Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The defeat of 6 did a lot more than result in 13 IMPs of the 17 IMPs Team Snellers won with - it also prevented 13 IMPs going in the other direction, so it was 26 IMPs of the 17 IMPs Team Snellers won with.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okan: A suggestion. The next time you want to post an ethnic joke, substitute the word “Ethnic” for whatever nationality is used in the joke. This should pass scrutiny most of the time, and it is up to the reader to substitute the ethnic group of his or her choice.

This particular ethnic joke might not pass scrutiny anyway, as I am sure some would find it offensive even with the word “Ethnic” substituted for the group that you used.
Oct. 20, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dinsdale set off a small thermonuclear device. This the police could no longer ignore.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is beginning to sound a bit Monty Pythonish. Dinsdale Piranha, anyone?
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dean does not seem to have any problem expressing himself in English.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is amazing. This thread is only 6 hours old and there are well over 200 posts.

I was new to BW when Dean was in the process of getting himself banned. I remember some of his posts. Over the top would be a mild description.

Having been reacquainted with many of his posts, I am changing my vote from abstain to never. If he were allowed back, it would probably be a matter of days (perhaps hours or even minutes) until he posted something worthy of a new ban without reference to his prior behavior.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please elaborate, Jols. It seems to me that if a pair were using the signals that B-Z have been alleged to use, it would make sense to turn off the signals at some times. This would certainly muddy the waters.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To elaborate on Melanie's point and Karen's point, perhaps B-Z agree not to cheat in a particular segment of a match or against a particular opponent. And, during the play, B gives his signals, but since they had agreed in advance not to cheat in that particular segment or match, it may not match B's hand or, if it does, Z does not act on the signals. Now, wouldn't this cheating method be much more difficult to detect or prove than regular, consistent cheating? There would be false positives and other misleading findings.

I am not saying that this is the case, but if I were to be using the signals that B-Z are alleged to be using, it would certainly throw up quite a smoke screen if they occasionally sent up some false signals or no signals.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfectly ethical. You did not create the problem, but you are entitled to redress if RHO's actions cause a problem.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is “just for fun,” as the results are entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether information is being passed from one partner to the other in violation of the laws.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are you sacrificing against? You suggest 4m. I find that hard to believe.

You could very easily be turning a plus into a minus, or a minus into a larger minus, by bidding 4.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not an ethical violation to think about your action as long as the time that you are taking is not calculated to deceive your opponents.

So, I would answer your question with a question of my own:

Are you thinking of taking any action other than pass?

If no, then you should not be taking longer than your usual amount of time before passing. 15 seconds seems to be too long to me, but I don't know how long you usually take to make a call in this situation.

If you are legitimately considering taking an action other than pass, then you are allowed to take as long as you like to consider your action. In that event, the time that you are taking is not calculated to deceive your opponents. It may have that effect, and you may face some questions about the amount of time it took for you to act (especially if you eventually decide to pass), but you are ethically in the clear.

Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have similar methods. 1-2NT and 1-2 show a variety of raises, one of which is a mini-splinter. Over the puppet response, a simple bid at the 3 level shows a mini-splinter with shortness in the bid suit (with 3 of the trump suit substituting for the suit which cannot be bid).

Bids above 3 of the trump suit show different types of raises:
1. 3NT shows a 4333 with 15-17 HCP and 3 card trump support.
2. 4M shows a 4333 with 15-17 HCP and 4 card trump support.
3. New suits above 3M show a void splinter.

A direct bid of a new suit above 3M shows a traditional game forcing splinter. The meanings of the direct bid of a new suit above 3M and the delayed bid of a new suit above 3M can be reversed at the preference of the partnership.
Oct. 15, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I share your thought, but not your concern. As others have noted, it appears that the signal is a positive signal - it shows possession of a 5 card suit. The converse is, apparently, not true. The absence of a signal does not deny a 5 card suit. Why this would be the case is subject to debate. Some have suggested that there are hands on which the information is not deemed worthy to transmit. Perhaps further analysis of hands containing 5 card suits where the signal was not given would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is the ability to predict the occurrence of an event (holding a 5 card suit, for example) that is the proof of the validity of a hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many hypotheses one tests for - if one finds one that appears to be valid and then use it to predict occurrences, and it works, you have a valid hypothesis.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just renewed my ACBL membership. There is a “legal notice” that is part of the renewal form. It states, among other things:

“By becoming a member in the ACBL or renewing membership in the ACBL or remitting Life Member service fees (or otherwise maintaining your Life Membership status in the ACBL), you expressly agree to waive your right to have disputes between you and the ACBL resolved in court before a jury and agree to accept the use of binding arbitration, and the ACBL hereby agrees to such binding arbitration. For specifics of the ACBL binding arbitration agreement, please go to http://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/binding-arbitration/. For information on the ACBL privacy policy, please go to http://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/privacy-policy/. ”

I don't know if this is enforceable, but it is better to have this statement as a part of the membership renewal form than not to have it there.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very old saying in poker. If you can't figure out in 5 minutes who the mark is at your table, you are the mark.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 1: 2 shows several types of heart raises, 3/3 are Bergen raises.

Over 1: 3 is a “Jacoby 2NT” (2NT shows several types of spade raises), 3/3 are Bergen raises.

Voted as “Bergen Raises.”
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia: Thanks, but we are used to it.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, David. I am not ashamed to admit to being a lawyer.
Oct. 14, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top