Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played this hand yesterday and my partner and I got it right.

Our auction:

(3) - P - (P) - 4
(P) - 4 - (P) - 4
(P) - 4 - (P) - 5
All Pass

Not only that, but I had the fortune of playing against someone who covers an honor with an honor. After two rounds of hearts (second round ruffed), I played a diamond to the A, A, to the K, J covered(!!) and ruffed with the K. Now I pulled trump and claimed 12 tricks. I was planning to ruff both of my spade losers, possibly losing to an overruff but guaranteeing 11 tricks. Perhaps I should just pull two rounds of trump and play LHO for the Q. In any event, I got the best of all worlds. Turns out I was making 12 tricks all along.
Feb. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played UDCA for many years and have not regretted it except in those rare occasions when the cards don't cooperate. Sometimes you just can't signal properly. That is true with standard signals as well.
Feb. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recall the reference from The Three Stooges (showing my age again). The Wikipedia citation above makes reference to a poster using the name of the law firm Dewey, Cheatem & Howe in connection with a Three Stooges episode, but the actual reference in the episode was to Dewey, Burnham & Howe.
Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Preponderance of the evidence.

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.
Preponderance Of The Evidence - Legal Dictionary | Law.com
Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not exactly on point, but relates an experience I had some years ago with bracketed KOs.

In the 2002 Summer NABC in Washington DC, I went down to play on the first weekend. I managed to find an old friend who agreed to play, and we got another pair and played in the Saturday/Sunday Bracketed KO. We were in the second bracket.

Having survived the first round Saturday afternoon, we found ourselves in a three-way Saturday evening. It seems that there was a problem in the third bracket. One of the teams in the third bracket had far too many masterpoints for that bracket, and the staff decided to move them back into Bracket 2. This gave Bracket 2 9 teams remaining after the first round, and a total of 17 teams. There were 3 three-way matches Saturday evening reducing the field to 6 teams.

I assume that they gave the Bracket 3 team that was beaten by the team that was moved back into Bracket 2 a bye into Saturday night's second round in Bracket 3.

In any event, we proceeded to survive Saturday evening and a heads-up match Sunday afternoon (3 heads-up matches) to arrive at a 3-way final Sunday evening, which we won.

The now 17-team Bracket 2 awarded 49.07 masterpoints. The 16-team Bracket 1 awarded 50.60 masterpoints. I do not know what Bracket 2 would have awarded without the 17th team. Bracket 3 awarded 39.56 masterpoints.

The results are listed here on page 8 of the Daily Bulletin under the heading “Wizards Bracketed KO Teams” in the left column near the bottom of the page:

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2002summer/db4.pdf

There is an very strange error in the listing of the rankings in Bracket 2. Six teams are listed. There are two teams listed as winning, a third team is listed as finishing in second place, and there are three teams listed as finishing 3/4. There are two things that I know for sure: My team won, and the other teams listed as 1 and 2 were in the final three-way match.


Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for the World Series of Poker, that was an issue relating to Nevada law. And the entry fee in the Women's tournament is $10,000 for everyone, but there is a $9,000 discount for women.
Feb. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that an errors and omissions type of policy, such as professional liability coverage, might cover this situation. I know that there is insurance coverage for liability for my and other board members' actions on the nonprofit organizations on whose boards I sit. As long as the conduct of the committee members is not negligent or worse, it should be covered by such a policy.

Cost is an issue. Clearly, if the insurance is not already in place, if the insurer is aware of the stakes and the propensity of the parties to sue, the cost may be significant. Whether the IBF has existing coverage for its officials and whether that coverage extends to the committee members of the SEC are questions that need answers.
Feb. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In reality they need a good insurance policy that would cover this kind of liability.
Feb. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of ACBL Tournament Director, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.”

Or something to that effect.
Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Moved.
Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you want to go there. NCAA regulation of student athletes is considered to be a joke by all involved.
Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I have no problem with the language on the entry form, it may not be enforceable in a court of law. It is what is known as a contract of adhesion. All of the bargaining power is on one side. The consumer (in this case, the player) has two choices: Enter the event (or, in the case of consumer goods, make a purchase) and be bound by the contract, or don't enter the event (don't make the purchase). When all of the bargaining power is on one side, there is no true contract - it is a take it or leave it proposition. If a court determines that the terms of the contract are so one sided as to be unconscionable, it can void the contract.

Nevertheless, it is better to put the language on the entry form than not to do so.
Feb. 9, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are discussing the operation of a bridge club.

If anyone believes that it is appropriate to start casting accusations of incompetence, favoritism, etc., at club directors, feel free. No one is engaging in any cover-up of dastardly deeds.

In my opinion, these things should be handled civilly with a minimum of uproar. But if you disagree, feel free to make a scene.
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not saying that club TDs should never be questioned on their decisions. I am saying that it should not be done publicly. If any player has a problem with the decisions being made by a club TD, and private conversations about it do not rectify the problem, then by all means the player should bring it up with whoever has supervisory authority over the TD in question. Raising the issues publicly accomplishes nothing but embarrassment for the TD, especially if the public at large agrees with the criticisms.

I don't believe that the analogy to referees in sporting events is accurate, given the public nature of sport referees' decisions and the impact of such decisions. In the context of a bridge club, the aggrieved party can always express his displeasure with his feet.
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The club TDs are entitled to a certain amount of respect for their position. That respect is undermined by public questioning of the legitimacy of their decisions. This is even more true when the person questioning the legitimacy of their decisions is a person in authority, such as a unit president.

It is best for all concerned if these questions were brought up privately whenever possible.

This is completely separate and apart from the concerns brought up below by Steve Moese, who states that units and districts should have no authority on how clubs run their games. I don't know the basis of Steve's contention that club games are entirely under the authority of the National organization, but it makes sense to me.
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not going to comment on the UI issues, as others are addressing them.

Nor am I going to flag this thread. More on this in a moment.

I believe it is entirely inappropriate to call out the club TDs by name in a post in which you are criticizing their rulings. You could have gotten your points across without naming the TDs. Your profile says that you are the unit president and a bridge teacher. It would be entirely appropriate for you to speak with the TDs in private, perhaps at a time other than when the games are in progress. But calling them out by name in a public forum is not appropriate (in my opinion). And it is especially inappropriate for a unit official to do so.
Feb. 8, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thought I would post this link to a report on cardplayer.com. It was posted last week, and it is far less comprehensive than other reports referenced above. But it is interesting that a poker site would report on a raid of a bridge club.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/19968-thai-police-bust-card-game-thanks-to-law-that-says-you-can-t-possess-over-120-cards-at-a-time

Each month on cardplayer.com, there is a story called “Crazy Gambling Stories from (the previous month).” This one is my leader in the clubhouse for February.
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you mean “only to hear oral argument?” What else would a hearing be for? Documentary and video evidence would be submitted for review - there would be no need for a hearing.

If you mean that there would be no examination of witnesses - yes, I can see your point. But oral argument is a significant move forward.
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure this is an unusual treatment, but with my regular partner we play “continuous range notrumps” - 1NT 14-17, 2NT 18-20, 2C followed by 2NT 21-22; and so on. This frees up the 2NT rebid which we use for this hand type. It shows 3-6 in the bids suits, forcing one round, not game forcing.
Feb. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having played as a teammate of Mike on numerous occasions, I know that whatever auction occurs at my table will not be duplicated at the other.
Feb. 5, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top