Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Justin Lall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First google hit for “Bill Gates ACBL donation” was: https://staging.acbl.org/about-acbl/honorary-members/bill-gates/

I mean, that kind of misses the point since even if he never donated money to bridge that's OK IMO but whatever :) It's ok if you disagree with me and I disagree with you on a point, I don't think that is uncivil and I think it's part of the joys of discourse.
Aug. 17
Justin Lall edited this comment Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not buddies with Gates and Buffett, I do not know them. In what way did I talk like I am buddies with them? Everything I said was public record (google?) and well known.

I offered the reasons I disagreed with your post (and that sentiment in general, which permeates throughout every thread here by a few posters). If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post on an internet discussion forum lol. Nothing I said was uncivilized, and yes I will attack your post in a “civil” manner if I think it is wrong, and agree with it just as much if I agree with it. Your post and the concept of why doesnt Bill Gates just pay for it shows entitlement and obliviousness. I do not think make any judgement on you Ai-Tai Lo as a person, in fact I enjoy you quite a bit (though we don't know each other that well obv you seem like a nice guy in our interactions).

I agree with you that holding a world championship in a country, and world championships in general, are a positive thing for the visibility and promotion of bridge. I would love if someone would choose to sponsor it. That doesn't mean Bill Gates should or needs to help financially if they love bridge and it's easy for them. The same could be true of everything he likes, he could pay for everything. He makes the choice to try to eradicate malaria, even though I am a bridge lover and don't have malaria and give billions to other charitable endeavours I'd say that's just ever so slightly more important, and more to the point I would say that is his choice to make.

And he has, as far as I remember (from public record not from knowin Willie personally!), given a significant amount of money to help bridge in schools. That is Nick's point, even if paying the WBF fee to be the host country will promote bridge in USA, there are arguably better ways to spend that money to promote bridge even more in USA.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You must work in a line of work that is not run by a monopoly. It is not surprising that WBF, FIDE, FIFA etc are all completely inept.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty much can't like your post enough Nick.

But it does always make me lol when people ask why doesn't Bill Gates pay for a terrible, inefficient organization to host a bridge tournament in his home country.

Sorry, he's busy spending his time and money trying to cure malaria, has given 30 billion + to charity and started a pledge for the richest people to eventually give their money to charity. When he has given money to bridge it was to fund bridge in US schools. But the answer to every thread where bridge lacks funding is “Why don't Bill Gates and Warren Buffett just pay for it, they're rich!”

The entitlement and sheer obliviousness of that comment about those 2 of all people is just mind blowing.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lol same
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally irrelevant to your great story but I think cue=michaels and with a takeout X you pass then X over a transfer is “expert standard” in USA. Could be wrong tho haha.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's important to clarify what the actual rules are, since Meck and Stacy's hypotheticals are not possible under the actual rules.

1) Meck you aren't actually available for the senior trials since you won the open trials (still hate you for that btw obviously ;)). If one is qualified for the open they are not allowed to play any other trials according to the rules.

2) Even if Meck was not qualified for the bermuda bowl, and Stacy could play the seniors with Meck, and let's say Meck had won the mixed trials, Meck could play the seniors but Stacy could not replace Meck with another cheaper pair after winning the seniors with him since Meck would be forced to play the seniors (it came after the mixed).

3) It is possible if Meck had not won the open trials, Stacy could play the mixed with him, and after he wins, Meck could win the seniors, at which point Stacy could replace him with a cheaper pair. She could not really game the system by planning for this however, because she would have no idea whether Meck would win the senior trials or not so she might be stuck with him :)

(Just for clarification I am just using Meck and Stacy's names as examples to continue this analogy, not implying about them specifically)
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard:

When I was eligible for junior coupons it was pretty well known as an “unwritten rule” that if there was a sponsor on your team/partnership it wasn't cool to ask for the junior coupons (as told to me by the professional junior players who came before me).

When I was not playing pro and eligible then I used them which I suppose was debatable since I was trying to be/was a bridge professional, but I was usually rooming with 3 other juniors or my dad and eating fast food or pizza every day so it wasn't like I was exactly rolling in money and trying to steal from the ACBL.

Likewise at a district/unit level some places offered junior coupons and it was basically made known to me that it applied to everyone but me haha and I was fine with that. It's easier to police at that level since usually only one or two people at most are “junior pros” and they're probably well known in their area, like Adam said about the Grossacks for New England.

So basically it was pretty much like what you suggested.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MBodell, I these rules were in place (nobody got bumped and zero carryover) when meckwell won the blues then all hell broke loose lol.

People just hate the idea (as evidenced by this thread) of someone who didnt play the whole event winning it. I have the same views as Max but I think we gotta respect the strong majority view on this one.

Edit, I was wrong they started out with well below average carryover but not zero, sorrry for my mistake. I don't think it made much of a difference in how people saw it though.
April 19
Justin Lall edited this comment April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is so sad, Sheila was one of my favorite people in the bridge world, she was always upbeat and made everyone around her smile. She offered me great advice as a friend many times… she will be missed.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good for the ACBL. Not that I am a huge fan of the organization lol, but credit where credit is due.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah this is the perfect choice. Congrats CC.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

I am extremely flattered you mentioned my name in the same breath as Bob Hamman, even if it is undeserved haha. I would say he has probably forgotten more about bridge than I even know, and he still knows 10 times as much as me lol. He would be the perfect candidate.

The people I think would be the best from my own experience to teach this class assuming Bob was too busy would be Brad Moss, Geoff Hampson, or Steve Weinstein. Whenever I talk bridge with any of those 3 I always come away feeling like I learned something. Sorry for the US-centric list but obviously I have the most personal experience with top american players.
Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If anyone can explain how the fact that the non offending side was about to have a lucky result relates to UI rulings in a logical way I would love to hear it though. Extra credit for citing the relevant laws.

Even if you would like to explain why that should morally be so I would love to hear it since so many seem to think that that is somehow relevant.
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So there seems to be a common theme here, if you make a mistake and/or are about to be lucky, you cannot call the director when otherwise you should be able to, and if you do you might be trying to “win at all costs” or be doing something morally unsavory. Combined with this thread and the last we have:

Thomas Cupit: “bad bids deserve bad results. guess that is not always the case huh.”

Sathya: “Let’s say there was no UI at all and opponents had led another suit and let 7nt make giving you a top. That happens and most people would accept their good fortune just as they would accept an unfortunate one. I’d be the first to acknowledge that we got lucky at the expense of the pair right behind me but that’d pretty much be the end of the story. But I’d not go out of the way to fight for a result that I clearly didn’t deserve. It’s questionable on so many levels.” …“Sometimes you win by choosing to lose and sometimes you lose when you fight to win at any cost.”

David Hemmer: “EW took a flyer, paid for it, and then lawyered up.”

Michal Czerwonko: “Perhaps I don't have right DNA to be a bridge pro, but if I were a 7NT bidder I wouldn't appeal for fear I'd die from shame”

Simon Weinberger: “ They have to accept their mistake.

Calling the director here seems not like sportmansship to me.”

Andreas Babsch: “If you do something risky and it turns out you were wrong you should accept the outcome.”

Thomas Cupit (again): “some people (maybe many) would rather win at any costs, not just by playing good bridge.
and some of you wonder why many of us dont play these events. i think i can find better
things to do, i really dont care if anyone breaks tempo against me or not.”

What is the common theme of all of these comments? Instead of using any kind of logic they appeal to some sense of fairness, you cant make a bad bid and GAIN, you can't gamble and WIN. Logically taken to the extreme, this means if you have the ace of diamonds and your opps bid 7N in this auction, you are allowed to do whatever you want since your opps gambled and they shouldn't gain from it (no, I don't think the players in question were doing this).

If the opponents said out loud “I HAVE AN ACE AND THEY BID 7N” and then their partner led to their ace, would you guys think this bid was allowed because east made a bad bid or a bad comment? If your opps are about to have a lucky result, do the rules of bridge no longer apply? Because tanking over 7N is the same as verbally saying I have an ace.

All of these emotionally charged arguments are nonsensical, just like a kid saying “BUT ITS NOT FAIR.” Luck is a part of bridge, and the rules of the game still always apply despite how one might feel about that.

What are the rules? Well, the process has been outlined in great detail for UI cases: 1) was there UI, 2) does it suggest something, 3) Are there any logical alternatives.

1) Apparently the facts were that there was a break in tempo
2) Obviously (??????) to people at this or any level thinking for a minute over 7N suggests having an ace. That ace is going to be diamonds.
3) Well, combined with Joes comment some people think a diamond lead is auto (Joe basically said: I do not have the diamond ace). To me, my partner also has denied the diamond ace by failing to double. So my partner and my RHO have both said “I DONT HAVE THE DIAMOND ace), so I guess it is with LHO who bid blackwood. Maybe he made a bad or lazy bid to not bid 5N but I trust my partner to double seven no trump with an ace. Maybe with no UI I can say LHO is bobby levin so maybe my partner messed up (Dale says its hard to believe not leading a diamond after the comment, to me it is hard to fathom playing partner for the ACE of diamonds against SEVEN NT but YMMV). As the offending side you don't get that luxury though, and the infraction was *not* the comment, it was the BIT over 7N. That clearly suggests it was partner who has the DA.

But we can debate this as much as we want. Hence why we have polls. Some people led a diamond and some didn't, and all thought a diamond was suggested. So a diamond wasn't allowed. The directors and the players followed the process of the laws of bridge. This is not ”win at all costs" or some technicality, the opponents took an action suggested by their unauthorized information and the director was called. No one has a problem with this when you get to the right contract, or aren't going to be lucky, but somehow when it is 7N off the AK of diamonds and the opp is on lead with KJxxx and a guy with an ace doesn't double, it is bad sportsmanship, and how can these guys try to win like this? That makes absolutely no sense everyone. If luck being part of the game dissatisfies you maybe take up chess or go, but to me playing partner for an ace when they tank and pass 7N should not be part of the game (and again, FWIW I don't think anyone was trying to consciously do anything wrong, and I'm sure south led a diamond because of the comment but if our partner quickly passed 7N without a care in the world I doubt anyone is leading a diamond thinking he might have the only ace he could possibly have and not double 7D).

Also FWIW I was one of the people polled (obv didn't know who the hand was from, I was in a regional knockout so didn't even know the hand which presumably is why I was polled. I was given the hand with the comment and said I would not lead a diamond since partner did not X).
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, Fred Gitelman created BBO!
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Getting sick of congratulating you guys, let some other people win sometimes for the good of bridge ;). Haha, well done boys, congrats!
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haha thanks guys, as you know max Debbie is the greatest!

ETA: if I have to be 4th by a quarter of a board it’s not too shabby that my friends were first second and third! Congrats everyone especially grainger and greg.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The great thing about Marion's post is this will only work if we come together as a community and decide this is what we need to do. If only one or two people did it and no one else did they would be disadvantaged in the event of a forfeit, potentially disciplined/thrown out of the event, and perhaps if they are professionals lose their job. If a majority or large minority of the community does this then we share the burdens/risks involved, and we maximize our chance of effecting some kind of actual change, or at the very least just not having a farcical competition.

#saynotocheats
Sept. 21, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top