Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93 94 95 96
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a copy of the old CoC - it is on this site somewhere, I just could not locate it.

The 20 VP scale used was the integer scale with 0-3 IMPs resulting in a 10-10 VP score.

The old CoC (and the new one, for that matter) does not reference the Bethe formula or the decimal VP scale.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - I have to react to this post, as it gave me a flashback. I apologize in advance for making this thread longer.

An old Dave Treadwell joke (is that redundant?):

What do you call a blind deer?

No idea (eye-deer).

What do you call a blind deer with no balls?

No f…ing idea.

(EDIT: The joke is actually longer, and is in the public domain. The second part was “What do you call a blind deer with no legs? Still no idea.” Then you proceed to “What do you call a blind deed with no legs and no genitalia?” You can work out the rest.)
June 24
Art Korth edited this comment June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rick: I never suggested eliminating the flighted GNT. I did suggest occasionally holding a non-flighted GNT.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There may be a misunderstanding of what “Grass Roots” means in the context of the GNT.

Grass roots means that the event originates locally, and not at an NABC. As originally conceived, competition began at local clubs. Qualifiers from club competitions (and, unlike the NAP, you got only one shot at the club level) would proceed to a unit competition. Unit qualifiers would proceed to the District championship, which was straight KO from the beginning.

The GNT began in the mid-70s. It was sort of a revival of an event from the 30s with a similar name.

Flighting was added later probably as a way to lure lower ranked teams into the event. Participation was lagging.

Over the years, club and unit qualifying became optional. In my District, competition is exclusively at the District level.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am all for presenting new ideas. If the new ideas relate to proposed changes to existing events, that is fine.

Having said that, I am STRONGLY opposed to the following proposals made upthread:

Eliminating the top players or flights from the GNT.

Handicapping in any flight of the GNT.

Restricting the ability of players to play (or to be eligible for subsidies) in the GNT due to previous victories.

Each of these subjects merits a discussion, but for the present I will just note my opposition to each of these proposals.

I will make one more comment in response to these proposals. I mentioned in another post the possibility of occasionally running the GNT as a truly open event - no flights, KO from the beginning. I flippantly referred to this idea as the Truly Grand National Teams.

In my opinion, any of the proposals above could be referred to as the Not So Grand National Teams.
June 22
Art Korth edited this comment June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Far be it for me to speak for Nicholas and his analysis, but I don't believe he is stating that if the analysis shows that a player is a “great” opening leader he is automatically a cheat.

What he is saying is that if the analysis shows that a player is a “great” opening leader there is a strong possibility that he is a cheat. It is a strong indication that the rest of the player's game needs investigation.

For example, if a top player is average or below average (compared to his peers) in all other aspects of the game, the fact that his opening leads are superior is likely due to cheating.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, if Thomas Jefferson wrote the CoC.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Art and Chip are doing a disservice to the legal profession by their myopic misreading of all the applicable CoC.”

At least it wasn't personal.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray:

All I can say in response to your post is LOL.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg:

Are you really arguing that one side may make a bid solely for the purpose of trying to get the other side to commit an ethical violation?

I really don't see the point. Assuming that your opponents are ethical, and you make a bid which gives them a chance to exchange information - double or no double. The opponents are allowed - legally and without any untoward ethical implications - to ask the meaning of the bid.

However, any question that may be asked creates the possibility of conveying UI. Are you saying that one of the purposes of the bid is that you are trying to elicit UI?

This is getting too deep for me. I want to play a game with full disclosure and no ethical issues when obtaining full disclosure. I don't want my opponents laying ethical traps for the unwary.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why it would not be legal. I doubt that it is in your best interest to give the opponents a chance to exchange information for their benefit. After all, the opponents are supposed to do things which benefit them. Why hand them an opportunity on a silver platter?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: Just because responder has a singleton spade for his 3 bid doesn't mean that the partnership has the agreement that the bid shows shortness. He may have been making the bid up on the fly. Or he could just be mistaken.

I agree that if responder believed that his 3 bid showed shortness he should inform the opponents immediately after the auction is over.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry about the missing “x” of spades. I copied and pasted David's post including the hand. I do not know how the “x” of spades could get dropped.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you mean that at money bridge a 16 count is too strong to overcall, then I don't know money bridge.

If you are saying that AQxxx is not a good enough suit to overcall, you have a better point, but then you have to decide whether passing in direct seat over 1 and trying to make up for it later is going to be possible.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What should I bid? Please do not tell me 2.”

OK. So I won't tell you.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If there is no agreement, what do you want the 1 bidder to alert? ‘Alert, 3 shows or denies something?’”

This is exactly the crux of the matter.

The 2 bid was alerted and explained. I don't know if the explanation included that the 2 bidder did or did not deny holding a 4-card major. Most players know that inverted minors usually denies a 4-card major. If there is any doubt, questions can be asked.

If there was a special agreement, it should be alerted. If there is no special agreement, there should not be an alert. If the pro knows that this partner has a tendency to show something in particular on an auction like this one so that there is an implied agreement, then there should be an alert.

The OP says that there was no special agreement. So there should not be an alert. The pro is just as much in the dark about the intended meaning of the 3 call as the opponents.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Consider the following KJ10x AQxxx KQJx void facing xx xxxx xxx xxxx–they can make nothing but on a good day you might even make four hearts.”

And you did not act in direct seat over 1?
June 20
Art Korth edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish I had realized that the article might disappear. I would have made a copy of it.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil: Please note that procedural penalties are applied on BW about 4500 times more than in real life in the ACBL.

There are certain posters on BW who would apply procedural penalties on about 100 hands out of 40 when one might actually be applied.
June 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93 94 95 96
.

Bottom Home Top