Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Roman
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jenni, it's not clear to me that you responded to what I asked you. Certainly I agree that the original polling question shouldn't mention the reason you're being polled (although most can figure it out pretty easily), my question was…AFTER you get the response do you then ask if the BIT changes their answer?
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I'm very disappointed that I was unable to post the article properly, since I have no idea how many people will click on this, see nothing and just leave, never seeing the thread, but what you said just now is exactly where the rubber meets the road. I am not at ALL sure that taking the same action WITH UI as “everybody” would withOUT the UI should entitle the player to take that action.

Does polling include “ok, you double. Now, what if partner tranced over 1nt before passing. Does that change your vote?”
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that your situation is markedly different. You state that your partner made a bid that you WEREN'T SURE whether or not it was forcing, and you judged to pass. I don't see how the BIT affected this at all. It's entirely possible that your partner had a different problem, intended his/her bid to be 100% forcing, and your pass was calamitous for you. If partner breaks tempo and then makes a forcing bid, which you passed (knowing it was forcing) beCAUSE of his tempo…anyway, you see what I mean. This seems totally different to me.
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The point is, let's say that everyone polled did in fact double. They did so because of an internal evaluation of risk vs reward, non-vul at matchpoints. If, however, at my table, over 1nt, my North said out loud “well, I'm passing, but partner, if you have ANY excuse, please balance” (which is what effectively happened at my table), the risk vs reward calculation is out the window. “How can I pass? Partner showed a willingness to compete!”
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I appear to be unable to post an article, so I'll try this instead…

I posted the following bidding poll: All white at matchpoints, you hold QJx, KJ9x, xxx, A10x. Partner passes, 1d on your right, you choose to pass, 1nt on your left, pass - pass back to you, and you? Last I checked there were 17 passers and 1 doubler. Here's why I posted this…

At the table, dealer thought for some 25-30 seconds over my 1nt bid before passing, and the above hand doubled in balancing seat. We all agreed there had been a significant BIT, partner led, and when this dummy came down, we called for a director and said we had a problem with the action taken. The director informed us that a poll would be taken and they'd let us know. At the end of the day, the poll went in such a way that 1nt was restored as the final contract. My concern is that if (some? most? all?) of the people polled had said they would double, this person would've been permitted this double. The problem with that is that even if your years of experience tell you that double is right (the opps are non-vul and in 1nt, generally not good for us…and even if in your current partnership this double would actually be for takeout <which it wouldn't be for me>) the risk of this particular double has been removed (or at least severely mitigated) by the BIT.

If I understand this correctly, and the decision was to be based solely on polling results…we have a problem.
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree. I wish I knew what I did wrong. I pushed a button to review what I had written, then pushed a button to publish it, and then it disappeared.
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Folks, I wasn't able to post an article, so I wrote in the comment section of this post. Please continue downward to see it…
Aug. 5, 2017
Jeff Roman edited this comment Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to the winners!! Great win, you guys!!
July 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats you guys! If we couldn't win it… :)
July 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's true that x'ing 3c is risky, but passing is also risky. For myself, I would x at all forms of scoring and at all vulnerabilities.
July 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The lack of CoC is obviously unacceptable, and I would optimistically assume that will never happen again. As for the venue, District 20 is also geographically vast, and we hold our GNTs on BBO. It's not ideal (volunteer monitors are required, for example), and of COURSE we'd rather play face to face, but we can't ask teams to fly in from Hawaii…and for the most part, it runs smoothly.
May 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had no intention of suggesting that we don't try to learn from the past, it's just that “he was a floor wax!” “no, he was a dessert topping!” doesn't seem to further our agenda in any useful way.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is there so much back and forth in this thread about whether our outgoing CEO was good bad or indifferent? How does it help? To the extent that we spend time discussing the vacancy, the focus needs to be on where we go from here, i.e., what qualifications do we believe the CEO of the ACBL needs in order to be successful. What challenges does s/he face? Are there fires that need to be put out? What should this person's vision be for our organization?
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hugs, tears and condolences to the family for this tragic news. Great player, true gentleman, and so much fun to be with. RIP my friend.
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the finalists for the job the last time (as I understand it) was Bob Levey (of the Washington Post). If he would still take the job, I'd say give him a long look. Loves the game, very bright, solid, down to earth people person…I've long been impressed by him in addition to liking him.
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Don: There should be no rule at all. If I say I have 15-17 balanced, then partner assumes I have that. What I ACTUALLY have is nunnahizdambizness. Psyching, of course, is a different animal, and most strong pairs nowadays defend against 3rd seat 1nt openings as if they're weak, without regard to the stated range. As for proscribed, with the exception of the ill-fated and poorly judged “Bergen Weak 2 Rule”, I was under the impression that the ACBL had gotten out of the business of giving bidding lessons.

@Michael: Full disclosure is the Law Of The Land, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I remember playing against Ish and Boye…Ish opened 1nt and Boye alerted and said “we open 1nt with lots of different shapes that others might not”, but now we have some group telling 2 of the best players in the world, “not on THAT hand you're not” (he was 2272). As for Drewski's OP…I wouldn't open that hand 1nt myself, but I defend to the d…(actually, sorry Drew, I'm not going that far for ya), but they should be allowed to because that was his bridge judgment.
Jan. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the thing that really kills me about this thread is that for years I have preached to my students “there are bazillions of hands we might hold, yet the entire language of bidding in bridge is a mere 38 words. Don't get caught up in rules, rather, try to develop a feel for context” and “sometimes you pick up a hand and realize ”I'm about to tell a lie“. Figuring out WHICH lie to tell is an important (if advanced) skill”. Now it appears I should've been saying “…so study the rules very carefully to figure out which lie(s) you're permitted to tell, and then choose among those.”

Utter crap.
Jan. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps this has already been covered in this thread, but here goes… Is this law legal? Without regard to the relative merit of opening Drew's hand 1nt, and while I understand the ACBL's right as a sponsoring organization to have laws about conventions, do they get to pass laws about natural bids?
Jan. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bart Bramley - “…breaking a lifetime habit…”

My head would explode if I tried to not keep score.
Dec. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, I don't understand. Liability? Who cares about that? The facts are known, the only two players who stand to be “hurt” have made it abundantly clear they want justice done, i.e. for the WBF to officially acknowledge the results actually achieved at the tables. What else is there?
Sept. 23, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top