Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
1 2 3 4 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ... 56 57 58 59
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My personal definition of “class” here would have been reporting the incident the instant he became aware of it.
Aug. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you saying that having deliberately failed to report a cheating incident, then withdrawing from an international team when that fact comes to light, is the “high road” and “sacrificing his own interest for the greater good”? How about just reporting the cheating incident in the first place? THAT would be “high road” in my book.
Aug. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When action is required by the Laws, knowing so and not taking that action is a commission, a willful and deliberate act.
Aug. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve is touching on an important point. The “NBO” is not an actual entity, it is merely an organization of individuals.

As such, the “NBO” consists of a set of individual people who take independent actions in their various roles.

The “NBO” can never be at fault for anything – only the individuals who comprise it can.

If we want to force the “NBO” to police their members, we need to force those individuals to do so.

To me, the way to do that is to

(1) require policing procedures such as recorder reports, documented investigations and assessments of those reports, and documented actions based on those assessments, and

(2) identify individuals in the organization who take that responsibility and who are nonfeasant if reported cheaters are not dealt with properly.

Make this the responsibility of people, not some nebulous “NBO”.
Aug. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose the double shows a long strong diamond suit. Now what do you do? :)
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there any regulation that actually bans (makes illegal) ever opening 1N with a void?
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steven, the new regulation allows you to have a systemic agreement to open 1N with a singleton A/K/Q. There was never any regulation that actually banned opening 1N with any singleton. If you did it too often, it was deemed an implicit agreement, but otherwise it's legal.

Several years ago, I played in a nationals with a player from Columbia. I warned him not to, but the first hand in the second round he opened 1N with a singleton. Opponents said nothing. Second hand, he opened 1N with a singleton again, and this time the opponents called the director.

Director made it clear that twice in the same round was too often and warned my partner that if he did it again in this event, he would be ejected from the event. That was it. No penalty, no problem. Just don't do it too often was the ruling.
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once I started playing online bridge and realized that the rest of the world saw nothing unusual about opening 1N with a singleton (any singleton), I tried it. Now I do it regularly when it seems appropriate, and rarely see any problem or feel the need to for a system to discover it.

It makes me wonder why Mother ACBL ever cared at all about it. Did some ACBL executive once lose a hand because some opponent opened 1N with a singleton and he messed up the defense?

And that leads to why Mother ACBL continues to ban commonplace and useful conventions of other sorts, such as Multi.
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Kit, I do. If they were squeaky clean themselves, it is a major blow and a huge punishment. Just ask Roy and Sabine what it was like for them.
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has always been legal to open 1N with a singleton (any singleton) in the ACBL.

What was illegal was to have an agreement or a system that included that or any way to disclose it.
Aug. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with John. Dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once a card has been called from dummy, the irregularity has occurred and dummy is required to remain silent.

As an example, if as dummy, you see partner looking at dummy and start to point to something as yet unclear, you would be allowed to say “you're in your hand, partner”.

But if your partner points to a very specific card, taps it, or names it in any way that indicates s/he wants it played, remain silent, play the card and wait for an opponent to call the director.
Aug. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The International Olympic Committee seems to also be a fan of lifetime bans for cheating:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/sports/olympics-ioc-to-keep-pushing-for-lifetime-bans-for-doping-cheats/articleshow/53692020.cms

Apparently the Court of Arbitration for Sport continues to reject this, allowing athletes to dope up big muscles, stamina, etc, and then if caught, simply wait 4 years and compete clean, thus gaining the advantage of the drugs merely delayed four years.

Sound familiar?
Aug. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They didn't “turn themselves in”. They were faced with the choice of admitting their cheating themselves or having it clearly shown by others. That's not worth much. ONE of them publicly apologized, and that might be worth a couple weeks off a sentence.
Aug. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would it possibly matter if screenmates were same or opposite gender?

As soon as we start thinking of bridge players as People rather than as Men or Women, a lot of this discrimination will go away.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Tim, it is sexist, and I think the reason it happens is because the alternative – choices made by sexist people – is even more so. Rules such as these are intended to override that possibility. If we didn't have any sexist discrimination in the first place, rules to prevent it wouldn't be needed.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see any ethical dilemma here at all. The rules say the result stands. There is nothing unethical about accepting that.

The real question is whether you (or the opponents) want (WANT) to generously offer to toss the hand. If so, then go ahead, nothing is lost by anyone. If you/they seriously want to keep the actual result, you/they are not in any way unethical to do so.

If they don't offer or if you ask and they decline, that is their right and you have no possible reason to have hard feelings about it.
Aug. 3, 2016
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standing up against a group requires nothing more than standing up for yourself.

“I will not be involved in it and I will report you if you do it” should suffice to bring most of the group to their senses.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I think that someone willing to cheat, even on the spur of the moment is someone likely to do it again. That's the F-S analogy, not the premeditation.
Aug. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would be premeditated, collusive (EIGHT, MAYBE TEN PEOPLE!), deliberate cheating. Why should it be treated any differently than F-N or F-S? Because this one was nipped early?

F-S was caught early, mildly punished, and then they got serious about cheating.

If we want a clean competition, then anyone knowingly involved in such an act should be banned for years!

And certainly never ever again ever allowed to play for any country!
Aug. 1, 2016
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment Aug. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you and your partner have agreed to play RKC1430 (or whichever), then every part of that convention is agreed, whether you have discussed it or not. Since this use of 5N to show even number and void is standard RKC, they DO have an agreement even if they haven't discussed it explicitly.

Even for systems, you can't agree to play SAYC and then refused to explain a Jacoby 2N bid because you never discussed it directly. It's a documented part of the system, and if you are playing SAYC and haven't agreed otherwise, it's an agreement.

I concur with all the good ideas for “we haven't discussed but the standard meaning would be…”, but you don't make a bid like that 5N one unless you expect your partner to know what it means. And that requires you to explain fully.
July 31, 2016
Cornelia Yoder edited this comment July 31, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ... 56 57 58 59
.

Bottom Home Top