Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should be put under the heading of “Been there, done that.” Back in the 80's, when there was a brief period when pros were required to register with the ACBL, there was a National Championship event called the Amateur Pairs. Registered pros were not eligible. I am posting this entirely from my memory of the events of that time. If I recall correctly, the Amateur Pairs only ran for a year or two, and disappeared when the ACBL abandoned its attempt to regulate professionalism.
Aug. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted.
Aug. 4, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment Aug. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What makes them wrong is how it effects other competitors in the event. Everyone has a right to expect that all competitors will be attempting to do their best. And those who have a chance to win would be very upset (and rightfully so) to find that their chance to win had been taken away from them by these “arranged results.”

If that is not a good enough explanation, the fact that such “arranged results” are against the rules should be sufficient.
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A technical point: According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, organizations recognized under Section 501( c)(3) as exempt from income tax include “Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, OR TO FOSTER NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR SPORTS COMPETITION (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment)…” (emphasis mine).

So, while the WBF is not a charitable organization, it might qualify as a tax-exempt organization under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The idea of having members of the BOD who are ACBL representatives to the WBF recuse themselves on a vote relating to ACBL funding of the WBF is absurd.
July 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is the force pining for the fiords?
June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The college baseball world series is run as a double KO.
June 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any hand that has a reasonable conversion of the double to penalties should be able to stand a trump lead, if not welcome it. I agree with Kit here - the conversion of the double traditionally calls for a trump lead. On this hand, I have sympathy for your lead of another suit, but only if you tried to lead one.
May 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, the more I read your comments the more I find that we have in common (I may be insulting both of us here). I fully agree - the double may be poor, but it could have worked. But the conversion is just awful.

When will players learn that a conversion of a one level takeout double for penalties should be reserved for hands that have no choice, ideally like KQJTxx in the opponent's suit and out? In a recent team match (in which Michael was one of my teammates) my partner passed a one-level takeout double holding ATxxx of trumps and a couple of cards on the side. I held a very strong hand with long diamonds - too strong to overcall. We scored up +100 cold for +1370.

I remember seeing a different partner playing in 2x in a 4-1 fit with a 7-1 break and misreading the hand to go down one (don't ask how we arrived in our 4-1 fit). I don't know what choice my opponent could have to her pass of her partner's takeout double, but even the 7 card suit was not enough to insure a set.
May 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can understand calling robot tournaments “not bridge.” But similar comments can be made about matchpoints and other forms of scoring.

What is “bridge?” Money bridge scored at total points or IMPs? 64 or more board matches scored at IMPs? 7 or 8 board swiss or round-robin matches scored at IMPs converted to VPs? Board-a-match? Matchpoints? Other forms of scoring?

Being able to take advantage of the conditions of contest in robot tournaments is just another skill. Is it bridge? Sure it is bridge. It is just another variant of the game.
May 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a random point of interest. In the Diamond - Mahaffey match, which was a close match, the team with seating rights lost 6 of the 8 segments, while in the Ganzer - Fireman match, the team with seating rights won 6 and tied 1 of the 8 segments. In the Cayne - Bramley match, which was more of a runaway, 5 of the 7 played segments were won by the team with seating rights. And in the Fleisher - Gordon match, the team with seating rights won 6 and tied 1 of the 8 segments.

So, it would seem that seating rights mattered in 3 of the 4 matches, but were a detriment in one. This assumes that the teams put any thought into the exercise of their seating rights.

Not clear that there is a cause and effect relationship here, but it is interesting since some people seem to care a lot about seating rights.
May 14, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment May 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, it was nice playing with you today, but you are seriously disturbed individual. :)
May 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago (as Henry put it, in the pre-flighted, pre-bracketed era), there was a rule that events could not be played more than once at any regional. So, there were a number of different events. The typical list of events at the Lancaster PA Regional would be:

Wednesday - Mens and Womens Teams.
Thursday - Mens and Womens Pairs.
Friday - Masters and Non-Masters Pairs.
Saturday - Open Pairs (Qualifying and Final)
Sunday - Swiss Teams.

Side games were very small, and they were always single session pair events.

I remember that at the first Regional tournament that I ever attended, Atlantic City, 1973, the first day's event was a Swiss Teams in which the first 4 rounds were qualifying to a KO final. Nonqualifiers would continue to play Swiss matches while the qualifiers (the top 32 teams) would play in a KO in the evening. Two KO matches would be played in the evening session, and losers in the first round KO matches would rejoin the Swiss. The KO would continue the next day.

Longer regionals, such as Los Angeles Bridge Week, became very creative in the types of events held.
April 22, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The term “strong” for purposes of this discussion is any opening bid that promises at least 15 HCP. It may promise more (i.e., the lower limit may be higher). Quoting from paragraph 7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS on the GCC:

“7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids …”

The definition of what constitutes a strong, forcing and artificial 2 opening bid is a subject for another thread (and I am sure there have been some).
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct. Given that your 1 opening bid shows 15+HCP and is forcing, the language in paragraph 2 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS is not applicable. Your 1NT response is game forcing - it is not a “one round force.” Paragraph 2 only applies to 1NT responses that are a one-round force. So the language disallowing a 1NT response which shows at least game invitational values does not apply.

You are also correct that paragraph 3 specifically allows conventional game forcing responses to any bid as long as the response is not part of a relay structure.

And you are also correct that paragraph 7 allows conventional responses to strong forcing openings.

So, your 1NT response is GCC legal.

Your other question - can one play a 1NT response which is a one-round force and shows invitational values or better if the 1 opening shows 14+ HCP? The answer is no. It fails under paragraph 3 in that it is not game forcing. It fails under paragraph 7 because the opening bid is not considered to be strong and forcing, as strong is defined as 15+ HCP. So, you are left with the prohibition found in paragraph 2. The 1NT response falls squarely within the prohibited language of paragraph 2.
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was going to ask how the AX Swiss on Monday could be worth only 17 when the table count in the Swiss is 66 + 100 and the Sunday AX Swiss is worth 35 when the table count in the Swiss is 69 + 64? The Monday AX Swiss was a single session event.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had not looked at the ACBL Alert Procedures for a while. I thought I would check to see what was there concerning cue bids.

Things have changed. Probably for the better. Here it is, from the ACBL Alert “Pamphlet”:

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

Cue Bids

NO ALERT
Most cue bids.

ALERT
Direct cue bid of natural opening bid played as natural.

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

EXAMPLES:

1♠-2♥-P-2♠: If the 2♠ bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required. If the 2♠ bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required.

1♦-2♦: If the 2♦ bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds), no Alert is required.

CUE-BID COMPILATION

1♥ - 2♥: Takeout, Alert only if for hearts.
1♠ - 2♠: Takeout, Alert only if for spades.
1♣ - 2♣: Takeout, Alert only if for clubs.
1♣† - 2♣: Takeout, Alert only if for clubs.
1♦† - 2♦: Takeout, Alert only if for diamonds.
1♣‡ - 2♣: Takeout, Alert only if for clubs.
2♣§ - 3♣: Takeout, Alert only if for clubs.
2♦** - 2♥: Alert only if for hearts.
2♦** - 2♠: Alert only if for spades.

The following are not considered cue bids:

1♣†† - 2♣: Clubs, any other meaning requires an Alert.
2♦** - 3♦: Diamonds, any other meaning requires an Alert.
2♦‡‡- 2♥/♠ or 3♣/♦: Natural, no cuebid available. Alert other meanings.
2♣†† - 3♣: Clubs. Alert other meanings.
1♦-P-1♥-2♥: If natural or 2-suited takeout, no Alert.
1♦-P-1♥-2♦: If natural or 2-suited takeout, no Alert.

† Could be short
‡ Polish Club, could be short, could be strong
§ Precision-style, 5 plus clubs
** Majors (e.g., Flannery)
†† Strong, artificial and forcing
‡‡ Any 3-suited hand (e.g., Mini-Roman)

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

The only one that I have a quibble with is 2 natural over 2 (Flannery). The Alert Pamphlet says that this is alertable. I thought that 2 natural over 2 Flannery was standard. But I could be wrong about that.
April 20, 2015
Art Korth edited this comment April 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GCC Allowed:

6. CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit.

Since your cue-bid “could be weak,” and it does not always show at least one known suit, it is not GCC legal.
April 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the same as playing in a club game where there is a travelling score sheet. You get to see the results on a board when you enter your score.

I believe that the ability to let the pairs see their current score on the board just completed is an option and is up to the TD or club manager.
April 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand this comment.

Advancer bids the same regardless. If it works out badly, that is due to his partner's action. The overcaller knew that he was taking a risk in overcalling a 4-card suit. That is the nature of the beast. Advancer should not alter his approach to bidding opposite an overcall due to one or two bad results (unless what Advancer is doing is the cause of the bad results).
April 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top