Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 95 96 97 98
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mazel Tov!

My wife was not born on April 1, but her last name was Fuerst (pronounced First). Her mother ALMOST named her April.
April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact that the case was supposed to have taken place in Florida was another indication that it was a joke, since Florida is pretty much a joke.
April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is your point?

The court said that the injunction issued AFTER the case was not a prior restraint or anything offensive to the First Amendment. In other words, none of these principles applied. Which would always be true, since prior restraint or freedom of speech are not private issues - these Constitutional protections protect the people from government action, not actions between private citizens.
April 2, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anyone know that concepts such as freedom of speech, censorship, etc., protects the people from actions of the government? There is no such thing as freedom of speech or censorship protection between people. So there could not be any suit or injunction against Bridgewinners based on freedom of speech or censorship.
April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The message was up at 7:00 am EDT.
April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I commented on another platform, I had reason to believe that it was all an April Fool's joke. Didn't know about the technical problems, but I am seeing some. For example, I have zero alerts since the site came back up.
April 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: The fact that the US government must release certain documents after a stated period of time is all well and good - that is a result of legislation. The ACBL is a private organization. Rules that apply to the US government do not apply to the ACBL.

In any event, I suspect that after a few years no one will really care what the details of those confidential discussions were. Had the substance of those discussions been publicly available at the time, it might have affected negotiations for the space that was acquired. Imagine that you owned the Horn Lake property and you found out that the ACBL had no alternative but to buy or lease your property. What would that do to your asking price?
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that case, I congratulate both you and your best friend.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that you posted your comment in jest, David. However, if an anonymous letter came out with details of a confidential discussion among members of the BOD, the result would probably be that there would be no more confidential discussions between members of the BOD, and some matters could not be dealt with due to a lack of trust among the members of the Board.

(Edited to remove a redundancy)
March 31, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a problem, and I mentioned it in an earlier post.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not irrelevant if you want to make the slam without taking the spade finesse.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And it is very common to play a double of a 2 overcall of 1NT as Stayman (depending, of course, on the meaning of 2).
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When discussions are conducted in confidence, it leads to a better exposition of the issues. If one of the parties later decides that it is no longer required to keep the confidence, that party can no longer be trusted to keep future matters confidential.

So, unless all of the parties to the confidential discussions about the move to Horn Lake agree to disclose the details, none of the parties should break the confidence.

You can call it a “cone of silence” if you like, but I agree that these matters should be kept confidential if that was the understanding at the time.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they are usually worth it.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the bidding shocks me.

But it would not shock me to find that if I don't lead a top heart at trick one that declarer will make a lot of tricks by ruffing diamonds. Maybe even 10 tricks (although that would also shock me). The worst lead would be a diamond. At least, that is what I think before seeing the dummy.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes the steal is perfectly timed. This looks like one of those times. East can't know that North's bid is anything but genuine, and a club lead could result in 5 tricks for the defense against a normal 3NT contract. Even down 6 might score well for NS, and down 1 was just icing on the cake.
March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Attitude is my choice. But the fact that the issue is being discussed means that the partnership needs to discuss this and arrive at an agreement. Whether one agreement is better than the other is not the issue - as long as the partners have the same agreement you will have a reasonable chance of getting the position right.
March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I would want to be in slam with the West cards, but given that slam is marginal at best I can't really give West any blame for not bidding it.

Slam requires either the spade finesse or a lucky lie of the club suit providing 3 winners. A practical problem is that if you attack clubs, one of three things may happen:

(1) North wins the A (neither the J or 10 appearing from South) and plays a spade. Now what?
(2) North wins the A (South playing the 10 or the J of clubs) and plays a spade. Now what?
(3) You win the first round of clubs with the King. Now what? (Your choice whether a J or 10 of clubs is played by either opponent).

In short, I am not too concerned about missing this slam.

March 29, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree that 4 is right. South denied a club control. North needs to move forward with a club control as it could be the only reason South is not bidding a slam.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT is clearly the first wrong bid if one accepts the explanations provided. 4 would announce an additional spade control, imply a club control (as slam is impossible without one) and put the focus on the diamond situation. If South can envision 12 tricks opposite a hand with 2 spade controls, some kind of club control but no diamond control, then South should make another forward move. On this hand, he should not. In addition to what North has promised, South needs assurance that there are not two losers on a diamond lead. If North had bid 4, South would know that North had AK or singleton A of spades, A or KQ of clubs, and essentially nothing else. More is needed for slam.

By bidding 4NT, North took over control. Clearly, North was not in a position to take control. The answer to 4NT does not provide the information North needs to make the right decision.
March 24, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 95 96 97 98
.

Bottom Home Top