Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joerg Fritsche
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe F-S consulted the german doctors how to use the courts. Their reasoning in those documents reminds me of a lot of things we had to hear and bear in Germany during the last year. Not all of them going public, so in my personal view IBF handles the case from the very beginning much better than DBV. But of course there might be legal issues, which are different in our two countries.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard Pavlicek has done some calculations on that topic for Vanderbilt, Spingold, U.S. Bridge Championship and World Team Championship from 1996 to present.
Fisher - Schwartz are in the list, but only with 237 boards.
The link to the results (and explanation of the method) is here:
http://rpbridge.net/9ya2.htm
And here http://rpbridge.net/9ya1.htm you find a ranked list of the pairs with more than 500 boards.

I myself am (according to the list) not suspicious - my declarer play is quite good, but my leads are horrible.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, I think you made a very good point here. I know very honest players, who seem to need hours for every lead, but they really think on every hand, no matter how obvious the lead seems to lesser mortals. In case of F-S we can see, that very often they don't have a leadproblem at all - card is on the table as fast as lightning. But not here, so every break tells a story.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They call it “The true Story”, but I can't see no story at all on the page.
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great respect to the federation and the team!
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9th of April was an action for an injunction by the doctors, that they are allowed to participate in bridge tournaments until the final decision by the court is made. That was rejected by the Landgericht Cologne.
7th of May was the 1st hearing.
6th of Augist a decision by the court was expected, but not given.
As far as I know, there are also problems to decide, which court is relevant. As there is only one bridge organisation in Germany, it could be a matter of cartel law and then another court would have the jurisdiction. All very confusing for non-lawyers
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They were +0.55 in the qualifying stage, their mates had 0.66 and 0.21. 0.78 of F-S was just for the final 9 matches.
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great Job, Ish. I did it last year with videos of coughing doctors, watching them again and again, making notes, so I really can aprreciate your amount of work here.
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, but then he has to wait for another 8.5 years until they may play with him (unless they win their still pending case in court against WBF and German Federation and come back earlier)
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might look at more boards. I might answer Kit's questions if he starts a survey. But I definitely know, I won't watch their videos - I have seen “Coughing old men” far too often ;)
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I checked those boards in the BBO archive and was speechless for a moment. Speech is back, I wasn't totally convinced before, but now I am.
Thank you all for making it public. For the clean game of bridge we love!
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, they did play for Israel in the 2012 and 2014 European Championships. 2012 they finished 7th, so didn't qualify for the Bermuda. 2014 they won, but are not going to play in Chennai as Mr. Fisher explained in an interview.
And from the discussion of the German Doctors' affair we still remember, that many readers see some responsibility in the Federation, if known rumours exist of a pair not acting properly.
This is to underline Andreas Babsch's arguments, not to give the Israelian Federation responsibility in this case as I haven't a clear opinion on this case. But I had a clear opinion on the doctors' case, as I was involved in the examination.
Aug. 28, 2015
Joerg Fritsche edited this comment Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I was wrong in my memory that we didn't appeal. I had a sitout that match, so was only partially involved. We did appeal and still lost the score. The appeal wasn't published, I found only that in the bulletin:

“The Appeals Committee recognizes that some players are
fascinated by Appeals appearing in the Daily Bulletin. Yet, so
far, no appeals have been published. The reason for this is
that for the past decade, we’ve only published those appeals
that we considered to be of particular interest to the
players at the venue. All the appeals are eventually published,
for the benefit of acting and aspiring directors.
During these Championships, nine appeals have been
heard to date, but none of them were deemed to be of sufficient
immediate interest to players. Presumably, the Captains
have acknowledged that the directors are doing a
great job and have been satisfied with the rulings. The directors
always consult between themselves and top players
before arriving at their decision on all rulings involving
bridge judgement.
Most of the cases that have been presented to the Committee
had one or more exceptional points that warranted
the review of a Committee, either on law or on facts.
These cases will be of significant interest for directors, but
perhaps less so for the public at large.
But here are, in short, some of the cases that have been
presented:
In one case, a player had written Multi on his System
Card. His opponent had only looked at this one word and
concluded that he knew what that meant. When it turned
out that the only weak option contained hearts, the damage
had been done. Even though the System Card compeletely
and correctly explained the meaning of the 2{
opening, the ruling went against the player who bid it, because
the word Multi is reserved for an opening that is
weak in either major, or strong. Players are reminded to
use only the correct international terminology on their
System Card.
In another case, a player, in an attempt to be helpful, had
explained her own bid more precisely than the agreements
that were present. When partner explained it less precisely,
it fell upon the Director and the Appeals Committee to
decide how far the actual agreements went. Players must
realize that they should state their partnership agreements,
rather than attempt to be helpful.
There have been no less than three cases of hesitation
Blackwood (a player continuing to slam after his partner
had asked aces and signed off in five). In two of the cases,
the raise was not accepted, even though there was some
sympathy for it. But in a third case, the raise was so obvious
that the appellants, who questioned the Director’s acceptance,
nearly lost their deposit. There are no absolute
rules in cases like this.
In total, so far, the Appeals Committee confirmed the Director’s
ruling in seven of the nine cases, only mildly
amending the ruling in an eighth.”

They are not an the EBL-page either, there the publishing of appeals was stopped in 2011.
As far as I know, you don't receive a written verdict at these competitions.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My Teammates had a similar case in the European Open Teams 2 years ago. Directors and also reviews at these tournaments normally are very competent, so there might be something in their decision, although i couldn't really accept it at that time.
North doubled 5 by EW, up to then only N, E and W had bid. The tray took some time before it was pushed, South pulled the x and was right with his decision (5=). Director took the result away and set the score to 5x-1. But it wasn't North, who huddled! After the x East asked for a written explanation of the bidding so far, then passed and the tray was pushed. There was even a BBO-Operator who could and did confess that. But still the director ruled that pass was a LA after the BIT and corrected the score. We decided not to appeal…
April 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1st and 2nd x is for takeout. If 1st x was an xx, this still counts as 1x and the 2nd x is still takeout. 3rd x is always penalty. As Yuan said, there are some well-defined exceptions, where 2nd or even 1st x is for penalties.
I have this agreement with regular pard and I like to have it with any new partner to start with a clear agreement.
March 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - 1NT
2 - 3
4 - 4
4 - 5
6
1NT is semiforcing, 2 is 6+, 14+ (Transfer-Gazzilli, 2 opener shows 10-13), 3 is inv+ with values in , 4 is splinter, 4 is cue/last train, 4 shows minimum, 5 cue-bid, maximum
Oct. 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1 is unbalanced and 5+ and x is 4+, then x is support
If 1 is unbalanced and 5+ and x is exactly 4, then it needs discussion, as no 5-3-Fit possible.
If 1 is unbalanced and 4+, it needs discussion, whether support, longer and better or something else.
If 1 can be balanced with 3 or more , then x should focus on (good suit, but hand not good enough for bidding 3 or some lebensohlisch 2nt)
Oct. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The balanced Opener Hand can: pass, bid 2NT, bid 3NT, bid 2 and later 2NT, 3NT. All those show balanced hands. Good for memory! Difference is strength and number of cards/stopper in other Major. Responder's balanced hand shouldn't be a problem.
Details after 1 - 1NT:
2 = 4+, weak or GF
2 = 6+
2 = 4+, invitational
2NT = 17-18 balanced (or whatever range your NT-opener implies)
3new suit = 55, 14-16
3 = 6+, good suit, 15-17
3NT = 19-20 balanced, no 3
2 is everything else (details or continuations if you are interested)
That style focusses on finding a fit in a Major, because there (or in NT) you have the most probable game if you have a game.
Sept. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT can be 04(45), 1444, 14(53), 13(54), 03(55), 12(55).
And yes, I play a Traziilli (=Transfer-Gazzilli) as well.
Sept. 23, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top