Abbeybear
Comments
-
(Quote)
In other words, opponents are not entitled to know that the offending side is having a misunderstanding, although if it is revealed or they can deduce it, they are entitled to act on the information, at their own risk. The offending s…
-
(Quote)
It is somewhat surprising to me that, given the tendency in the last revision of the Laws to move to a position where the players can achieve a result with minimal interference from the Laws and the TD (comparable calls being the prime…
-
I have a strong suspicion that the intention was not to import the definition of "strong" in BB 5C3 into the quasi-Level 3 provisions of BB 8C6, but that a better hand than 4M but still a pre-emptive hand was the intention.
-
I consider that the method adopted by this partnership is that the call is natural and pre-emptive, so they are not in breach of Law 40A4.
Disclosure, of course, is key, so that opponents are not in danger of being misled by something tha…
-
(Quote)
Yes, it may have been simplistic to focus on whether there was an uncontested auction or not, but I still think that it is a valid point that the TD should consider an assigned adjusted score, if (for example) he judges that it is pla…
-
Law 13B does not require an artificial adjusted score: indeed paragraph 2 cross-refers to the part of Law 12C which talks about recovering the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred (which suggests an assigned, rather than …
-
(Quote)
Thank you. Very succinctly put (as always).
-
In the bad old days before weighted scores became the norm there were different standards for score adjustment for the two sides. The non-offending side got the best result that was likely had the infraction not occurred, whereas the offenders g…
-
(Quote)
Announce: "may be two and may have five diamonds" or the like.
-
(Quote)
I totally accept that bidding is suggested over passing.
But surely what we are taught to do in assessing logical alternatives is to put ourselves in the position of a player with no UI. In other words we assume that partner k…
-
(Quote)
Quite so. Badgering, even attempted badgering, is unacceptable. The opponents may be under a genuine misapprehension as to the information to which they are entitled, but even if you are under no such misapprehension, it is for the T…
-
Bear in mind that a 1 !c bid is only announced as "could be 2" if it is potentially natural, i.e. it is also what is opened with long clubs. Otherwise it would be alerted.
South is guilty of inventing system at the table, hoping to surv…
-
(Quote)
I don't think it is within the power of a RA to have a regulation that a Stop card constitutes a BOOT, or to modify the UI consequences. So I would expect that the answer would be the same in any jurisdiction where the RA prescribes a…
-
(Quote)
Yes, but it is common enough:
(a) for a pair to agree to play splinters without defining all the situations in which they apply; and
(b) even for a pair who know exactly when splinters apply to have a system card (even … -
(Quote)
I'm not sure that I agree. If you haven't discussed it, but you both play regularly with X, and you both play it the same way with X, then surely you are entitled to the benefit, and subject to the potential burden, of assuming an imp…
-
Off topic, but surely if you have a sitout in a share and relay Mitchell, you make it N/S at one of the sharing tables to avoid the share, so there aren't any boards on the sitout table for people to discuss loudly or foul. :)
-
I would be against changing the rules to make this alertable. As I have said before, a perfect alerting system (where everything unexpected but nothing commonplace would be alerted) is impossible to devise, not least because what is unexpected o…
-
My opinion is that the practice is harmless provided that the sitting out pair do not foul the board and are careful to keep discussions quiet enough not to transmit unauthorised information. I would certainly penalise a pair who caused either o…
-
(Quote)
If you think that dummy reading his own convention card provides an inference that something may have gone wrong with the bidding on this hand, then that can only help the defence - as you say declarer knows t…
-
Who would even draw this to the TD's attention? I would be concerned that whoever did so might be doing other things that would persuade opponents not to come back to the club.
-
(Quote)
I tend to agree.
But the essence of ais523's scenario is that the partner of the player with the penalty card would signal differently knowing of the penalty card from the way he would have signalled otherwise. That is a subs…
-
(Quote)
I'm not sure that the "(by dummy)" is necessary. If dummy puts the suits down in a NT contract in an order nearest his thumb, and declarer says: "can I have the hearts on your right, please?", hearts being the suit led, this should no…
-
The policy of putting the suit led on dummy's right condemns itself "out of its own mouth". The purpose is acknowledged to be an aide memoire, and is thus clearly banned by Law 40B2(d) (unless authorised by the Regulating Authority).
I t…
-
(Quote)
I'm not so sure that it does. E1 talks about information arising from the penalty card. I always thought this Law was to cover the situation where (typically) the partner of the player with the penalty card defended differently becau…
-
I think there is a much simpler case when damage might result. While following suit to a trick, a defender accidentally drops an honour card in another suit. The card dropped is a major penalty card. He wins a trick while the MPC is still expo…
-
(Quote)
You may well be right, but that's not a decision the TD has to make. It is possible that the player meant to open 2 !c , but forgot the stop card, so "strong and artificial" is one of the meanings attributable to the IB.
Of co…
-
(Quote)
I guess it's a fairly fine line between not giving the offender a chance to say anything (like in this example) and the opposite fault of "leading the witness". But it's a tad surprising that a player who knew enough to approach you a…
-
Quite a lot of players are vaguely aware that unintended calls can be changed, but many will not be aware that this does not apply if the reason for the IB was (for example) mistaking the level of the opponent's call. The more neutral the questi…
-
(Quote)
If you have been clever enough to anticipate what your opponent actually did, then of course you should not make your call at the speed of light just because you have already done your thinking, but it does (sometimes, at least) have t…