Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 57 58 59
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Compare the online totals to the number of players who play in live tournaments rather than to total membership. The online numbers will compare favorably to the live tournament player numbers.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie:

I believe you have misread my post. I did not say that the decision of the CAS was irrelevant, or that the discussion of the CAS decision was merely whining.

I did say that the decision of the CAS is a done deal and that the bridge world must move on from it.

As for the whining and rending of garments comment, certainly a good part of the discussion can be characterized as such. Despite the gloom and doom posts, the bridge world has not come to an end, and there will be bridge tournaments tomorrow. It is how we deal with these issues going forward that matters.

As for the Regional at the Club House, I am surprised that the profits from those games are specifically earmarked to go towards payment of WBF dues. But, again, it really doesn't matter. as those dues would be paid in any event.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MH: Well said. I lost the OP fairly early as well. The OP's post may resonate with bridge players without a legal background, but it lost me somewhere in the first point about the authority of the CAS and a comparison to the authority of other appellate courts. The OP was mostly correct, but I was left with the impression that the OP didn't quite grasp either the exact nature of the authority of the CAS in reviewing cases or the manner in which other appellate courts review cases. Or it could just be my US centric view of how courts work that colors the way I read the OP.

Quite frankly, I am weary of the endless discussion of this case in this and other threads. The fact is that there is a judicial body which has some authority over how the bridge world is able to police its own and it has found that the bridge world is wrong. This is distressing, but it is done. The bridge world has to deal with it as reality and move forward. No amount of whining or rending of garments is going to change this result.

The bridge world has made significant progress over the last few years in identifying and dealing with cheating at the highest levels. It should not really matter that the CAS has found in FN's favor. They are bridge pariahs and will always be so. The same with the Doctors and the others.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not defending a 5 level contract holding 9 spades. If I am wrong, that is the way it goes.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Under the heading of “Any other suggestions,” how about spelling “poll” correctly?

Unless, of course, if you think that having our administrators swim would help the situation.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will add my voice to the puppet to 3NT camp. But I will concede that splinter is standard.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Paul Gipson said a few posts up, it is not possible that partner is now looking for a grand slam as partner passed 5. This is AI to you. And, if this could be any more clear, partner has another bid. If partner does anything other than pass THEN it is a grand slam try (but I don't believe it is possible).
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was informed by Mike Giesler that Bridge Solver is available on the Unit 141 website for all hands played in our sectionals. I went to the website and used the “Play it again” feature with Bridge Solver and it showed me the winning line.

Now if I can only get Bridge Solver to give me that information BEFORE I mess up the play.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That works. Thanks.

I guess my next to last sentence above is wrong. The hand can be made from that point.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By “true card” I believe you mean low from odd, implying 5, correct? Assuming it is a true card (which is a big assumption), could it not also be from 3 or 7? Either of these possibilities changes the odds.

Or is it more likely that low merely implies a lead from an honor?
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that it was standard that a pass over a redouble of a one-level opening bid said “nothing to say” but at any level above the one level the pass was for penalties. The odds of having a penalty pass at the one level are very small, but that is not true at higher levels, and one cannot afford to lose the penalty pass just because RHO redoubles.

I will have to discuss with my partners whether a pass of a redouble of a Precision (or similar) 1 opening bid is for penalties.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, we were playing XYZ.

I don't see any reason why 4 would not be a splinter (pardon the double negative). Having said that, I suspect the utility of splintering in opener's first bid suit may be limited, but it is not out of the question.

As for the bidding in general, I mentioned that I thought the bidding was not elegant. I was not happy with it at all, especially my 6 bid over my partner's sign off. But I don't see how the splinter is helpful on this hand.
Jan. 8
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny - Ava agrees with you.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the support double is available, then the cue bid denies 3 card support. Hands with 4+ card support have other bids available to show those holdings. So, the cue bid denies heart support.
Jan. 4
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I mentioned earlier, we used to have a team competition in the Philadelphia area, but it died for lack of interest.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is a King truly “offside” when the other side has 12 of the suit?
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Philadelphia, we had an annual competition for many years. The Charles Solomon Teams. At one time it was run as a double KO, then as a round-robin qualifying 4 or 8 teams to a KO final (depending on the number of teams). Unfortunately, interest in the event waned, and it has not been held for the last few years.
Jan. 3
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But this was San Diego, not Honolulu.
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Reasonable Doubt.” “Innocent until proven guilty.”

None of these concepts apply in dealing with bridge law. This is not a criminal proceeding. The closest analogy to actual law would be the civil law standard of a “preponderance of the evidence.” Is it more likely than not that South used UI in choosing to bid 3 over 3? Is it more likely than not that North had UI which he used in choosing 3 as his rebid over 2?
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The North hand is given.

Without any UI, North can bid what he wants to bid. So, while I would not bid 3 on those cards, the call is not, per se, unethical.

Now, South bids 3. This is highly irregular based on the partnership agreement as announced. Still, if North has no UI, North is under no obligation to bid anymore.

I would be very suspicious of South's sequence of bids. If 3 is a superaccept, then I cannot justify a bid of less than game with the South cards. We don't know for a fact that this pair uses retransfers after a superaccept (after all, if their agreement is transfers are off over interference, then there is no reason to “retransfer”). The TD would have to inquire about their methods with no interference. If they use transfers followed by retransfers with no interference, then the 3 bid is not allowed.
Dec. 27, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 57 58 59
.

Bottom Home Top