Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ira Chorush
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Glenn was a good local bridge player in Houston. He served 15 years in federal prison and was paroled in 1999, when he returned to Houston. He died in 2007. He was not a friend of mine but was more than an acquaintance.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have not specified (or I have missed) the condition of whether we are playing IMPs or matchpoints. At matchpoints, there could be a considerable premium to playing in hearts At matchpoints, I would bid 3 hearts which I consider virtually forcing, inasmuch as 2 hearts would be very strong. At IMPS, I would bid 4 spades (hopefully showing a void with a raise to 5 diamonds.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was his teammate for our 1981 Grand National Teams win and our 1987 Men's Teams win (the last one, now the Open Teams). George was a wonderful person and a great teammate. He shall be missed.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with both of Michael's points. It is not sufficient that a committee be unanimous as to the outcome; it should also be united with respect to the “frivolity” of the appeal.
If penalties for frivolous appeals are agreed upon, they should never be imp penalties.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With respect to the last paragraph of your post, I would suggest that one might not have time to prepare a written statement if a committee were convened immediately after play concludes for the day, as is likely when everyone involved typically wants to go out for a meal. In a 90 board match, a match can have concluded at the lunch break and if the appeal would decide further continuation in the event, again there might be no good way for there to be sufficient time to prepare a written statement. I am unsure how to deal with situations such as these..I certainly think your comments are excellent but I am challenged
by these situations.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion, if a Team is no longer eligible to represent the US, then the 2nd place finisher in the Trials should be selected to represent the US. I think the conditions you lay out are very reasonable for when a Team has withdrawal(s)
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted on the lower numbers but did not comment. My comment was intended to apply to 13+. Suppose 13-16, I would hold RR1 of 2 days to reduce to 8. The remaining teams would play RR 2 of 1 1/2 days to reduce to 4 teams. These 4 teams would join the 4 losers from the round of 8 etc. Depending on preferences, we could use knockout or round robin to select reduce the USA2 field to 2 or 4, who would be joined by the losing semifinalists
of USA1. We have argued the choices before about whether to have 3 quarterfinalists in USA2 to be joined by the loser of USA1 or perhaps 1 team emerging from USA2 to play the loser of USA1 final (which is my preference for both fairness and keeping the duration of the tournament within reason, but I have been consistently outvoted.
July 1, 2018
Ira Chorush edited this comment July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 day RR to reduce to 4 (or 8) teams if entry is large enough to require. 2nd 2 day round robin to reduce to the number of teams eligible fo USA2 which will “fill out” the tournament. Any remaining losers of RR2 are eliminated.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arrangements with the hotel for a (very) late check out will need to be made since play would end about 2:45.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With respect to 8 in Peter's post above, there should be no option in whether the opening lead is face up or face since if at player's option. information can be transmitted. Additionally, once specified as face up or face down, it should be specified that the card will be vertically oriented.
Feb. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The original reason given for the desire to avoid overtime play was a desire to not impact the schedule when the overtime would affect the start of other matches and the desire not to send the declared winner into the next round with the handicap of having played more boards, often at an at an inconvenient time.

When we have USA1 and USA2, the final of USA1 is NOT a final match in the sense that the loser is still in the hunt to be one of our international teams. Also, a delay in this match has the same inconveniences as a tie in one of the earlier matches. So I would say that overtime need not be played between finalists in USA1 who tie

I propose that we define “final match” as the truly final match of the tournament; i.e. all the players and directors will go home following the conclusion of this match, and that only matches defined as final matches in this way will play overtimes
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would favor any reasonable method of breaking ties EXCEPT when we are selecting only 1 team and the match that is tied is the final, or when we are selecting 2 teams and the match for USA2 is tied.
Oct. 7, 2017
Ira Chorush edited this comment Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it be impolitic to note that all those who voted for 120 board matches are professional players and all those whose vote is shown for 90 board matches are not professionals. Chris didn't vote but his sentiments would lie with the amateurs.
May 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would point to the recently completed USBF Seniors where (IMO) of the teams I rated in the top 3, 2 succeeded and the other lost (twice) in the finals. Again, IMO, we got what we wanted: the best possible representatives for the world championship.
May 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, and for the same reason. If, for example, the coughing doctors only gave a legitimate signal after clicking their ball point pens, they could cough on many hands to disguise the hands on which a signal was being given. They could click their pen but not cough, which would also be no signal. This is simplistic but would increase the difficulty of decoding. There are more complex ways that I will not speak of here but that I would believe would be virtually immune to video evidence. If I am correct, only a statistical approach would reveal low probability of (successful) events, and could not, per se, prove it.
Sept. 16, 2015
Ira Chorush edited this comment Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gavin, I apologize if this has already been discussed in this thread. Do you use 2S/1NT with some 15-17 HCP hands (assuming 14+-17 NT opening) or does 1NT-2S-(2NT or 3C)-4NT have a different meaning? I like to have the understanding that if you go through the relay you have a 5 card club suit that needs some help in a 5-3-3-2 and about 16 HCP, whereas if you bid 4NT directly over 1NT you have some 4-3-3-3. I also make 3D after the response to 2S do triple duty; as you play it but also a 5 card diamond suit that needs some help which is shown by 4NT after the relay.
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, as long as both members of a partnership are able to be physically present at the same table while play proceeds, cheating will continue to occur. Wise cheaters would use a 2 step process; 1st, an indicator to show whether or not a signal will be forthcoming and 2nd, the signal itself if the indicator indicated one was coming. This kind of 2 step process would be much harder to break, and it would confine cheaters to exercise discretion as to when the information was highly relevant, but it would not eliminate cheaters or cheating.

Despite the antipathy of a lot of posters to electronic play, I think that it is a necessity and the only proactive method guaranteed to work. Yes, there are now tiny electronic transmitters but it is my understanding that there are also instruments which can detect that a transmission is occurring. Maybe under those conditions there is still a way to cheat but I can't see it.
Sept. 16, 2015
Ira Chorush edited this comment Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just so I can be clear, Kit, when you mention suits of requested shift, are you basing the suit requested on video evidence where you are relying on a code having been broken, or is the suit requested simply the suit partner would have requested if he had a way to communicate with the player about to make the shift?
Sept. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My concern is when( not if) the ACBL is sued for depriving a player of a right to make a living that its defense that “we were only honoring the outcome of the IDF hearing” will not prove adequate with an American court. A pervious cheating case was dropped by the ACBL because its lawyers were worried about losing on this issue. I do not see how continuing to have a hodgepodge of NBO's deal with this issue in their own ways accomplishes anything more than we have now.
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not optimistic about any meaningful reform by the NBO's in resolving cases involving suspected cheaters. Keep in mind that with respect to the F/S matter the IBF, WBF, EBL, and ACBL are, at a minimum, all involved with providing a fair opportunity for F/S to defend themselves, and with deciding upon possible penalties in the event that F/S fail to do so.
Also, keep in mind that F/S are professional bridge players who make their living playing bridge. Therefore, a decision to suspend them is not simply a decision to not allow them to enjoy a pastime but a threat to their very ability to support themselves. As such, the standard of proof must be irrefutable.

Which bridge organization (f any) shall take the lead in the F/S affair? Shall we have several different “trials” going on in several different venues which may produce similar (but not identical) verdicts and penalties. In what way shall each bridge organization honor the findings of other bridge organizations which may have conducted their own “trials”? If, for example, the IBF conducts hearings can the ACBL decide to honor the results of these hearings and perhaps suspend F/S from playing for a period of time or for life or with each other? Certainly the ACBL will be open to a legal case alleging that F/S have illegally been deprived of their ability to work.

As a solution (and I am not a lawyer) I think that “organized bridge” if I may refer to NBO's
in that way should choose one organization (for 'arguments" sake let us say the WBF), fund it, let it establish rigorous standards for examining allegations of cheating, have every pair agree when it enters an event under the jurisdiction of the WBF that it consents to any finding that may be made with respect to allegations of cheating and will not contest any penalties imposed as a result of those allegations.

For cheating that occurs at lower levels, we can continue (or not) to use the ineffective
recorder system now in effect for the ACBL and we can continue to let the ACBL handle allegations of cheating that occur in local events in the current manner (which is mostly not at all)
Sept. 7, 2015
Ira Chorush edited this comment Sept. 7, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top