Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since you mention the Q, I can give you this hand as a play problem. Suppose you get a high club lead (the 9), and you decide that this puts the K on your right. So, you play the A, RHO following, and another club (would you?), both opps following low. You play 3 rounds of diamonds (would you?), pitching a heart from hand, both opponents following, and put RHO in with the third club, LHO pitching a diamond. RHO gets out a diamond, LHO pitching a heart. Now what?
May 17, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That might be a winner on a lot of hands. Unfortunately, the opps rarely give you that option.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Districts also have supplementary CoC. You need to check your District's website.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I would like to play all of the contracts from North. Unfortunately, with the 10-13 1NT opening, that proved impossible. Our auction was 1NT - 4NT - 6 - All Pass.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly true. But I am looking for opinions more geared towards match play than pair play.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It is what it is.”
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt very much that the bulk of the membership gives two hoots about this entire matter. I doubt even more that the handling and outcome of this matter will have any impact on the total membership of the ACBL.

I agree that it does not send a good message to membership; but, in that, it is one of a long list of such items.
May 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Passing the jump shift is a legal call. But it is a partner transfer.
May 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pound the table! Not opposing counsel! Pounding opposing counsel is a CDR violation.

EDIT: I apologize. I had never heard the line about pounding opposing counsel. Apparently, this is a very old version of the now famous line. There are a number of variations, but I had always heard the version which ended in pounding the table.

In the future, I am going to have to tread carefully when I handle cases in which the law and the facts are both on my side.
May 13, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment May 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't work. :) That is OK. Everything seems to be simmering down now.
May 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hoping to short-circuit another long reply by Mike H.

What Mike is saying is that witnesses may be absolutely honest and have totally differing versions of the facts.

So, both MP and Mr./Mrs. Darter can be absolutely honest and disagree completely.

It is up to the fact finder (here, the committee(s) that heard or read testimony) to assess credibility using their own life experiences as a guide and arrive at a conclusion as to the “true facts.”

It is often said that there are three versions of the facts: The plaintiff's version of the facts, the defendant's version of the facts and the truth. Mike is essentially saying the same thing.

Others may disagree. That is perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: It is also possible that one or both of the parties are lying (or shading the truth). That would be an entirely different situation. Again, however, it is up to the committee(s) that heard or read the testimony to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the versions of the facts presented. Please do not take this as an accusation against any of the parties. It is just a possibility that must be considered.
May 12, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment May 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The explanation of responder's pass????
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a distinction between following the proper procedure and reaching a correct decision.

It appears that the procedure was followed to the letter.

The merits of the decision are debatable.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bart is a conventional way to show hearts and values after bidding a forcing 1NT. There are a number of sites which can explain the convention, and there are a number of variations. See:

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/bart_convention.html
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/425
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bart-modified/
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did I misinterpret your post? It seemed to me that you were stating that the primary issue was the masterpoint penalty that MP would be subject to under the original sentence published in the Monday Daily Bulletin.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I have to disagree. What is really being discussed here is reputation - the reputation of MP, and the reputation of the members of the opposing team members, who feel that they have been dragged through the mud by this process.

If I can summarize Mr. Darter's post (and I apologize if I am mischaracterizing Mr. Darter's post), to the extent that MP was given no meaningful penalty for his conduct, the reputation of the members of the Darter team is put into question for bringing the matter to light.

The masterpoint issue is personal to MP. Because of the way the CDR reads, the potential masterpoint penalty to MP amounts to more points than 99.9% of players will ever come close to earning in their lifetimes. So it is an eye-opening penalty, but not the main issue.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has been mentioned before, but it merits repeating in light of Paul's post. Where does this bid go on the CC, and have you ever seen anyone put it on the CC?
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If North would invite with the 17 HCP hand, that is an indication that the 2 bid was weak. Opposite a “standard” 2 bid, the 17 point hand is a game bid. The only issue is whether there is an 8 card fit, as South might only have 4 spades.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about we replace “exonerated” with “slapped on the wrist with a feather?”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really doubt that South played in 5x.

EDIT: It is corrected now.
May 9, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment May 9, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top