Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ellis Feigenbaum
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 90 91 92 93
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
but that is the point I was making, partner tanked director rolled it back, as if there was no longer bridge being played.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL doesn't have misguided legal reasons, it has a a CDR, which used to read after a ban, the person banned was allowed to reapply for membership to the full board after a term of no less than 10 years.

It seems that has changed and now replaced by this
5.2.14 Negotiated Resolution of a Charge. This allows for negotiated settlements and/or plea bargaining without going through any formal hearings and committees.
Not sure how this passed but it passed in 2017, probably at the suggestion of the committee set up after the Sherriff came to town.
The purpose probably being to find out exactly what the means of cheating was without expensive and lengthy hearings.
It has the added but unwanted side benefit of some old lags being able to game the system.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really, lets forget this instance. I will give you a few hands that happened to me and ended up in committee.
Partner opened a spade I bid a forcing nt with a balanced 12 count LHO bid 3h and partner tanked, I made the call I was always going to make of 3nt and the Director rolled it back. Because everyone passes after the bit.
The committee let me bid.
Another hand partner opened 1h Ibid 1sp opps bid 3d partner tanked Ibid 3sp with akqj9xx of spades, director rolled it back , committee basically said are you guys nuts how do we not let someone bid 3sp with a 7 card suit.

A director ruling in the D17 ended up in committee because they would not let a player bid an 8 card solid suit at the 5 level after his partner opened.
Things are reaching the point where it has now become automatic to hang before allowing a call, I just don't buy it.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John seriously it is up to us to decide which class of player we are?
What are your options here, ethical and unethical?
So every time a player makes a call they think is clear and you do not they get deemed unethical?
We have reached the point in active ethics where we have to look over our shoulders when we take a call which we think is clear just in case the ethics police shows up on bridge winners? Or someone writes on article in the bulletin calling a play unethical?
We have bent this tree too far and its close to snapping.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scott do you count it when the dealin`s done?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have never been sure about where that option leads, but it doesn't seem like a good place.
I really think that the hand must be clear to you that you would always bid( as this particular one is to me) before taking that option. If there is even the slightest doubt in your mind then passing or taking an action that was not suggested by the bit is correct.
Sometimes we truly have no idea what partner might be thinking about, and almost any action we take including pass may turn this into what David Yates would call NON BRIDGE.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure he might think about it before the next edition comes out in Memphis.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if he does have that 4sp still has play, say clubs 33 and kx sp on side. This is why I couldn't bring myself to pass 4h, you need so little to make a game.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure if that is true, I agree that after partner hesitates noticeably it is very difficult to be totally subjective, but I don't think that is a reason not to take the call you normally would.
A director under much recent discussion once gave me this explanation“ the UI or Mi Take away your ability to be a genius”
In that light I look at the hand and if I think I am making a genius bid, then I pass, If I think I am making a normal bid neither stretching or being overly optimistic then I take a call.
In this instance needing so little to make any game , even something stupid like 9x xxxx qxxxx jx might be enough for game to make I do not think bidding 4sp is either optimistic or overly stretching in any form of scoring.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a bridge rule question, it depends if you think Pass is a logical alternative, when you might be cold for game opposite as little as 9x of spades and the jack of clubs. I wouldn't pass if given as a bidding poll, without the added hesitation information. I do after all hold a 4 loser hand. assuming everything goes wrong, opps are still going to be making 4h and down 2x will not be a bad score.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, read the edit, but I still Eugene suspending himself would be humorous.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve , I have no idea of the actual source, but the OP reads like this is in the official write up.
For what its worth if this is not copied verbatim from the official report then BW is in violation of its own regulations and Eugene should be suspended.
Peg, that is far from the point I was trying to make, you along with others think that if the Bit was as short as Hal said it was then Bobby is in violation of some imaginary ethical rule. My point is it probably wasn't as long as Bobby thinks it was and probably wasn't as short as Hal does. Unless we are taking that as given neither side is guilty of some terrible immoral action, and its just bridge. You think there is a problem you call the director you get a ruling. It might go either way, but A bridge ruling was given by a top class director at the table after a poll.
From there we have an incorrect poll a change in question a failure to ask the Offending side for information a change of result 11 hours after the initial violation and a whole novel on BW about how terrible and egregious one side is over another. And once again in an apparent proof that the old system that often came up with the same type of incoherent ruling at 2 am changing National Title winners and being second guessed on BW was not necessarily better than what we changed it for.
What we need is a process that includes framing the poll question correctly. Not only do we need to know what double or pass means, we need to know if the OS has an agreement on what double might mean. In a random auction I play double of final contract means lead a heart over all final nt bids, other play it means lead a spade, yet others play unbid suit and anti lead directing(yes this a thing).All of the above needs to be in the write up as to the existence or non existence of the agreement, to the best of my knowledge the question was never asked.
Edit after further investigation
Steve, try reading Saturdays bulletin, the complete write up is on page 9.
https://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/03/bulletins/db9.pdf
It comes with a disclaimer that this write up may be changed for the casebook,so the official write uses the words“ unethical use of partners BIT”, sorry Eugene you can unsuspend yourself:-) But I am still disgusted that an ACBL official chose to use those words in any public write up.
Dec. 10
Ellis Feigenbaum edited this comment Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, the more I think through what you think the implications are, the more I realize just exactly how bad the system we have in place is.
We have created a black and white system whereby its ok to call a player unethical in public and to imply that if one is not the case then the other must by definition be the biggest sinner since they started casting stones.
I dont buy into any of that, but it seems named players here do and that saddens me.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like I have said multiple times
1.Get the facts straight before you poll, not at 1:00 AM for a problem that happened in first session.
2.Get the question right. However much I try to be 100% honest with myself when asked a poll question, its almost automatic to assume there is a problem.
3. We do not need to know what 10 people would lead when they subconsciously know there is a problem, we need to know what 10 experts think pass or double means.
4. Now we have Director panels, we also need to have a regimented process for dealing with such matters. The process needs to be mapped out step by step and followed through, including taking advice on the right to question to poll.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg the consequences are deciding by td panel the outcome of a major event. I don't have a problem with that per se. I would be happier if the camera was there, I would be happier if the directors had got as many salient facts correct before 1:00 AM,I would be happier if we didn't call peoples actions into question post mortem as if they are all perfect. And yes I do not know exactly what the implications are. They are the directors never asked and that is no way to decide a national event, Hal and Brian lost 4% off there score on day 3 of a national event, it was pretty major for them too.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Romani ite domum
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brian, Hal swears blind it was no more than 7 seconds, and he is going to his grave believing that, so sorry all of thiscalling a 7 second pause egregious after that auction, shame on you. Have you any notion of exactly how badly he feels.
Not only did the directors panel ignore him they assumed whatever they assumed and did not ask him till after 1.00 am without consulting, and still changed the result of a national event post fact because they couldn't get the job done correctly.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg I do, he is raising serious issues because the technology was not in place to solve them, and the directors were still discussing the bit with the player the next day. Hal swears blind it was no more than 7 seconds. At 1 am when the directors made the initial ruling it had only been assumed that the tray return was the fault of the AD holder, no one had asked him. There are bigger problems here in the process than meet the eye.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No it isn't, its my take on the ability of this specific director as both a player and director. I have more than once disagreed with him and been proved wrong in the fullness of time. If Mack makes a ruling that needs bridge logic to get it right, he is invariably correct.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why we have cameras on BR final, the fact that we didn't means we have no real way of knowing how long it took to pass or how long it took the tray to come back.
All that we have is the pass out seat admitting to a bit of 7 seconds( I happened to play on a team with them and so asked) and the opposition saying it was longer, my guess is it was double what he said and half what they said.
And the director panel polling this to a group of people that know there is a problem, this is one of those that needs to be decided in a committee of top level players, who take into consideration both the law and the poll opinion.
I know all of the directors they are all top notch, probably the best player among them is the table director. Had I been on either side of this one I would have accepted his ruling as a mark of respect for his playing ability.
Dec. 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 90 91 92 93
.

Bottom Home Top