Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jon Cooke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't have the right to impose your preference on everyone else. You shouldn't mandate that any hands which are cold for game in hand and close to slam opposite a couple of right cards be opened at the one level and risk being passed out: it's something we teach complete beginners not to do. I bet every individual on the committee could be persuaded of this, but collectively they've come up with something ridiculous. (And I hold many of them in high regard, by the way)
17 minutes ago
Jon Cooke edited this comment 14 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JP, correct me if I'm wrong:
You are saying that I shouldn't be allowed to open 2C with the agreement “23-24 or FG” on AKQxxxx KQJxxx because my opponents pay table money, and this would be an act of browbeating them?
29 minutes ago
Jon Cooke edited this comment 26 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you saying the regulation doesn't apply to FG or 23-24 2C openers, RF?
43 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Opening 2
This is the strongest bid in the Acol system, showing 23+ HCP or a game
forcing hand. See Section 2.8 for actions after 2 with unbalanced hands.”

That's straight out of the EBU beginners system file. It's now an illegal agreement unless the FG hand has 5 controls or 16hcp . RF implies this is a deliberate decision rather than an oversight. I don't understand.
13 hours ago
Jon Cooke edited this comment 13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclosure is a separate issue. My problem is the EBU have banned 2C as “FG or 23-24 BAL.”
It's not right to mandate that some hands which are cold for slam in hand can't be opened 2C by agreement.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok. So the L and E have mandated a 12 trick hand be opened at the 1 level unless playing Acol 2s. I think that is silly.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, that singleton Jack is critical.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you weren't playing 4N specific ace ask, what would you open this?
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What the regulation is aimed at is irrelevant. It makes the agreement 2C is FG or 23-24 BAL illegal unless we agree to have 5 controls or 16 points.
By the way, how can you have 5 controls and not have 12 points? Bit of redundancy there?
15 hours ago
Jon Cooke edited this comment 15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not let players use their own judgement about what they want to force game on, rather than having an arbitrary regulation? If the opening side isn't allowed to pass out the opponents undoubled, and they open on preempts, they've created their own jeopardy of a bad score.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the definition of strong isn't inclusive of hands that are routine 2C openers.
Like AKQxxxx KQJxxx - -. The point I'm making is that standard practise which suggests 2C as 23-24 or FG isn't covered by that definition of strong.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely a 2C opener which says we can't defend anything undoubled should be legal?
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Generally, I agree 2C is “FG or 23-24 BAL” with kokish with most partners. Richard Fleet, what you are saying is that this has become an illegal agreement under the new Laws. Isn't that ridiculous, since it's what virtually everyone plays?
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then again, I can “psyche” a strong 2C on AKQTxxx KQJTxx so that's OK.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the EBU can't afford to send the teams, then there are ways of raising money. Its an admission of defeat to pretend there is no way to increase the pool of funds, if that is required, in order to send the teams.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's ways of raising money. With a bit of creativity and imagination, the Junior teams' record European Championship performance could be used to stimulate interest in the game. Just deciding not to fund the teams is an admission of defeat.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass denies shortage. X singleton spade, fair hand, 3C doesn't want to defend, min. Now partner can judge to X for pens knowing you have at least two trumps.
Aug. 11
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Talking to people at my local club, there's an intimidation factor. A belief that if you go and play you'll be outclassed. I ran a coaching session on hand evaluation and had 50 people turn up. It seems to me that a targeted coaching campaign aimed at providing material for club players who might become tournament players with a bit more confidence would be a worthwhile program.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the current legal position is that he kind of cheated but didn't do it dishonestly. That's broadly what the Supreme Court are now looking at. I'm not clear why you want to ridicule my point by mis-characterising it the way you did. Cheating is breaking a set of rules. The gambling act, 2005, section 42 defines it in such a ridiculous way that the judge in the original case couldn't use its wording - it seems to have been left vague deliberately.

—–
Section 42 Cheating

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or
(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.
——-
Note the “may” rendering this definition open to interpretation.
To decide whether something is cheating you need to know the rules. My point is that the rules are unwritten but there is a difference between an “honest hustle” - which almost all the gamblers I've spoken to think Ivey pulled off (nearly), and, for example your idea that someone might achieve the same effect by bribing the card manufacturers. Of course this “code”, if you like, is why the law used to leave well alone,
July 18
Jon Cooke edited this comment July 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
.

Bottom Home Top