Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Margolin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's this: http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf

But it doesn't explain 64B2.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My guess at the rationale for the rule about the 2nd revoke is that we just penalize a player once for being under the delusion that they're out of a suit. We expect them to continue to make the same mistake.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They may be separate, but their interests are aligned, and they often work together. E.g. ACBL runs Education Foundation games.

And ACBL allowed the filmmakers to film during the NABCs.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The vast majority of documentary filmmakers are total unknowns, languishing in obscurity their entire careers. Ken Burns and Michael Moore are the exceptions. Have you compared their “likes” to other minor filmmakers?

The Internet has certainly opened up new outlets for them to show their results, but it also means there are more of them competing for the shelf space.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Ed Foundation is a charity, not a business expecting to get a return on their investment.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. Should “Aces and Knaves” have omitted the “Knaves” part about the cheating scandals?
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OTOH, if ACBL didn't support this, who would have?

They say there's no such thing as bad publicity. A big problem bridge has these days is lack of visibility. Would it really be better if the movie had never been made at all?

As the filmmaker said in their thread, the Ed Foundation provided funding with no strings attached – the result would be the truth, not a puff propaganda piece.

I know it's stretching an analogy, but the tobacco industry was vilified for funding research into the health effects of smoking, and then burying the results because they didn't paint them in a good light.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “Executive Producer” is often a ceremonial title, it doesn't necessarily imply significant participation in the creative process.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think anyone is questioning the objective of the filmmakers, they're questioning the ACBL and the Educational Foundation in funding a movie that wouldn't necessarily promote bridge.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my experience, it typically means at least 1 control, which should be enough for game opposite a minimum 2 opening. If opener has anything extra, the 5 level should be safe so they should explore slam if a fit is found.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David may have been assuming the popular style where 2 is a positive response and 2 is an immediate negative.

Many do consider being able to give a positive response immediately is a slam-bidding tool. If opener knows that responder has at least 1 control, he can tell whether it's safe to go beyond game looking for slam.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect David simply has a different idea of “slam try”, thinking it's more analogous to “game try”. Normally after a game try, partner either bids game or not (occasionally they'll make a counter try in between). But a splinter is usually an invitation to explore slam, not bid it right off (there will typically be a sequence of cue bidding and/or use of Blackwood).

Maybe the term “slam try” isn't really that useful – pretty much any game force could be considered a slam try.
Sept. 30
Barry Margolin edited this comment Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a game force that provides additional information. What else is that information for except to help judge whether to keep bidding beyond game?
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They didn't compete much “at the highest level”. They went to two NABCs, but they mostly played in regional events.

They entered the Reisinger and Mixed Swiss at the Fall 2017 NABC (placing last in each, unsurprisingly). But in Spring 2018 they only entered regional events. At both NABCs I encountered them in midnight zips.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if you want to become competent enough to compete in regional or national tournaments for tennis, taekwondo, poker, chess, or so many other (mind) sports, you’d need just as much - or more - time and effort as for duplicate bridge.”

But bridge requires a significant amount of effort to become competent just to play reasonably at a club. Most people can learn poker well enough to play with their friends in a few minutes. The same with most physical sports like baseball and tennis.

Bridge is complicated. That's what makes it so great, but it also creates a significant learning curve. If you've played other trick-taking games like hearts or spades you have a bit of a leg up, but bridge is still a quantum leap harder.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you're saying they should make a propaganda film rather than show the truth of what happened in this experiment?
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those are kids who are already bridge addicts. Remember, this movie is about a team of beginners. They were hired, taught the game, and then thrown into the big pool of an NABC.

I think the “too much bridge” guy is the one who didn't actually enjoy the game at all.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if you don't know what you play, tell ‘em that.”

But how would you know that you don’t know? Unless partner has a history of forgetting, how can you know that he's likely to forget, so you need to disclose it?

You sit down with a pickup partner, and make up a convention card. You offer “Bergen raises”, he says “Sure”. There doesn't seem to be any hesitation, so you assume he's comfortable with the agrement. Why would you give any other explanation of these bids?

When I make up a card with a new partner, and we agree to play Jacoby 2NT, I don't usually get into a discussion of the followups. So if the auction goes 1-2NT-3, I'll alert the 3 bid and explain it as shortness in diamonds if asked. We haven't specifically discussed it, so some might say that this is misinformation and I should say “undiscussed”, but that seem disingenuous to me, as I have what I think is good reason to believe this is what the bid means. Perhaps I should qualify the explanation in some way.

Last week a convention came up with my regular partner that has been on our CC for 10-15 years, but I think this was the first time we'd ever used it. When I was asked for an explanation, I included that detail. Luckily, he actually had his bid according to the agreement (I was pleasantly surprised, as he has become a bit forgetful in the past year or so). So I certainly agree that there are times when it makes sense to qualify an explanation, but I don't think you can be expected to do it routinely.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You still haven't explained the double standard – how would a good North be treated differently than a poor one?

It seems that a good player wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. But that's like saying that traffic cops have a double standard, only giving tickets to people who run red lights, not the ones who stop at them.

I'm not saying that North did something wrong, like running a red light. But what he's being punished for is a problem of his own making, it wasn't directly caused by the opponents (you can't run a red light if there isn't one, but that doesn't make the traffic light the cause of the offense). His poor judgement is the reason he's in the situation at all, just like the driver who thinks he can get away with running a red light.

And don't forget that North was given the correct explanation. Not of East's holding, but of the EW agreements, which is all the opponents are entitled to. Unless West had reason to believe East was likely to have forgotten, he doesn't have to disclose this.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you know when your agreements have become “solid”? How long since the last mistake must it be before you stop saying “but he's been known to get this wrong”?

If you're a pickup partnership, do you add the qualifier “but we're a new partnership, so he might not have his bid” to every explanation? Or should you just pre-alert when you arrive at the table?

What about playing with a beginner, do you have to disclose that they don't know what they're doing and practically every explanation (and even “normal” bids that don't require alerts) should be taken with a grain of salt? If you open 1NT and they bid 2 or 2, do you announce “Transfer (hopefully)”?

I don't think there's any easy answer to this. There's a reason why disclosure problems are a frequent subject of Bridge World editorials.
Sept. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
.

Bottom Home Top