Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recent history tells us that players bid vul games on next-to-nothing, relying on reasoning that ignores being doubled.

So, if N cannot raise then this is going down.

If this is a BIT “issue” I regard X as clearcut but would cheerfully accept any ruling to the contrary.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand. Owe WHAT to their clients? An abdication of ethics and integrity?

First Mr Donn tells us about “an expert player” with the ethics of a tapeworm, now we have clients who want to be in on the resultant dirty work? Please.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are some sick people in this world.

Keep filling out those forms!
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question you ask about “how antipercentage” is a good one.

I think (independently of any replies you get from BW) you should buttonhole the best director you can find and go over the matter with him.

What you want is a specialist in bridge law; what you will get from BW is commentary from a range of players, from expert down.

Or, maybe write to David Stevenson: http://blakjak.org/#bas_menu
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The price has gone down - you get the $20 and she's all yours. No returns.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He couldn't count his tricks correctly so he doesn't get to do any counting later.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I give up. I shall leave the discussion to others. I forecast you will, yet again, will be a voice in the wilderness.

From an earlier article:

Such a genius is that great Dean Pokorny
That his likeness will never be born-y
If we all thought like he
What a paradise it would be
But on Bridge Winners is voice is forlorn-y
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No calculations are required.

People are forced to lose a trick to an outstanding trump after claiming; this declarer is forced to lose a trick to the outstanding D!Q.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, the actual words were: “inferior, possibly careless”.

“Down one no matter who he or she is”.

That stuff about “good deal of respect to West's declarer-playing abilities” is irrelevant nonsense.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Careless:
1. not paying enough attention to what one does: a careless typist.
2. not exact, accurate, or thorough: careless work.
3. done or said heedlessly or negligently; unconsidered: a careless remark.

Irrational:
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

Mr Thompson is quite right. It is NOT “utterly illogical” to play for an odds-against squeeze.

Declarer is down one because poor play is allowed.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who who is so careless as to think that he has four diamond tricks with that suit foregoes any and all rights to any fancy endings.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer is down one.

Mr Bethe is correct: declarer is allowed to be careless.

There have been innumerable instances where, following a claim, an expert declarer was forced to concede a trick to an unmentioned outstanding trump. If miscounting trumps is classed as “careless”, then declarer here is not allowed “some other pop-up squeeze”.

Mr Pokorny is mistaken: It is not for us to comment on the leading habits of the non-offending side. No unmarked winning finesses are allowed.

Reese wrote an article published in Bridge World (I think early 80s) where TR bid a grand slam and claimed. An opponent disputed it as a key suit broke x-0 offside. Reese played on, on fairly straight-forward lines and came to some fancy ending. He wrote something like, “At this point East's best chance was to discard (some card)”.

Kaplan stepped in with an Editor's comment:
“No, East's best chance was to have called the director at the time of the claim. The director would have ruled that the contract was down one”.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 40 B 3:
“The regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity”

I believe the ACBL has elected to disallow such agreements.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…he said to me he would always appeal in a situation like this because ‘there has to be at least a 5% chance the committee will make a terrible decision so why not?’”

Why not? You have to be joking!

Ethics, integrity, decency, not being self-obsessed or greedy and not putting self-interest before fairness seem to be a reasonable start.

I despise the “win at all costs” mentality. Anyone who said that to me would be permanently scratched as a partner or teammate.
Aug. 14, 2013
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not arrange that one bids as over an opening 1NT? Of what use is 2 (GF) here? At favourable vul, a call showing both majors is ideal.

I think I will patent this…
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not pre-dealt boards with hand records?

Barbaric.
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff A reminds me of a poster on the wall of a Sydney bar:
An attractive girl glares at some annoying guy…
“If I throw a stick will you go away?”
Aug. 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little difficult, given the absence of a qwerty keyboard, yes?
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I follow your point and think that you make a good case.

We agree that all matters regarding offensive comments, gloating, attempted bullying and intimidation etc, should be dealt with via a call for the Director.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just don't follow any of this. Rudeness and bullying are violations of Law 74.

If it happens to you, don't complain to your friends and family. Don't grizzle on FB. Don't post anything on Bridge Winners. Don't do anything but raise your hand and say, DIRECTOR!

Do that once for every offence. It works.

Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am in favour of the Recorder process if and only if the defendant is provided with the opportunity to answer the complaint.

I am aware that some jurisdictions have a “secret” Recorder system - entries are made on a file and, if malicious or foolish complaints have been made about you, you may never know…
Aug. 11, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top