Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 171 172 173 174
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume you mean 250 signatures are required to put a bylaw amendment to a vote of the membership? (For an organization the size of the ACBL, that's a low bar, but getting the required majority or super-majority on the subsequent vote would be difficult.) Or do you mean something else?
8 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, we aren't told that this week, but Kit's NS are always playing Precision in these columns.
10 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
16-17 balanced with doubleton support.
31 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing that should help West find the diamond shift is that East is a huge favorite to hold at least one high honor. After all, he has at least 8 HCP (possibly 9), only 1 of which is in clubs, and on the auction not many are likely to be in the majors.
43 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the Kx likely wasted and a good chance of not getting to our best suit even if I double, and red/red at IMP, it's pretty obvious to just pass and defend here.

My 1NT bid boxed my strength quite well, and I don't have an undisclosed four- or five-card major. It's hard to imagine we're missing a biddable game, and these are neither the colors nor the form of scoring for stretching to compete a partscore.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
$30,000 plus half the travel expenses of every board member eliminated on his or her watch.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Basketball eventually decided that flagrant infractions and intentional infractions needed more severe penalties than others. The infraction in this case was clearly both flagrant and intentional. If the laws mandated PPs in those cases, or even if examples were added in an official WBF commentary on the current laws, I suspect the TDs would not require so much courage to implement them.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the ACBL should ask the risk control folks at its management liability insurer for some best practices around non-profit boards. Get an objective view as to size, term limits, bylaws about elections, etc.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ken, yes, I interpreted Richard's statement differently. I was imagining the sort of company where the only “board” meetings happen at the dinner table.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you are being more pompous than you can justify. You keep implying that the laws demand a poll. They do no such thing. They demand that the TD use his judgment. If you want to disagree about whether the TD should judge to use a poll that's fine—but argue it on the merits. When you say that people who disagree with you about how the TD should apply his judgment in this case are suggesting the TD violate the law, you are flat out wrong.

Also, since you seem (from other threads) to know the laws quite well, it might not have been advisable of you to raise the topic of lying (as opposed to merely making self-serving statements).
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I *am* following the laws, David. Law 12C says that the director should recover the probable outcome and *may* (NB NOT “must”) weight multiple outcomes. I am saying that if a non-offender can say immediately how he would have played if he had the correct information, I would be loath to substitute the judgment of a passer-by, even a passer-by world expert, who has nothing on the line and was not at the table.

Note carefully, David, that the laws do NOT say that you are to figure out how the non-offender's peers would have played the hand. You are to figure out the probable outcome with the players who actually held the hands. Unless the non-offender has a history of self-serving statements, if he can say immediately how he would played, that seems to bear much more evidence on the probable outcome than a poll.

If we are going to take someone's word that a change of call was because the first call was inadvertent, why shouldn't we take someone's word for knowing how he would have played?

If there was going to be a poll on this hand, it should have been as to whether 4 was doubled.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what is the point of polling a play problem when the player can state immediately why he would have defended properly if he had the correct explanation. Polling bidding problems is one thing, but planning a defense takes time and focus at the table. I doubt anyone responding to a poll is going to duplicate that focus. I think the correct adjusted score would be an unweighted results of down however many tricks the non-offending side can legitimately explain they would have set the contract.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone did this in a money game, he'd risk having his fingernails pulled out in a dark alley later that evening. What's the point of TDs if they can't provide a more civilized penalty? In baseball, if the pitcher throws at your batter and the umpire doesn't do anything about it, you have your pitcher throw at their batter. Do teams in high-level competitions need to resort to such remedies?
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like I said, I always have a way to show a 4 card suit when I use 1NT = 4 + 5+m, so I don't worry about this so much. I don't think I'd mind 1NT = 4 + 5+m either as long as I had some other way to show four s. I do see s as a little more of a priority if I could only show one, though, since partner or I will often be able to show four spades later by balancing over 2. I completely agree that being nebulous about the majors is a loss. If I am intervening at the two level on a constructive hand, interfering with the opponents is nice, but I really do want to find my side's trump suit.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I suppose you could argue that Kx with West is impossible as he would not have ruffed. That still leaves playing the ace favored 66:45 just on frequency grounds.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a standard meaning for “IMP-odds”? I would have thought that incorporated the totality of IMP considerations…i.e., both frequency and the amount of gain or loss, and that the latter alone would be called something like “IMP gain or loss”.

The IMP-odds here in the sense I think of them seem to be more like 4:1 or better in favor of not finessing spades: A better than 2/3 chance of gaining about 2 IMPs comapred to a slightly less than 1/3 chance of losing 1 IMP.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The case against the finesse is much stronger even than Kit states. Given the 6-1 heart break, the odds of West having started with trump x, xx, Kx, or Kxx are in the portions 12:33:33:66. Thus, playing the ace gains in 99 cases out of 144, and finessing works only in the other 45 cases. Also, in the 66 cases where West has Kxx, you will be down THREE if you finesse, so the IMP odds (assuming they are in 3 at the other table) may be even worse: declarer in 3 might have done up A (I don't think he should but it's not as clear not to as it is in 4) and only be one down in this case. So the finesse might actually cost you 3 IMPs in that case.

Taking the spade finesse is not merely a mistake. It's a blunder.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely one doesn't need 14 HCP to raise with three spades, and surely with 17 HCP and a void you'd probably do better to pass unless your 17 HCP are fast tricks?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One point about the bidding is that it is substantially less good to open this hand 4 than the same hand with the hearts swapped with one of the minors. The three-card heart holding makes it substantially less likely that the opponents have a heart fit. It the opponent do NOT have a heart fit, you would rather have opened 3 (other things being equal). If they don't have a heart fit but hearts divide 6-1, as on this hand, you may be very happy not to have overpreempted.
June 17
Christopher Monsour edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I missed the 2 bid. Yes 3-4 is more reasonable.
June 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 171 172 173 174
.

Bottom Home Top