Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Kehr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To expand on my OP, I guess the question I am asking is this:

If we look at the convicted cheats, they had a lot of success. But there was also widespread suspicion of cheating on the basis of inexplicable successful bids and plays, or surprisingly good leads, or whatever.

But I don’t really know how much “a lot” means here.

Are there many, or indeed any, examples of pairs who have had an equal or greater amount of success but for whom there is little or no suspicion of cheating due to these outlandish plays.

Of course, “amount of success” really means as a proportion of events entered rather than an absolute number of very high placings.

Ie is there a threshold above which pairs who do well that often (in events where they are not expected to completely outclass the opposition), just turn out to be cheats?
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the statement meant that until 1973 they had never lost a pairs event they had entered together. Can anyone confirm which reading is correct?
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But consider something like the English Premier League (football variety). This is over a large number of games but you rarely have a team getting better than evens early in the season, because even the best teams can suffer a number of setbacks.

In a knockout tournament where you have to win 5 matches to win, you have to be a huge favourite in every match to have a 50% chance of winning the whole thing.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think if AKJxx is in dummy, they might fly with the Q in front of dummy. But they won’t if the AKJxx is in hand and partner might, from their point of view, have a stiff honour left.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think, on the contrary, that all hands should be presented. We are, hopefully, not a bunch of bumpkins who can be easily swayed by a silver-tongued defense lawyer; but a group of rational, analytical people who can weigh up evidence more or less accurately.

I note the case of John Bodkin Adams who almost certainly murdered a large number of his patients. The prosecution decided to only concentrate on a couple of the cases, and he was found innocent. I imagine if only a handful of hands were presented, some people would say “they played thousands of hands, and you can only find these few which suggest cheating. I imagine if you searched any expert pairs corpus of hands you could find a few such cases “
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It’s odd. There is, apparently, a wealth of evidence, some of which is more damning on its own, and sone less damning. But instead of looking at the totality, people are arguing that the weakest bits of the evidence prove nothing.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 2NT agrees , then 2NT followed by 4NT is keycard for , and so bridge logic would suggest that the immediate 4NT is something else, presumably straight Blackwood.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You’re making me blush.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or their partner is reading the opponents, and they are reading their partner.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe we need to wait until after David Rex-Taylor dies to see if he leaves a confession that he made the story up.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One has to wonder why a pair would say they play 15-17 and then actually play 14-17, rather than just say they play 14-17.

It can’t possibly be because they’re trying to gain some sort of illegal advantage, can it?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is penalty, but is this hand a penalty double?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner could have just QJ, so effectively nothing.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It’s the fact that partner could have nothing which makes the choice of a penalty double so striking.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe they just realised you couldn't duck
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't know what to do if RHO follows small, how do you know it was the right card to play from dummy in the first place?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't your first point covered by my ‘People who pause “at the wrong time”’?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slow players who waste additional time (writing the score, post morteming etc).

Bad players giving bad advice to new players.

People who pause “at the wrong time” (eg playing a winner from dummy and only thinking about what to discard from hand when it’s their turn, and then repeating the process with the next winner).

“Stupid resulting” eg a pair making 4S + 2 wondering how they could have bid the slam even though they happen to be off two Aces.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get it. I can either double or lie about my hand.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Missing a 26 point slam when the opponents have opened, and the overcaller has a singleton in partner’s best suit is no crime.
Aug. 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
.

Bottom Home Top