Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Adam Parrish
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a match! Great comebacks, first from LALL and then from NICKELL. Congratulations to both teams, who played excellent bridge.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoops! That was my fault. Was supposed to say 2. (fixed) Thanks
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if partner thinks you have hearts and raises, who cares? You've gotten the information you wanted: she doesn't fit spades. So you can confidently bid 3NT. The point is rather than guess, you can keep the auction alive and try to get the information you need.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David forgot to mention the free daily lectures from local teachers (including yours truly). That's got to be worth a trip to New York, right?
April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most standard followup I know (and what I play) is that 3M is natural (usually a 5-card suit) and responder is invited to a) raise to 4M with a doubleton or b) bid 3NT with Hx in the other major.
April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I looked at the data a few years ago, I was surprised to find that the vast majority of people leaving were not old people dying, but rather people who had joined within the last 5 years. So the issue I would focus on is retention. Why are people not getting hooked? I would argue it's because we don't teach the game well to beginners, so it's not fun. And we don't make the playing experience (at tournaments and clubs) as fun as it should be.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do tournament sponsors have any decisions to make about which charts apply in which events, or is that set in stone?
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The consensus seems to agree with my strong opinion that splinters in 2/1 auction can and should be made on dead minimums.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-splinters/
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So we have someone who has stolen 140 cars and we have evidence in only 40 of the cases; that's fine, prosecuting him for 40 is sufficient. Instead, we're prosecuting him for one crime as a first-time offender.

When we prove a pair is cheating, we should treat every match or event they played in while using their cheating methods as a separate incident and impose penalties of a 5-year suspension (or whatever comparable length CAS would allow) for each infraction. IANAL, but that interpretation seems like it would allow us to suspend the recent crop of cheaters beyond the span of their lives without changing any rules after the fact.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To prove cheating, we must present many hands, or break a code based on many hands. So your analogy does not hold water: we cannot bust them for stealing one car at a time, we can only bust them for stealing a bunch of cars. (The F-N deal where he gave partner a ruff rather than cash his second ace against a slam is a good example.)

This is more like arresting someone for running an operation that steals cars systematically. Would we not want to prosecute them for each individual car theft? If they knew they could not be prosecuted for the individual car thefts and faced only a mild punishment for running their illegal business, wouldn't that incentivize them to pursue this endeavor?
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Pascal, first, I want to thank you for your participation in this thread. We all appreciate engagement from our bridge administrators.

I'm curious about the 10-year suspension guideline you mentioned earlier in the thread. My understanding was that based on IOC and/or CAS regulations, a 5-year suspension was the maximum allowed for a “first-time” offense. (As you say, what constitutes a single offense is a topic for another thread, but I can't help myself: calling a pair that cheated together for years, over thousands of hands in hundreds of tournaments first-time offenders is ridiculous.) Am I wrong about this? Would a WBF suspension not be subject to IOC regulations and CAS appeal? If so, why are we giving lip service to a 10-year suspension that isn't realistic?

The fact that we're stuck with an inadequate suspension from one federation and the cheaters are going to be allowed to play again soon is what has us all worked up. More concerning, though, is that if this happened again, it doesn't seem like the disciplinary process would be any better.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(e) I sincerely hope CAS decisions will not stop any federation from keeping away cheaters

Hasn't the recent CAS decision done just that? The length of suspension was weakened to begin with based on knowledge of what the CAS would uphold. And then a no-nothing panel re-tried a case without understanding any of the evidence. Why would any federation that knows its ruling is subject to a CAS appeal waste any time/money/effort at this point?
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great job, guys!
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats! Not really fair to the field for you guys to play the pairs together.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, unfortunately the precedents being set make it clear “no agreement” should always be your answer. This is just one of many, many examples. It's not in the spirit of the game, and something needs to be done to stop it.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How are the chairs in the playing area? Do I need to bring my seat cushion?
March 10
Adam Parrish edited this comment March 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top