Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, with all due respect, your approach just does not work.

I once tried to deal with UI issues by arguing that I can make any call that I like as long as it is based solely on my cards. I got into a long discussion with a TD at a tournament after I acted on my cards after a BIT by partner. I made the argument that I was acting as if we were playing with screens and I was not aware of the BIT by partner, and I was bidding my cards as if nothing had happened. The argument just does not fly. One cannot unring the bell - once there is UI everything changes.

Your argument is somewhat different in that you seem to be attempting to use the UI to your advantage. I cannot agree with that. Others have reacted in a stronger manner. You have to understand that if you have UI you CANNOT use it - it is as if it never happened. In this case, the bell MUST be unrung. Yes, the laws allow you to make any call that you like; however, if your call is based upon UI, you can count on receiving an adjusted score. Moreover, you may also be subject to other sanctions if it is determined that you deliberately used UI in choosing your action. And, perhaps most important, you may earn a reputation as someone who attempts to use UI to your advantage. I am sure that you do not want that to happen.
April 22, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an obvious problem with that. On this hand, the K by itself does not insure that there are 13 tricks available. However, the K doubleton or tripleton along with one or two clubs only (assuming no Q) or FOUR clubs with the singleton (or more) K increases your chances of making 13 tricks significantly.

I doubt that there is any bidding sequence that will get partner to bid the grand in confidence, so I am willing to settle for the small hoping to do well whether it makes or not.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recently, playing IMPs (short matches), my partner opened 2 at equal non-vul. After 3 - P - 4 he bid 5! He was 6-6.

This was not a success, as it went 2 down while I had AKTxx of hearts, among other things.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do I proceed? I guess to bid 6. Which I might have done on the previous round.

The takeout double ran the risk of going ALL PASS, and, given my hand, that is not as small a risk as it would usually be.

The more interesting problem is what do I do over 7? Given the vulnerability, and the fact that my opps were willing to pass out 4, that is not likely to occur (and I hope that it does not occur).
April 20, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep in mind that psychologists agree that 6 of the 7 dwarfs were not Happy.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A double of 3 would be a penalty double.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is not the definition of psychic control. Now, if the 1NT bid could show a 20 count and is absolutely forcing, even on a psych, then it is a psychic control.
April 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need to phrase this right, David. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still tenaciously clinging to death.
April 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu, I am not talking about technical infractions, such as using an “illegal” convention or taking advantage of UI. I am talking about serious infractions, such as all forms of cheating or behavioral matters - infractions which reflect upon the integrity of the player beyond the technical aspects of the game.

It may just be a matter of degree.

If an ACBL member commits some sort of serious infraction at a tournament outside of the US I am sure the ACBL would want to know about it.
April 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if you don't psych, should the opponents feel insulted?
April 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did anyone say anything about a US citizen facing charges in a US court for an offense committed elsewhere? I was referring to ACBL members committing a bridge offense. If the ACBL does not have jurisdiction, fine. But it should.
April 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are an ACBL member and you are playing in a tournament in Europe which allows different conventions than are allowed in an ACBL tournament, the use of those conventions is not an infraction.

On the other hand, if you strike a tournament director at a European tournament, the ACBL should have the right to apply discipline.
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am bidding whatever my system demands that I bid. Many play that a strong jump shift followed by a rebid of the suit shows a solid suit. The OP thought that a rebid of 4 would show this hand, but then admitted that there are no system notes to back this up.

Surely, the 3 rebid and the 4 rebid cannot show the same hand type. So, I will rebid 3 relying on basic principals (rebid of strong jump shift suit shows solid suit) unless I know for a fact that our agreement is that 4 shows this hand.
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any NBO should have jurisdiction over infractions committed by one of its own members regardless where the infractions take place.

Also, any NBO should have jurisdiction over infractions committed by any participant in one of its events regardless whether the participant is one of its members.

The foregoing represents my personal opinion, but I would be surprised to find out that either one of these is not correct.
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does standard carding or upside-down carding have to do with third-hand play? It is normal to play the lowest of touching cards in a sequence in third-hand play. The only time I would play the higher one would be if I did not want the suit continued.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I guess it is because you do not know some discrimination is perfectly legal and people are simply having different views about what is legal and what is not. When people have different views and try to find a solution, it is political by definition.”

First of all, I do know that some discrimination is legal.

Second, it is still not a political issue. It is a moral and ethical issue. The solution to the problem (or, in this instance, an exasperation of the problem) is often arrived at through political means.
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see any reason whatsoever for running a heart quack on the second board.

Both contracts look pretty reasonable to me without resorting to any deep analysis.
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If “I could care less” is intended to mean the same as “I couldn't care less” then it is just plain wrong.
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It still doesn't make it a political issue. It is just a matter of opinion about the merits of a law.
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it hard to understand why people consider this to be a political issue. It is a discrimination issue, just as the ACBL stated in its letter. It is not the ACBL that is turning this into a political issue, but the people who line up on one side or the other side of this issue who turn it into a political issue.
April 13, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top