Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Fleisher
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An issue with this request for comments is that it is presented to a biased population. I suspect most of the people that enjoy the bridgewinners site would be comfortable and happy with the opportunity to buy entries online.

However, I suspect many entrants to the events are unable to enjoy this service because of various reasons. One such reason could be, simply, not traveling with a computer / tablet / smartphone. Other possibility is a concern about internet security.

Perhaps a form of early entry that can be done via filling a physical form on paper and submitting it with a check / credit card info / other, should be offered as well. This will also help the cause of easy seeding mentioned above.
Aug. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12 out of 13 cards have votes. Interesting :)
Aug. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enjoyed it!

Brings back memories.
Aug. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure who you refer to. Care to send me a link if you are referring to me? I don't remember posting on any other on topic thread (Turkish or Israeli politics) besides this one.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene, you are right. I now see why you say “the tone of the comments is devolving towards hostility and rudeness”.
Aug. 6, 2014
Michael Fleisher edited this comment Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How can this thread exist and avoid politics in the same time? The whole issue of Israel's withdrawal is because of the political climate in Turkey.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, my mistake. Fully correct :)
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mostly correct assumption. Could also hold a Flannery dist.
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another question about same hand - Do you agree with the 1NT bid?
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I am not Marty Fleisher. Happen to have the same last name. Just making sure this is clear.
July 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nat,
Not sure what “usual sense” is. Usual or unusual, they were asked to sponsor. Hence, they are a sponsor.
In any case, the right to participate in team selection should have been automatically granted to the USBF.
In fact, even without having the foresight to officially demand to participate, the USBF would have been justified to withdraw if the selection process wasn't open to them.

Another observation - Monaco, also a sponsor, had to approve the team. They were granted the right which they deserve. They also conditioned sponsoring the event on the composition of the team. So, why not grant the same right to USBF?

July 2, 2014
Michael Fleisher edited this comment July 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't bridge a game that is fueled by sponsors? Don't sponsors have a say on who their team members are? If you sponsor a team would you accept blindly a list of people presented to you by another stake holder?
Suppose you are presented with a top notch team, but you decide to tweak the selection a bit? Or at least participate in a discussion that entertains this possibility. Everyone agrees that there are more than 12 excellent choices, so such a discussion is surely conceivable. Wouldn't that be a natural thing for you to have a right to? After all, you were asked to sponsor the team and your generosity is what makes the team “happen”.

Imho the USBF was a sponsor for this team. Ignoring their right to participate in naming the players fully justifies their backing out.
July 1, 2014
Michael Fleisher edited this comment July 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps using an App interface will catch better nowadays. I think you could consider republishing (or creating new content) this way.

June 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu,
I had several occasions in my bridge life when partner, after the end of a session, got up and started “shopping” for opinions on hands that they think they should “win” the postmortem on. I no longer play with these individuals.
The question boils down to - is a post on bw the same thing?

I think that it is not. It is much more respectful if done on bw. Anonymity is kept better due to the passage of time and the obscurity of the event. So, I don't think it is an issue beyond partner and perhaps opponents.

Turning to partner's POV. He / she, if reading the post, knows it is about them anyway. So, having the complete hand revealed is probably not going to change much.
Perhaps the right moment to think about posting is before you do so. Not after the debate, but before it even starts. The inputs going into deciding about posting should include your knowledge of partner. If you think he may take it the wrong way, just don't post or wait a while before you do so. You can also ask partner, but that may put pressure on him to say a politically correct “yes” while feeling bad anyway.
May 22, 2014
Michael Fleisher edited this comment May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I held a 1=2=0=10 this weekend. Waiting for the next one to happen this weekend :).
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand came up in a club game recently. Partner and I disagreed. Therefore the poll.
For full disclosure - spots are approximate. I also don't think they matter much anyway.
Feb. 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They were vul. You must have read this while I was editing the hand.
Oct. 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The damage claim was actually by east who claimed that given correct explanation would have suggested a pass instead of a 3D bid.
Oct. 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

1. Can they make 4? - this is, in my assessment, a reasonably good chance. Assuming good opponents in a red vs. white situation. I can easily construct “normal” hands that fit the bidding and make 4.
2. If I bid 5 being wrong in 1, how likely am I to land on my feet? - I think that opponents may take the push in a significant number of cases. Again, they are supposedly good and would hate to be robbed of a making vulnerable game.
3. How big of a + score do I expect defending? - If I pass, maybe 200 on a good day. Not too bad, but what if they take the push?… This may turn into an 800…
4. Last, but not least, can I conceivably make 5? Rather unlikely, but may happen with a significantly greater than 0 probability. Give partner a void, extra length in and perhaps Q and QJ and the game is made. Even with only JT there is a good chance. Oddly, this sounds to me very much like the arguments made here for passing. Given a couple of rounded queens in partner's hand… with the help of a J and some distribution you may actually make 5.

Bottom line - I see more reasons to bid on than pass.
Oct. 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polly, I like your choice of 3. I understood your line of thinking when I voted 4 :).
Sept. 27, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top