Poky Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 East should be ashamed.What does he even want? Does he claim 15-17 1NT is a MI too!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiaolongnu Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 It really baffles me that the ♦Q was played from dummy at both tables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omarsh10 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 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% ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanor Fow Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 When you get an explanation not in writing, you request it in writing. If you still do not get it in writing you call the TD. Sure, we know players do not do this, but we also know they do not all put down the last pass card of the auction. Both are infractions and put the player in the wrong when he fails to follow correct procedure. Correct procedure includes not accepting incorrect procedure from an opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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?If I want to make sure I get an answer in writing, I normally ask a question in writing, eg "5D=?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 When you get an explanation not in writing, you request it in writing. If you still do not get it in writing you call the TD.So if I choose never to give an explanation in writing unless specifically asked for by an opponent I am committing an infraction but I can only gain from it? It is always my opponent who will be ruled against. Seems like this goes clearly against 23 and perhaps also 72B1. Your position seems to lend credence to the ruling Frances received - both sides at fault. Your apparent position that only the asking side is at fault seems flawed at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. So if I choose never to give an explanation in writing unless specifically asked for by an opponent I am committing an infraction but I can only gain from it? It is always my opponent who will be ruled against. Seems like this goes clearly against 23 and perhaps also 72B1. Your position seems to lend credence to the ruling Frances received - both sides at fault. Your apparent position that only the asking side is at fault seems flawed at best.Perhaps you should read what I have written. Of course both sides are at fault and I said so explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Perhaps you should read what I have written. Of course both sides are at fault and I said so explicitly.what does this mean for the ruling/scoring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.