Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand the rationale behind the score change. Presumably, you bid your hand assuming that your partner had a heart suit and a reasonable hand. As for your partner, he heard you cue bid one of the opponent's suits and he bid his 4 card spade suit. What else was he supposed to do? I don't see how his 3 bid or his pass of 3NT were influenced by the UI of your mistaken alert.

As for the timing of the score correction, I do not know the specifics, but I am reasonably sure that this could happen anytime before the session concludes, not just the match.
Aug. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would call the director as soon as declarer faced his cards to make a claim. When a claim is made, play ceases. If there is any problem, the TD must be called.

As for dummy's actions, I would inform the TD and see what happens. Dummy's actions would have no impact on the outcome of the hand, as I called the TD as soon as the claim was made. But clearly dummy is out of line.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This reminds me of a lot of poker bad-beat stories. I like it when other players call my bets when they have a 15-20% chance of winning. Unfortunately, sometimes those 15-20% chances come in. That is why they are called bad-beat stories.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought exactly the opposite. If a change is desirable, why wait until January 2016?
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The change to 3.8.1 states “effective immediately.”
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: Please read Item 151-03 from the Board of Directors Minutes of the New Orleans NABC posted by Bob Heller, above. Publication for suspension or expulsion was changed to publication in all cases resulting in a finding of guilt. So suspension or expulsion is no longer the criterion.
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a very recent post that was very insulting to a number of people. I responded to that post, and Gabrielle's post (and my response to it) are both gone. The suspension followed within a few minutes.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like this explanation. To me, the 3 bid is a power raise to 4 in the context that the 3 bidder is a passed hand. It shows a game bid based on values and support, not just distribution. As Michael says, it invites partner to make an informed decision as to how to proceed thereafter.

It is also consistent with the thought that a passed hand cannot create a forcing pass situation.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting issue. Let's look at it from another perspective. If it becomes commonplace for the VuGraph operator to be consulted by the TD or the AC, would the participants have the right to object to the person serving as the VuGraph operator and demand a replacement?
Aug. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the World Series of Poker there is a Ladies' event. However, Nevada law prohibited the sponsors from excluding men from the event, and, in fact, each year for a number of years some men did enter the Ladies' event (no man ever won it). Recently, the sponsors decided to do something about it. They increased the entry fee to $10,000 from $1,000 but offered ladies a 90% discount. Apparently that is legal in Nevada. Needless to say, this tactic has eliminated men from the Ladies' event.
Aug. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is unacceptable behavior by the hotel. You should speak to someone in management. If that doesn't work, you should speak to someone who handles reservations for the ACBL.
Aug. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 at neither vul with a 2 opener on your right? That looks to me like offering 1100 against a possible non-vul game. On the actual hand, it goes for 800 which would be only a 3-5 IMP pickup against a hypothetical slam.
Aug. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A simple solution for the problems with the layout of events. Why not require advance entries? At least require advance entries for the NABC+ events? If the directing staff knew an hour or more in advance exactly how many players would be in the event, the playing area could be arranged in a more satisfactory manner.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to require entries to a major championship event at least an hour in advance.
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a sense my team accomplished one of these “giant-killer” moments, but it didn't seem that monumental at the time.

In the opening round of the Vanderbilt in Philadelphia in March, 1996, my team was the middle seed (58) in a 3-way match. The top seed was the 8 seed - Edgar Kaplan and Norman Kay were the players on that team that I remember. My team won both matches to advance, but since the Kaplan/Kay team beat the bottom seed, we did not take over the 8 seed.

I distinctly remember playing the third quarter of that match against Edgar and Norman. About halfway through, a distinguished looking gentleman approached and Edgar said “Come and sit down, Freddy!” It was Alfred Sheinwold.

In the round of 64 we played the Ekeblad team (7). After 64 boards, the score was 110-110. So, at 1:00 a.m., we played 8 more boards. The ballroom, which had seen 64 teams in play earlier, now had 2 (along with about 150 kibitzers). Unfortunately, there was no giant-killing in overtime.

But the story of the day was not our overtime match - it was the match with the Kaplan/Kay team. The team with Norman's daughter, Robin, played against her father's team in the round of 64. There was no giant-killing in that match, either.
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are referring to the opening round prior to the round of 64, you can work that out by comparing the original field to the field that remains the next day.

What is being discussed here is primarily the round of 64. I am sure that if there are heads-up matches in the preliminary round between top seeds and bottom seeds and a bottom seed prevails, that would be reported very prominently.
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The daily bulletins of the North American Championships are easily available. All you have to do is pick the right day.

Barry: A simple solution to your goal of rewarding giant-killers would be to award seeding points to members of any team that defeats a significantly higher seed. You could specify the amount of seeding points for any particular victory. For example, 4 seeding points for members of a team seeded 57-64 which beats a team seeded 1-8 in the round of 64. These seeding points would operate in the same manner as current seeding points work and would be in addition to any other seeding points the players would earn for other achievements.
Aug. 12, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“My friends and I used to joke when we'd lose our first match in a Swiss that we were employing the “Swiss gambit,” losing early so as to get an easier ride the rest of the way. (If we lost again, one partner liked to say that we would now face “the soft underbelly of the field.” Sometimes the underbelly was us, of course.)”

Losing the second time is the “Extended Swiss Gambit.”
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - I conceded that point below - if there are less than 5 teams, the maximum point award is reduced.
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike: You are correct. If the field is less than 5 teams, there is a reduction in the maximum overall award even if the event is played over 4 or more sessions.
Aug. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top