Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I tell you that I had something of interest in hearts, but you have a better lead (in your opinion) then whether or not you lead the suit I signaled for, you have still obtained that information. That is information that will surely be of value later in the defense. And it is information that is not provided to your opponents, nor was it transmitted legally.

I can just see if F-S were NOT ousted after all of this. Their convention card would now also have a spot to mark for board placement signals, as well as cough signals and sweater tug signals. Would these all be pre-alerts?
Nov. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I agree with many of the points made, the 3♡ bid is something that is nice to see discussed. I know of many (beyond mere novices) who would at least consider 3♡ there. Comments like this help to make his development of the hand accessible to a wider range of readers, surely a good thing. A spare sentence or two is of little cost, since you can gloss over it if you consider the point to be obvious.

As well, remember that every bridge player is at a different stage of advancement. There are some who would be considered expert at play of the hand, yet their bidding is less than sophisticated. Those individuals might gain from that comment.
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A nice hand. And a little paranoia is a good thing in bridge. After all, this is one place where at least two of the three others at the table really are always out to get you.
Nov. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nobody said to do anything that was illegal. Make your bids smoothly.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aw, this was going to be my response. I want to (smoothly) contrive an auction where they “know” I've miscounted our aces, then I go to 7H. They will avoid the sacrifice because I should not bid Blackwood with a void, to say nothing of two voids.

Why sacrifice when they expect you are going down? In fact, you want them to drive it home with a final double when they expect you are stuck in 7H with no place to escape.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it was a penalty card, she TRIED to play it before the last trick. I'm not sure she should get a beer for that. Or maybe she can have the beer, but before she drinks it, she needs to give it away to someone else at the table.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, which level of bridge hell is that? Let me guess, stuck in an infinite game of bridge, where your opponents know your signals, but they use their own system of illegal signals, to which you are not privy?
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric - You spoke out, because you must be tired about this, but he is just trying to put the right spin on the matter. Wheely, he is. :)
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roberto has absolutely no need to look at the evidence. They are such good bridge players, why would they cheat, so they must not be cheating! This is irrefutable logic.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do agree, that it is in purely in fun to lead towards the AK tight, and tell partner to take the finesse, or to play to a stiff ace and tell him to play low. After all, bridge IS a game. If you cannot have fun playing it, then why play?

A problem arises when for example, long ago I led towards xx in dummy, and told dummy to ruff. This confused RHO, who thought I had really ruffed. (That RHO was one of the most experienced players in the room, and should have known better is only partially relevant.)

Yes, it was completely the fault of RHO. But my comment allowed him to fall asleep, and was inappropriate. When RHO did not try to win the trick, we corrected it. But even so, a comment like that can cause problems.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is silly. Clearly the world is flat. Look on any map. Flat. Case closed.

Well usually, the world is actually poorly folded, and stuffed willy nilly into my glove compartment.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note: I will no longer play in any games that this director plays in himself when he is also directing.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar to what happened to us one day, in a club team game. (This is NOT intended to hijack your thread, but to give another example of a hand that still burns me up, even after almost two years.)

LHO opens 2D, alerted as flannery. RHO bids 2H, clearly to play. Now, LHO tanks, and then bids 2S. RHO passes.

RHO (the club director) had

xx
9xxx
xx
AKxxx

Without the long hesitation to wake him up, 2S is clearly a game try, so a max and asking partner to go on despite his original assessment. This is a great hand for play in hearts, on a presumed 9 card fit. Why one would choose to play in a 6 card fit is unknowable, UNLESS they changed their mind about what partner had.

LHO held this hand.

Jxx
x
AQ108xx
xxx

Admittedly, we mis-defended (I don't recall the table result, but it seems irrelevant.) Of course, based on the alert, our expectations of what declarer held were a bit off.

No comment about the mis-alert was ever made until after we figured out what they had done and complained. Worse, the only people in the room who had ever directed a game in their lives were playing on one of our two teams.

Director just shrugged it off - result stands. Of course, had this happened at another table, the offending pair would not have gotten off so easily.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This happens all the time. For example, you have a suit in dummy, and you know that RHO has the cover card. You would like your opponent to not cover. Or, you know that RHO is out, and you don't wish to see a ruff. So you lead a low one. You know that it is the equal of a high one, but allows your opponent to stay in that catatonic state. If you do want a cover or a ruff, then you call for a high one. High cards, obvious winners, get sloppy covers by sleepy opponents.

This is just psychology. It is perfectly legal and ethical, as long as you do not intentionally use a different tone of voice or vary your tempo to induce them to stay catatonic or induce an action. To vary your tone of voice to induce a specific action is verging into minor league coffee housing. You probably would never be called out for it, but why go in that direction?
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure where I saw this line, but it applies: The road to hell is paved with the souls of those who drew trumps too soon, OR too late.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom's desire for a control group is (I think) wrong, and just creating a point of confusion.

Should Kit have done the same exhaustive analysis on another pair? The only way a control group makes sense in this context would be to pick many other random pairs who are not accused. Then see if they do the same hijinks with their boards. Of course, this would be a waste of hundreds of hours of time, since most pairs do not habitually place the board in various spots on the table. Most pairs do not fight to put the board down in a certain spot, even when they are sitting E-W.

But, suppose you can indeed find a pair that places the board in various spots on the table, as FS certainly do, and you have hours of video of them playing. Then you must look at their actual hands, and see if they correlate with the board placement. If by some chance you DID find some other pair who does similar things with their boards, AND that placement is strongly consistent with their hands, then they are just as certainly cheating too.

However, if you find no signal for those other pairs (as expected here) then my guess is that Tom will simply say that not enough other pairs were investigated, or that the wrong pairs were chosen. Nothing will be proven by such a control group in the end.

At most, some video of other pairs (chosen randomly) showing that their board placement is far less variable than is that of FS would be additional evidence against FS.

The point is, FS place the board in specific distinct spots on the table. If those board placements were random, then there would be no correlation with their actual hands. The massive consistency with their hands is what gives them away as cheating. Asking for a control group here is just blowing smoke.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well said!
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is, what if someone comes along that is not yet well known, yet is good enough to play in that field? For example, we played in a Rosenblum teams a few years ago. Nobody would know who we were, yet we did reasonably well for a team of unknowns.

Worse, what happens if you personally want to exclude someone? Did someone make your enemies list? No problem. Just start up a quiet little rumor about them. Make sure that enough people hear it so that the person gets blacklisted. Who cares if your rumor is true? Who cares if your reason for this had nothing to do with bridge?

Please don't make bridge into an elitist society, where one needs to make sufficient friends in that society that you can get voted in.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Rosenblum teams is open entry too.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is NOT a case of her understanding versus yours. It is the implication that together, you have a shared understanding that makes you liable.
Nov. 8, 2015
John D'Errico edited this comment Nov. 8, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top