Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Barry Margolin flagged by the community as containing references to contemporary non-bridge-related politics, and removed. Please do not bring up non-bridge politics on our website; there are plenty of other sites where you can do so.
July 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article is not an article but a bidding problem, and will be removed. Please repost as a bidding problem.
July 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There have been a couple flags on this article and thread due to the political nature of the subject, but this is not completely divorced from bridge as it is relevant to the bridge decision recently made. We don't allow purely political discussions because nobody ever changed their political stances via an internet commentary, but we also don't want to block people from discussing matters that are relevant to bridge. As such please flag if you think it's going over the line, and if it gets too heated the thread will be closed.
July 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ralph -

Thanks for being in the Well and congratulations on your upcoming honor! Those are strong opinions you have about baseball. Are you more interested in the physical or mental side of the sport, and have you ever thought about trying to become an analyst or GM? And bridge-wise, do you have any favorite treatment or convention, or one that you absolutely cannot stand?
July 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Removing at request of author.
July 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Article flagged by the community as Spam : a topic with no relevance to bridge. It has been removed.
July 4, 2018
Eugene Hung edited this comment July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - Not all non-vulnerable accept/reject situations are equal. If the choice is between 3M and 4M or 2N and 3N and that you will either make or go down 1 undoubled, then yes, the IMP odds are only 6:5 in favor of bidding game, breaking even when game is 45%. But when the choice is between 3m (making 3 or 4) and 3NT, the IMP odds are 7:4 in favor of bidding game, breaking even when game is 36%, because a minor-suit partial is not worth as much. This is a better break-even point than the 3M/4M or 2N/3N decision vulnerable (10:6, breaking even when game is 37.5%). (Sometimes 3m makes 5 and then the odds are 6:4, but that's still a breakeven rate of 40%.) So accepting over a white 3m ought to be treated similarly to accepting over a red 2N/3M, and in a vacuum with no UI, South should be aggressively accepting here.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After receiving flags from the community, I have moved the article to the partnership desk where it should be. Thanks to everyone who alerted me to this.
July 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Article flagged as a bidding poll and removed. Please observe the rules of our site. All bidding polls posted as general polls will be removed.
June 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After further discussion with a majority of BW admins, we have decided to pull the article with all of its attendant comments, because it's actively hurting our efforts to provide a politics-free zone for bridge discussion. Thanks to everyone for helping us achieve this goal.
June 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All right guys, I hear you. As the person who edited this article, I had no idea Objectivism was so political in nature. I saw it as a fringe philosophy (not a religion) that a few top bridge players espoused.

In any case, I have contacted the author, John McAllister. He did not believe me when I told him that his presentation of Objectivism was such a hot-button issue, so I'm leaving your comments up despite the political references so that he can appreciate them when he reads this. In the meantime, I have removed the references to Objectivism so that the overall point of the article, the advertisement of his podcast, can remain. I want to see no further discussion of the political topics you brought up in this thread.
June 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good catch, that was introduced by me when transcribing the hand to use Bridge Winners formatting. Fixed.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by David Libchaber flagged by the community as being too far afield from the original article and removed. Even though the article is responsible for a political discussion, it does not give people license to speak on whatever political aspects they like. As a bridge site, Bridge Winners does not encourage non-bridge political discussions on our site; please take them to one of the many other sites available for that purpose.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Removing this article as we're about to feature a new one with a working link.
June 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have removed the duplicate and will be removing this article as it has been flagged many times by the community as a bidding problem, not an article.

If you do wish to post something regarding the hand later, you can put it in the comments of the poll, or as an article if it's long enough (more than a paragraph) to be an interesting article. Please provide a link to the poll in the latter case.
June 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Ray Yuenger flagged by the community as “inappropriate” and “demeaning” and it has been removed. Please try to say things nicely or kindly – not everyone has been reading Bridge Winners for years.
June 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by David Caprera flagged by the community as offensive and removed. If you want to see something removed, the best way to get my attention is to flag it. If enough people agree, it will be removed.
June 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John Blubaugh has been temporarily suspended from posting on our site for continuing to post unsubstantiated personal attacks. We don't mind a debate over ACBL board policies; we do mind if one lets one's personal grudges dictate their argument. If you can't make an argument without an ad hominem attack, we don't want you posting here.
June 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - Then you have a problem with one specific member and not the “board” in general. And for what it's worth, enough reasonable people disagree with your characterization of these actions or that person would already be facing formal charges.

Now, you have a right to see these actions as corrupt, but you don't have the right to tar other people by association. And if you want to convince people to your way of thought, you probably shouldn't be making unsubstantiated personal attacks even if we didn't have a site policy, because anyone who disagrees with you on your interpretation of their actions will then find the rest of your argument less credible. But ultimately, our site policy is clear. Attack the argument, not the person. Understand?
June 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by John Blubaugh flagged as offensive, and containing unverified personal attacks. The comment has been removed. In general, it's okay to attack the policies of people you disagree with. It is NOT okay to personally attack the people themselves, especially when such attacks have no factual basis.
June 14, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top