BBO Discussion Forums: 6S made - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

6S made East calims he got MI, N doubt it

#41 User is offline   mrdct 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,448
  • Joined: 2003-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Moama, NSW

Posted 2012-February-15, 21:26

View Postbluejak, on 2012-February-14, 19:22, said:

The onus is on a player to do one of two things when his opponent breaks the Laws and Regulations of bridge: either call the TD or accept the consequences of the infraction.

Do you have any basis in law for that?

My understanding is that drawing attention to an irregularity is a "may" requirement (i.e. failure to do it is not wrong) and I don't see anywhere in the laws where it says if you fail to call the TD after an irregularity you have to "accept the consequences of the infraction".
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
0

#42 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-February-15, 21:53

So the omniscient TD will come to the table and deal with the irregularity even though he hasn't been called? I don't think so.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#43 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-15, 22:02

The OP mentioned that there's no on-side TD for this tournament. Does that make a difference?

They did eventually call a TD, by sending the summary of the problem to the league. They didn't immediately call a TD to report that the explanation wasn't given in the correct manner -- in fact, this doesn't even seem to be part of the case, it's an issue we apparently brought up in our discussion of it.

#44 User is offline   kgr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,423
  • Joined: 2003-April-11

Posted 2012-February-16, 14:17

View Postbarmar, on 2012-February-15, 22:02, said:

The OP mentioned that there's no on-side TD for this tournament. Does that make a difference?
right

View Postbarmar, on 2012-February-15, 22:02, said:

They did eventually call a TD, by sending the summary of the problem to the league. They didn't immediately call a TD to report that the explanation wasn't given in the correct manner -- in fact, this doesn't even seem to be part of the case, it's an issue we apparently brought up in our discussion of it.
And it was brought up by the TD in his decision. And none of the players were aware that written questions/explanations are required. Explanations are in fact never given in this division (also not by the player - a TD - a played against in the first half).
0

#45 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-February-16, 17:23

View Postkgr, on 2012-February-16, 14:17, said:

Explanations are in fact never given in this division (also not by the player - a TD - a played against in the first half).


:o :o

Explanations are never given? Did you really mean that, or did you mean they're never given in writing?

I don't understand your parenthetical expression at all. :huh:
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#46 User is offline   kgr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,423
  • Joined: 2003-April-11

Posted 2012-February-16, 20:15

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-February-16, 17:23, said:

:o :o

Explanations are never given? Did you really mean that, or did you mean they're never given in writing?

I don't understand your parenthetical expression at all. :huh:

Never in writing
0

#47 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-17, 14:47

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-February-16, 17:23, said:

don't understand your parenthetical expression at all. :huh:

I think he meant to write something meaning "not even the player I played against in the first half, who happens to be a TD".

#48 User is offline   kgr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,423
  • Joined: 2003-April-11

Posted 2012-February-17, 19:24

View Postbarmar, on 2012-February-17, 14:47, said:

I think he meant to write something meaning "not even the player I played against in the first half, who happens to be a TD".

Ted
0

#49 User is offline   kgr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,423
  • Joined: 2003-April-11

Posted 2012-February-17, 19:25

View Postbarmar, on 2012-February-17, 14:47, said:

I think he meant to write something meaning "not even the player I played against in the first half, who happens to be a TD".

Yes
0

#50 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-18, 22:49

View Postkgr, on 2012-February-17, 19:24, said:

Ted

View Postkgr, on 2012-February-17, 19:25, said:

Yes

FYI, if you make a simple typo (I assume that's what Ted was), you can use the Edit button to fix the original post, rather than making a new post.

#51 User is offline   Poky 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 2003-July-18
  • Location:Croatia

Posted 2012-February-19, 21:08

East should be ashamed.
What does he even want? Does he claim 15-17 1NT is a MI too!?!
0

#52 User is offline   Xiaolongnu 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 2011-September-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Interests:Cats, playing and directing bridge, MSN, strategy games, fantasy RPGs, shooting games, adventure games, mathematics, google.

Posted 2012-February-20, 12:46

Result stands for me. Reasoning is that partner could not possibly have the ace by virtue of the 1NT bid. Seconded to all rulings along the line of how East should have known. Since East is gunning for promotion to the next division, he better know. He was indeed given an accurate description of the NS system. Whatever happens after that by 40 is not given an adjusted score.

I further sense, I would not formally rule as I have no proof, but my intuition tells me that EW are trying to play punk and trying to be funny. I would keep a mental note of them, where it matters in the future. I am not entitled to accuse groundlessly, but I am entitled to guess and suspect.
0

#53 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-February-20, 14:44

It really baffles me that the Q was played from dummy at both tables.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#54 User is offline   omarsh10 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 2012-February-08

Posted 2012-March-07, 15:04

View PostCSGibson, on 2012-February-13, 22:47, said:

If N-S are playing a 15-17 NT, then E knows - KNOWS - that the explanation he claims he was given was incorrect - his partner cannot have 2 keycards, or even 1 keycard. The fact that there is a dispute about whether E got the correct explanation, combined with the failure of east to play bridge makes me think that the table result should stand.


100% !
0

#55 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2012-March-08, 02:55

View PostXiaolongnu, on 2012-February-20, 12:46, said:

I further sense, I would not formally rule as I have no proof, but my intuition tells me that EW are trying to play punk and trying to be funny. I would keep a mental note of them, where it matters in the future. I am not entitled to accuse groundlessly, but I am entitled to guess and suspect.


This is unfair. I had a ruling at my table last year where I was absolutely certain that my screenmate had explained a bid as having meaning X, and he (a player known for his superb ethics) was absolutely certain he had explained it as meaning Y. His hand was also consistent with Y, so I had to accept I must have been wrong, but I still remember being told X.
0

#56 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2012-March-08, 02:56

View PostZelandakh, on 2012-February-14, 10:17, said:

In the case of the car it is my responsibility to fix the light. In the bridge case it is Explainer's responsibility to write the answer. Surely the lack of written explanation should count against North at least as much as against East.


When this happened to one of my teammates in the European Open championships they gave a split ruling with both sides deemed to be at fault. This seemed fair at the time.
0

#57 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,754
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-08, 07:28

I dont have a particularly strong opinion on this one, but a few comments:

(1) Everyone going on about HCP is missing a much more obvious clue: North only has two key cards. If This explanation was given to me I would have asked at trick one for confirmation that 5d=14 was really their agreement. Norths action just seems totally inconsistent with the description. Did he describe it and then knowingly bid missing two keycards? Seems unlikely. Failure to ask seems like a chance at a double shot here. Play partner for an ace and get it ruled back to a ruff if he doesn't have it.

(2) When two people claim to have given different explanations surely the ruling should reflect the meaning that is consistent with the bidding. If you explained it as 14 you would not treat it 30 unless you were actively cheating, and that is pretty rare compared to misunderstandings imo.

(3) What ever the procedure division 3 bridge is basically social, I think in such a setting its fine to not worry about the screen regulations too much. Writing stuff down adds at least 10% to the time for every board. If not more. Especially for reasonably complex systems, and for any explanation of more than a few words hand writing is at least as much of a problem as mishearing. Most people would choose an extra twenty minutes in the pub in exchange for the occasional ruling against them.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
0

#58 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2012-March-09, 07:42

View PostFrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 02:56, said:

When this happened to one of my teammates in the European Open championships they gave a split ruling with both sides deemed to be at fault. This seemed fair at the time.


It seems fair; is it legal?
0

#59 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-March-19, 11:36

View PostLanor Fow, on 2012-March-09, 07:42, said:

It seems fair; is it legal?

If it is based on a verbal explanation, then both the person giving the explanation and the person receiving the explanation have committed an infraction. When both sides are at fault, it is legal to split a score.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#60 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-19, 16:08

View Postbluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:36, said:

If it is based on a verbal explanation, then both the person giving the explanation and the person receiving the explanation have committed an infraction. When both sides are at fault, it is legal to split a score.


I agree that the person giving the verbal explanation has committed an infraction, but what do you expect the screenmate to do? Is the failure to wear earplugs an infraction?
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users