barmar Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 I suspect he's not unaware that it's a rule he made.So he somehow imagined that there's a rule like "West can ask questions, but East can't"? I guess you're saying that doesn't really think about these things, just makes things up as he goes along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Pretty much, yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMan Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped. I suspect that if we actually scrapped it, then many, many pro/client pairs (or good player/less-good player pairs) would adopt the practice of the better player asking many detailed questions about the opps' auction just to be sure partner knows everything the pro knows but couldn't work out himself. Improper? Why, they actually got rid of the Law that forbade it! It's perfectly legal now! That's not a game I want to play. 20G1 is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The other benefit of 20G1 is disallowing the pro asking questions that imply not only that the client needs to know this, but partner wants the client to pay particular attention to either the question or the response. Which is more critical, of course, when the pro *doesn't* ask the "partner, wake up" question, because the righter lead is more likely to come when the client isn't woken up. Yes, this happened - it was at least common in the time before the time before. It was even easier in the time before Alerts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.In this case, as I said in the first post, West is the "proper" director. That is, he is the (playing) director in this game. And I disagree with you regarding 20G1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.Law 20G1 was added in the Laws for a very specific reason: The increasing number of "unbalanced" partnerships and their practice which was found to threaten the way bridge "should be played". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 In this case, as I said in the first post, West is the "proper" director. That is, he is the (playing) director in this game. And I disagree with you regarding 20G1. Normally when a ruling is needed at the playing director's table, another qualified director will be asked to rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 I suspect that if we actually scrapped it, then many, many pro/client pairs (or good player/less-good player pairs) would adopt the practice of the better player asking many detailed questions about the opps' auction just to be sure partner knows everything the pro knows but couldn't work out himself. Improper? Why, they actually got rid of the Law that forbade it! It's perfectly legal now! That's not a game I want to play. 20G1 is needed. "Detailed" questions are a separate issue :) I like the ACBL position, that you should reveal (or offer to reveal) all relevant information, even in response to a woolly question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Heh, I'm really lucky that usually in games I play in, even if I'm the playing TD, there *is* another qualified director. And by qualified, I don't mean "uh, Mycroft, what do I do here?" having passed the exam several years ago :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Normally when a ruling is needed at the playing director's table, another qualified director will be asked to rule.Heh. I'll have to ask the people who still play in his game whether he ever does that. I doubt it. On reflection, I do recall having seen it once. It was teams, and the call came from the other table in our playing director's match. The director hadn't yet played the board, so he asked someone else to handle it. Unfortunately, although the man was qualified in the sense that he held a valid ACBL club director's card, he had not directed in some years and was unsure of the ruling. When the player who called for the director found that out, he yelled at the top of his lungs "I WANT A REAL DIRECTOR!" and things went downhill from there. :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMan Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 "Detailed" questions are a separate issue :) :) I should have said "gratuitous", don't know why I didn't. That's the idea I had in mind, anyway. 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.