play Landy, sometimes this isn't so clear.
-
Interestingly, if my partner didn't alert 2C my first thought would be that they forgot to alert. But it's the partner of the 2C bidder who's woken up here. So there's not necessarily any UIon their part. There's misinformation of course, as othe…
-
The obvious lead is a heart, that was my first thought. A spade lead could be right, although if partner had a chance to bid spades less so. A club lead is risky if 2C is clubs, it's still quite risky with the correct information. It might be the…
-
This is what polls are for. The only card I definitely wouldn't lead is the 9 of diamonds. I'm more likely to lead a club with that explanation, certainly.
-
Well, it's either or with the psyche. If you decide that they're playing 2C as "natural or a raise" then there's misinformation, but no distortion of the hand - this is just one of the hands they can have for the bid. Robin's might be a better ap…
-
what Steve said I think, it's a psych. So we'd probably decide to record it, we might look to see if there's any fielding (probably not from the rebid of 2NT). Once is just a psych, if it becomes a habit it'll be an agreement.
-
Law 89 contains via prohibited means, Law 73 specifically refers to incidental UI. There seems a clear demarkation, although it's not clear where the line is, that's just another thing the TD will have to judge. Both laws have specific phrasing a…
-
Well, usually we're confident enough that the one / two trick penalty will suffice that we don't need to do a detailed post mortem. And, generally speaking, it's sufficiently clear there might have been further damage that there's some kind of co…
-
Roger sums up a good approach. I'd usually say to score the hand with the 2 trick penalty for the first revoke in the first instance, with the caveat that you might adjust it according to law 64 later (as Gordon points out, you need to consider t…
-
Well, the section ofthe white book I was thinking of was for VPs (not recommended for matches under 5 boards.). The master point handbook gives a scale for masterpoints for matches won running from 1 up to large matches and specifically cites the…
-
'best' number of rounds was quite subjective. The Midweek congress for instance played 6 rounds of 8 with quite a large field but for that event it seemed like the right pacing. From a purely competitive viewpoint it maybe wasn't an ideal number,…
-
I don't think there's any system completely proof against misclicks. Double click will help but it's quite easy to run through the process on automatic. I was always happy as a player that the consequences of any mislick I made stood, but I'm con…
-
I think if they tabled their entire hand at trick one (thinking they were dummy) stating a line of play would be something of a sticking point to the notion they were making a claim. Law 68 specifically references the instance where a defender "d…