Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play the same boards at Unit 141 (Philadelphia) Sectional Swiss Teams. It works well, and there are hand records. We have tried a few methods. The best seems to be to have the boards arranged so that a complete set of boards is divided into 3 segments over three consecutive tables. The boards are passed to the next lower table after one or two have been played. This is done in a continuous loop around the event. Other than the security issues with playing identical boards at the same time, this works very well and minimizes the number of sets of boards required.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not really, as Gary implies once you have taken the ace you have burned that particular boat.”

Interesting phrase, Ian. I had a paralegal who would mangle phrases like this one. One of my favorites was “We will burn that bridge when we come to it!”
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right.” Henrik Ibsen.

I applaud the letter written by the ACBL in opposition to the pro-discrimination law in Mississippi.

The idea that a majority of the residents of a state or a city or a locality support discrimination makes it acceptable is abhorrent.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember that section of the convention card. It was on the second side (the reverse if the card was folded) on the right side about half way down the card.

I started playing in 1972, and that section was on all of the ACBL convention cards at that time.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would check the backs of the cards. Then I would assume that partner has a hand worth almost a strong forcing 2 opening and make a call that makes some sense - 3 not being one of the choices. Drury is not appropriate. I would bid 2 as the least of evils.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am more interested in the word “sanctity,” especially when accompanied by “of the law.” Since when did this regulation (not a law) become divinely inspired?

I play with one partner who frequently opens 2NT with a singleton. I never play him for that, and we have no conventional methods for finding out about the singleton. I contend that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I am sure that Jerry Seinfeld would agree).
April 11, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I treat the double as the equivalent of a 1 bid, I “raise” to 2 to show 4 and a minimum hand. A 1 bid is the equivalent of a preference, knowing that partner has only 4 spades - i.e., 3 cards support and no other suitable bid.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and marked with signs like “Only one psych per session.”
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course partner can deem his hand is worth a game bid even opposite a subminimal opening. But that has nothing to do with Drury.

Besides, the jump raise is always available. It cannot be preemptive once both opponents have passed. It has to show some kind of distributional strong passed-hand raise.

But if you decide to use Drury, you have to stop when partner makes the negative response. If you want to bid again, you probably should not have bid Drury to begin with (maybe you should have opened the bidding).
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If expulsion was a penalty that was available, there is no excuse for not applying it under these facts. Otherwise, I suppose the maximum penalty of a 3 year suspension is the best that was available.

However, other organizations should not be restricted to meting out a 3 year suspension just because that was all that was available domestically.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a hard and fast rule when it comes to psyches. No matter how irrational the bidding may be after the psych, the player who psyched is responsible for the disaster that ensues.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I decided that opening 2 red against white on this hand was just too much at IMPs.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that you are 100% incorrect on this. The whole purpose of Drury is to stay at a low level when third-seat opener has a “light” opening and first seat passed-hand responder has a near opening. The Drury bidder is not permitted to act over the negative response.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The initial discussion pre-dated the use of player memos. It was 1974.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, I was playing in my first North American Championship (they were called ACBL Nationals back then). The hotel room in which I was staying usually had between 5 and 10 players in it after hours. I remember having a long talk with a fairly strong player who expounded his theory that it made sense in any team match to psych on one of the first few boards. This would plant the seed of doubt in the opponents' minds for the rest of the match, and this would work to your advantage.

I noted that whenever I played in a match against this player he always psyched early in the match. This was true even in short matches! I considered this grossly unethical, as his partner must have known that he would do this. At least I knew about it so we were on a relatively equal footing.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So it would seem that ACBL concludes that drury is not such an agreement, at least not inherently. And that's correct provided the partnership merely shades its third-seat openings, but does not “psych” them. As a psych is defined as a gross deviation from expected shape or strength, that would mean that such gross deviations (whatever exactly that means) wouldn't be permitted in spots in which drury was on, so psyching a 1H or 1S opening in third seat would be problematic for a pair playing drury. I admit I have never seen this come up.”

There is no doubt that Drury is a psychic control. It was invented to function as a psychic control. The fact that it is still allowed while other psychic controls are disallowed is a function of history not logic.

Yesterday, playing in the last round of a Sectional Swiss Team, I picked up in third seat at unfavorable:

AKTxx xx xxx xxx

After two passes, I opened 1 knowing that partner could not do me in since we played Drury (I am going to ignore what might happen should a competitive auction ensue). Sure enough, it went pass on my left, 2 Drury by partner, pass on my right, 2 by me (negative), pass on my left. Partner is not allowed to do anything here. But partner had other ideas. He bid 2NT. This is a complete break of partnership discipline. I passed this, and we went down one, while 2 was cold.

So, is my 1 bid a “mere shading” of a normal 1 opening bid? By the way, my opponent at the other table also opened 1.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The defendant after being convicted of killing his parents pleaded for mercy because both of this parents had recently died.”

That is the classic definition of Chutzpah, although it is usually stated by saying that the defendant was an orphan.
April 7, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top