Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ira Chorush
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that the ACBL is giving away pigmented points for online bridge, it seems to me that if they want to maintain whatever limited utility these points have in determining the level of skill of players, they need to determine if players accused of using unauthorized information participated in any of these games where such points are awarded. After all, there are players (customers of ACBL) who are desperately seeking those last few points of some pigment or other to become some higher rank.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an example, if you have a flat 11 HCP hand and your partner opens the bidding, you know he has exactly 11 and would be foolish not to respond 1NT, or, with some hand not to pass th opening bid;
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Additionally, when you are on defense, the bots have no signalling system. You are totally on your own. It is true that good players will do better than bad players at this on average, but it still ain't bridge.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is exactly correct. It is not bridge, at least not bridge without the adjective “robot” appended. It is just another wy for the ACBL to sell their master points. Never will they get another dollar from me.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the fact that those who had become life masters did not pay dues. While I would have donated 5 times the fee if asked, I quit paying it for 25 years and will now quit again.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it would be useful to include this because of the enhanced flexibility, especially after
1-1-2 where double showing a spade raise would allow a further invitation via 2NT or 3m after a 2 spade sign-off. It would have the further advantage of doing away with the bulky invitational plus cue bid as well. The cue bid might better be used with hands such as x xx AKQJ10xx Axx
Nov. 29, 2019
Ira Chorush edited this comment Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most people play that a responsive double in this sort of auction shows both minors; that one simply bids the unbid major if one has it rather than doubling. If not, a hand such as xx xxx AQ10x K9xx becomes rather difficult to bid after (1H)-dbl-(2H)-?
Nov. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hate to say this but I think that there are two different meanings for this delayed double and that which one applies depends on whether one is using the (somewhat) popular treatment of 1 over 1 as denying spades but promising values. If using this, then the double of 2 should be penalty. If not using this, then the double of 2 should show 10 or so featureless HCP without 4 spades.
Nov. 28, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is very logical to play 4C here as leaping Michaels and it seems to be becoming more popular. However, even if 3NT is not a natural inclination, it must become one if you are playing 4C as two suited.
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All provisions in law that leave no discretion to the decider of fact will inevitably lead to bizarre miscarriages of justice. Thus, in the real world, the existence of a mandatory minimum sentence for a particular crime leaves a judge little discretion to use his God-given sense. Similarly with three strikes and you're out. The ACBL would presumably have levied the same penalty had Mike arrived at the table early and constructed a hand layout that allowed an unbiddable slam to be made, to his side's advantage
Aug. 20, 2015
Ira Chorush edited this comment Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am out of town and just saw the Monday bulletin. My first reaction was that it was impossible. The “dippy broad” (Mike knows who this is) said there had to be someone else named Mike Passel in the ACBL. Now that I understand what happened, I see a group of bridge administrators who, for their own reasons, decided to make a mockery of their own laws. Keep your chin up Mike. This too, shall pass.
Aug. 18, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top