Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The original structure of the event was discussed above - after the District winners were determined, there were 8 Zonal competitions consisting of 3 teams each (did any Zone have more or less than 3 teams?). The 8 Zonal champions advanced to the NABC for 3 days of KOs to determine the champion.

After the Zonal competitions were eliminated, all District winners advanced to the NABC. At the NABC, the 24 (or so) teams would be divided into 4 brackets. On the first day, each bracket played a full round-robin scored at VPs to reduce each bracket to 3 teams. On the second day, the 3 survivors in each bracket played a 3-way match (32 boards total, 16 against each team) in the afternoon to eliminate one team, and the 2 remaining teams played 32 additional boards (with full carryover, I believe) to determine a bracket winner. The four bracket winners would then play a full-day semi-final and a full-day final to determine the GNT Champion.

Now, the 24 or so District champions meet at the NABC and play a full-day Swiss Team scored at VPs to reduce the field to 16 teams. There are then four days of full-day KOs to determine the champion.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Ellis. The reaction of the bridge public at large to publication of the findings (as required by the CDR) is, by my reading of the CDR, not an element of the punishment to be considered by the committee.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And that is for the 1st offense.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David:

My reading of the CDR does not give the committee that option. It does appear to be what they did.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David:

In response to the point of your last post, I agree with you that the committee has the authority, under the last provision that you cited, to tailor the punishment in any way that it deems appropriate. However, the stated reason for doing so is to avoid a meaningless penalty. As stated in the CDR:

“…a committee may tailor the length of the discipline in order that the discipline will have the desired impact.”

The “desired impact” is, as I read it, a more severe sanction than the usual sanction which, in the committee's opinion, “would not have the usual impact upon a guilty defendant…” So, this provision does not give the committee any leeway to reduce the punishment prescribed by the guidelines - it gives the committee leeway to increase the punishment beyond that prescribed by the guidelines.

This provision of the CDR cannot be used as an excuse for the punishment (if one wants to call it that) applied to MP.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is interesting that you made this comment, Mike. I am seriously considering writing a letter to our District GNT coordinator to complain about the CoC. RR to eliminate one team and then 2 KO matches the next day is FAR superior to a RR to eliminate 3 teams leaving 2 for the finals. The GNT is primarily a KO event. Having 5 teams to start is a problem, obviously. But running the RR to get to 4 teams and then have a semi-final and a final played as KO matches is much better than a RR with only 2 survivors. 14 board RR matches have a much higher variance than 28 board or 36 board KO matches. The variance is what did us in. Aside from this board, there were two other notable boards where we had absolutely no control. On one, our opps, who knew they were eliminated before playing us in the evening, bid a less than 25% slam against us. Needless to say, it claimed. And in another match, one of our opps was desperate for a good score and jumped to a slam in the hope that it made. It did. Turned out that the only way to bid that slam was to make a blind guess and just bid it. My pard and I had a reasonable auction but could not bid it (or, to put it another way, because we had a reasonable auction we did not bid it). These unfortunate results resulted in our winning three of the four matches by very narrow margins and losing the fourth match by one IMP. They would be bad results under any scoring method, but, in a KO, at least we would have more of an opportunity to make up for the losses.

I have never seen anyone use this format - 5 teams play all day to eliminate 3 teams, leaving 2 teams for an all day final. Certainly, the all day final is great for the 2 teams that survive. But their survival turned out to be almost by random chance. The scores of the 5 teams, on a 40 VP average, was 48, 46, 44, 37 and 25. I don't think anyone would say that the two teams that had 48 and 46 were clearly better than our 44. The fact is we beat both of them at the table. Unfortunately, this was a VP RR, not a KO. So we could not eliminate them by merely beating them.

This is not just sour grapes. When the CoC was announced just before game time, I made known my objections. But there was nothing that could be done.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not being familiar enough with your system is a significant problem. You should not play the system in serious competition until you can reduce “system forgets” to 1 or 2 in a hundred hands each.

This weekend, I played in my district's GNT. One of the opposing pairs was playing a very complex and unusual system. Aside from system forgets, their pace was odd - not just slow, but slow at unusual times. This creates ethical problems. The ethical problems may be either real (UI is being conveyed unintentionally) or imagined (no UI is being conveyed, but there is an appearance of impropriety). This creates a toxic atmosphere.

Further, in one segment of 7 boards (we played a double round-robin against each of the other 4 teams - 7 boards each session against each team), we were significantly late because of the time that they took in bidding what would normally be routine hands. Part of the delay was because we had a couple of difficult play problems. It is not fair to us that we find ourselves under time pressure because they use up more than their fair share of the time for the round.

In short, I have no problem with you using any allowable method. But you should know your methods well enough so that you do not inconvenience the other players.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My copy also, Karen. But I still have it intact (or mostly intact).
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Not guilty. Innocent is an entirely different matter.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about “You played that hand like a foot!”
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was going to comment about “sawed it off” and similar terms for a double as a prelude to a phrase that I first heard from a friend of mine, Henry Cohn, who, as far as I know, gave up the game quite a few years ago.

In recounting an auction, Henry referred to a negative double as a “Negative Saw.”
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You did not create the situation. For one of the opponents to accuse you of bad sportsmanship would be Chutzpah.

Remember the classic definition of Chutzpah - a man convicted of killing his parents throwing himself upon the mercy of the court on account that he was an orphan.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The story of the cheating section is told at length in Tournament Bridge: An Uncensored Memoir, by Jerry Machlin. If you can find it, this book is a must-read.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg got it right, albeit in passing (no pun intended). Pass is the winning action. If you balance (both I and my counterpart at the other table bid 3), the opps have a chance to bid their game, which our opps did. Turns out that they have a perfect fit - a 9 card spade fit missing the K and J, RHO being 5413, LHO being 4441, AKQJ of hearts and the diamond A between the two hands. After a club lead and a diamond switch (it doesn't really matter what is played at trick 2), declarer pulled one round of trump, and then cross ruffed, cashing his heart winners along the way. We could only take one club and the K and J of spades separately.

Unfortunately, our teammates failed to bid the game after the 3 balance. This hand, among others, cost us a Q to the finals in our District GNT. There were 5 teams in the Championship Flight. Our District CoC called for a full-day round robin with 2 teams qualifying for the finals. On a 40 VP average, the scores were 48, 46, 44, 37 and 25, with our team having 44. Pushing this board would have put us in first place and eliminated the team that eventually won.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is why the government provides rewards for persons who turn in tax cheats, Ron.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why should they let it go? A horrible wrong was committed and not only was it not corrected, IT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED.

I have complete sympathy.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The law is complex with sophistry and non sequiturs”

I don't find it so.

**********************

Nor do I. But then IAAL.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did Gary ever commit any offense that would warrant such demands?

I suspect not.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You obviously do not understand the American legal system. Everyone is entitled to a defense. And, in criminal matters, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven to be guilty. There are rules for what a lawyer can and cannot do. For example, a lawyer cannot allow his client to testify falsely. But if the lawyer does not know that his client's testimony is false, it is allowable.

So, while you may not approve of what Peter's lawyer friend told him, it is essentially true. The lawyer's job is to represent his client to the best of his ability while obeying the laws and the rules of professional conduct.
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was a round-robin bracket, so the matchups would not be affected by a change of score in an earlier match. As for the standings, they are what they are.
May 19, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top