Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Giorgio Casinovi
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the 2017 Bridge World Standard, sec. I:

After a one-level new-suit response: responder's rebid of four of opener's minor is:
(a) a splinter after opener's simple new-suit rebid;
(b) natural and forcing after opener's simple or jump same-suit rebid.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As someone who's currently trying to master 2-way checkback, I completely agree with Craig's statement: the devil is in the details. To me, one important point that the partnership must be clear about is the length of responder's major suit in the invitational sequences. Specifically, if the bidding goes 1m-1M-1NT-2-2-2NT, responder is only promising 4 cards in his major suit (I am assuming that 1m-1M-1NT-2NT would be a relay to 3). Do all other sequences that start with 1m-1M-1NT-2 ALWAYS guarantee a minimun of 5 cards in responder's first-bid major suit?
Sept. 29
Giorgio Casinovi edited this comment Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may also want to look at these other two BW articles for a range of opinions on this topic:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/opening-1d-with-5clubs-and-4diamonds-2-os6gg5iqrz/
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/rebid-problem-2-v0bmg0txer/
As indicated in the earlier comments, the choice of the opening bid depends to a large extent on how opener is planning to handle a 1/ response by partner.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but if that was North's intention, she should have realized that the 9 had very little chance of holding the trick, that she would almost certainly face a heart continuation, and therefore would have to use her last two trumps to come back to her hand and take the second finesse. Perhaps she got cold feet in the middle of her intended line of play?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pardon me for asking what is probably a stupid question, but what's the reason for North's play of the 9 instead of the Q at trick 8?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 2019 Collegiate Bridgebowl starts on Thursday and this year it includes both teams and pairs championships. Participants are fourteen teams plus several additional pairs from over a dozen colleges and universities, as shown in https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1aqXbRZLIM_Eo-DI0yMoT0JlWxNh6e5uG&ll=40.923852485710455%2C-89.23906195781251&z=4&fbclid=IwAR0dgr4l3FxyvvAsv2p4NjG7zXgpJ1nRxq4p3CfXksAhn7RRw1Qd5ZqkBcs">this map, courtesy of Stephanie Threlkeld and Lori Simpson Pope. A complete schedule of Bridgebowl events can be found http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/marketing/2019_BridgeBowl_Flier.pdf">here. It is anticipated that some of the Bridgebowl team matches will be broadcast on Vugraph; please check the Vugraph schedule for details.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't mind my asking, who are your alma maters? Just curious if it may be possible to jump start bridge programs there …
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I read that the towers have been spared, but the spire collapsed, at least partially.
April 15
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.
The tournament will be played tomorrow (Sunday). Stephanie may not get to release the official results until Monday or Tuesday.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I believe that finding ways to help existing college bridge clubs stay alive should be given serious and urgent consideration. Unfortunately, I don't think that there are easy or cheap solutions to that problem.

If it is any consolation, one of the former UNC players is now playing on one of the Georgia Tech teams :-)
April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For additional opinions and comments on this topic, you may want to look also at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/two-level-responses-after-to-double-by-rho/">this article.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair, there are other valid reasons, completely unrelated to IOC affiliation, that may have prompted international bodies like the WBF or EBL to voluntarily accept CAS jurisdiction. Jan Kamras (the current EBL President) mentioned some in a https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/do-what-is-possible-not-what-is-easy/?cj=716560#c716560">comment he posted a while ago on BW. I'm reproducing an excerpt of his comment here.

Let's first discuss appeals and CAS, a subject where there exists a lot of misconceptions. Confession: Earlier I was of the same opinion as most pundits here on BW, i.e. that if the price for membership in the “Olympic family” is that convicted (by us) cheaters can appeal to CAS, the price is too high. I might still feel that way if leaving the IOC would solve the problem of appeals to non-bridge courts, but I have been told by legal expertise that it wouldn't. Apparently there is such a thing as “natural” universal laws that stipulate that one always must have the right of appeal somewhere, and if CAS is out appellants can have their case heard by a civil court (probably in Switzerland). Does anyone really think that we have better chances there? Look at what happened in Germany.

Of course, similar considerations apply to the WBF. Mr. Kamras' point is a valid one, I believe, and while that doesn't mean that one should passively accept the status quo, it does show that simply demanding that the WBF or EBL get out of CAS jurisdiction, without indicating a viable alternative, isn't going to get a receptive ear by WBF/EBL management (and justly so, I believe).

Ms. Manfield asks, Where do we go from here? According to Mr. Kamras, the WBF and EBL are trying to limit the range of issues the CAS can rule upon, which looks like a sensible approach to me. Ideally, one would like to limit CAS jurisdiction purely to matters of law (i.e. to prevent the CAS from performing an independent review of the factual evidence in a case), but I'm not sure if this is actually possible. What I'm certain of is that this is a complex issue which, unlike what some posters seem to think, requires a complex solution.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve Moese writes a reply to my comment ending with:

Both Don and I found references using Google or searching a website. Giorgio can too. Do the work.

First of all, the burden of proof for statements that are not self-evident generally falls on the person(s) who make(s) those statements, not on the readers.

Second, the references quoted above by Mr. Mamula do not answer my question, which I thought was very simple and quite clear. At most, those quotes outline certain requirements that national and international bridge organizations must meet for membership in the WBF; they state or imply nothing about the requirements for membership in the IOC, which was the issue I raised, and the one that Mr. Moese and others have complained about, in this and in previous posts, on a regular basis.

Third, I did do my own research, and this is what I found out: my suspicion that the endless garment rending about the evils of IOC membership did not have a factual basis was indeed correct. It appears that IOC membership imposes very few, if any, constraints upon the disciplinary powers of member organizations (I'll post the details in a separate article). So, far from being patronizing, my question turned out to be spot on: statements such as “ Cheats have escaped due to IOC affiliation” are factually incorrect, and the regularly posted tirades against the threat that IOC membership poses to bridge are nothing but charges against windmills. In other words, the authors of such tirades do not contribute to a serious discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of membership in the Olympic movement; instead, they impede it by resorting to one of the favorite tools in many politicians' arsenal: sheer demagoguery.
March 3
Giorgio Casinovi edited this comment March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, an authoritative statement does not necessarily mean a “statement made by a person of authority.” It could be, for example, a reference to IOC rules or statutes that spell out conditions for membership.

More to the point, it seems to me that if one wants to have a serious discussion about this (or any other) issue, the first thing to do is to have a clear understanding of the factual basis of the issue being discussed. If, on the other hand, all one is interested in is grandstanding, then of course facts don't matter.
March 2
Giorgio Casinovi edited this comment March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seriously. I did not ask for examples where our authority over discipline has been “usurped by IOC affiliation” (whatever that's supposed to mean). I asked for an authoritative statement as to the exact extent to which national and international bridge organization must relinquish their authority over disciplinary rules as a condition for IOC affiliation. Those are two different questions.
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David's OP begs another related question. We read regular complaints here on BW about having to sacrifice control over discipline as a price for IOC affiliation. Can anyone here provide an authoritative statement as to the exact extent to which national and international bridge organization must relinquish their authority over disciplinary rules as a condition for IOC affiliation? I cannot, and I suspect that most BW posters can't, either.
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MK: Actually I'm curious, does Kantar's 1975 book recommend leading Q from KQ tight?
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, it has been available for a few months: https://www.tugg.com/titles/double-dummy
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, perhaps it may be a good idea for you to contact the officers of other student clubs that have been officially recognized by NEU recently, and ask them how they answered the questions on their application forms. Obviously, some of their answers may not be directly applicable to a bridge club, but they may still give you a general roadmap to putting together a successful application.

I don't think you should mention issues such as the steep learning curve of bridge in your application. Obviously that's a problem you will have to address to retain new members, but I see no need to do so in the application. Instead, I would emphasize the social aspect of bridge, which is the most likely element to keep a bridge club (and many other student clubs) alive.
Oct. 29, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top