Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dan Wolkowitz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure this will help, as the photographer is in charge of all complaints.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I was wearing a Frank Lloyd Wright shirt with the Robie House on it.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, I did not place bugs in the bridge club, nor did I feed them truth serums. And no, they did not say, “Listen, young man…” to me. So I cannot prove based on this one instance that this was due to my age. However, I have plenty of experience both around bridge players and in this area of South Florida to give me a good idea of why this went the way it did.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, I won't get those minutes back. I'd rather play against proven cheaters than watch that video again. Fortunately, even if these guys somehow manage to convince a jury that they're innocent, this video alone will cause them to be banned for life from the film industry.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roberto,

What should a newspaper do when it discovers corruption of a public official? What if it uncovers a doping scheme among professional athletes? Sure, there are libel laws, and the targets of said reporting (depending on the prevailing laws of various countries) can sue the newspaper. That doesn't mean the newspaper can't or shouldn't do its investigation. Those laws are there to make sure that the newspaper doesn't frivolously print stories that accuse or imply these types of misdeeds. Look at the world of cycling, the FIFA corruption, chess corruption and the recent report of Russian athletes doping on a large scale. Should those stories not have been printed?
Yes, some people made nasty comments before the evidence came out. That wasn't a good thing to do. People make nasty comments all over the internet and it would be a nice world if they didn't. Let's not confuse the comments that random users made with the content of the articles (mainly Kit's article) that displayed the suspicious activity and showed how the probability of those events occurring randomly was nearly impossible.
I urge you to read Kit's article (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-videos-speak-fantoni-nunes/) with an open mind. You do not need to be an expert bridge player to understand this article. In fact, I have explained what they did to friends and family who do not play any bridge at all and they have been able to understand it. I think when you read it you will also realize that cheating did occur.

Dan
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, Oren. That's 2/2 times that I thought of making a comment, peeked at yours at the top, and found that it was no longer necessary.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My guess on the real reason South bid the way he did was that he was trying to “put the brakes on” after upgrading this hand into a 1N opener. Sure, it was a minimum at first and you often want to play NT rather than a minor suit contract at matchpoints. Against that, your hand is worth a ton in clubs, especially when you know that partner doesn't have yoru clubs and is thinking about playing a club contract.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you, Oren. The way I like to think of it is that when I'm looking at AKTxx in clubs, it's clear partner was going fishing when he bid 3. From my vantage point, sometimes bidding 3 will backfire with at most the QJ, but it will surely be a losing action if he never finds out when he actually catches a fish.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm just waiting for Pearl (12.5k), which will finally open the door to Swine LM (15k)
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, this conversation seems pretty bad. I feel like at the end of it, Bruce feels like he should have known that 4 was leaping Michaels in the same way as he should have known a reverse shows extra values. The real blame here goes to Bruce's partner, who dumped a convention on him without having an agreement. In fact, they did this without him even knowing that this agreement Could exist. That's just bad. Contrast this to an expert-expert partnership that didn't have time for this discussion where they might reasonably both assume that 4 was Leaping Michaels.

In the situation Bruce had initially, he saw his partner jump to 4 over 2. The lesson should be the one briefly mentioned above by Marty that jumps over preempts are strong. So, assuming his partner had a strong 4 call, Bruce should have bid 5. Obviously, his partner has a complete monster and should take another call, as not much more than the queen of hearts gives them a play for slam.

But the bonus lesson is that it's never the fault of the person who didn't know a convention existed for not knowing what their partner was doing.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might want to delete that comment and personal message Barry on BW instead. There are lots of programs out there that will harvest your email and spam you. Or at least once he emails you, delete it.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Y and YY would not be viable. There is plenty of essential information on the X chromosome, whereas there is nothing essential for life on the Y chromosome.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David M: No, we can't “shut up and deal” if some people don't know whether or not they're allowed to enter into the event we're playing. Also, don't lump gender identity and sexual preference together. Sexual preference is about who people want to have sex with. Theoretically, that doesn't have anything to do with your bridge game (Al Roth's famous “You bid like you f***” insult aside). In contrast, gender identity is about who you are.

From the fact that you're using the words “sexual identity” instead of “gender identity” or simply “gender,” it seems like you're caught up in the sexual component of being a trans person. The actual issue here is about who people are. When you don't happen to conform to the traditional gender binary and live in a gendered world full of gendered clothing, bathrooms, job titles, and even bridge events, you're forced to make many decisions that most people never have to consider. Much of the time, trans people have to decide whether to do what they know is right or what they guess will anger other people less. I think we should figure this out before a trans woman buys an entry, sits down at the table, and either has a director come over to kick them out of the event or has another player start screaming insults at them.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale, what do you mean by ‘try’?

It's often hard to understand someone's tone on the internet. I want to make sure that you're not implying that someone would take the step of undergoing all the social discomfort and scrutiny that is bound to occur in today's society as a result of transitioning simply in order to have an extra chance to win a minor national title.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: note that in standard american many people play 1-1 as the notrump range that doesn't bid 1N (often 6-7 or 6-8 balanced) This is not natural per se (partner could be 3-3-2-5) but also not game forcing.
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, what if declarer leads from xxxx and the next player follows suit and he claims, showing his hand? (let's assume this is in a notrump contract with plentiful entries)
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be shocked if anyone on a junior team from any country decided whether or not to drink a beer because of how they would play the following day. The beautiful part of the juniors is that everyone wants to play well and win, but they also really want to have fun and socialize. There are no sponsors, no contracts, just bridge. And drinking. And perhaps some other goings-on. And perhaps not in that order.
Oct. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, the google translate makes it seem especially impressive.
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin, in response to your last main paragraph, the counter-argument for the opponents doubling you is what I refer to as “The Joe Grue Phenomenon.” Hopefully I don't get shot for saying this, but Joe isn't as wild as his reputation might suggest. My guess is that he has won more IMPs for people doing crazy things against him because “Joe is wild, he could have had THIS hand” or, “Joe might be bidding on Jxxxxx, I want to get him” when in reality he had his bid all along than he has for stepping out. Playing a mixed strategy makes you difficult to play against. If you never have the ‘ENDORSED ONLY BY KIT’ stamp on your preempt, then the opponents will also know that it's generally right to bid against you and/or be able to pick your hand in the play.
Oct. 26, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top