Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 297 298 299 300
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James V: I agree with you about case-by-case basis. That is the only way to get ‘perfect’ justice. I think we'd be in a minority with that opinion. I also agree with your comment on electronic pads - and again I think we are in the minority.
The rest of your comment I mostly disagree with.

Ralph F.L. I disagree that it's a false analogy. Murder is the ‘greatest crime’ that can be committed in life. It happens way too often. Collusive cheating is the ‘greatest crime’ that can be committed WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME OF BRIDGE. It also happens too often (though probably not as much as murder).

Yes, collusive cheating LOOKS more like theft. But, in a ‘greatest crime’ context of each world, I think the analogy to muder is not only not “false” - I think it is appropriate. The fact that there are “no dead bodies” is irrelevant - that's what can happen in analogies.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is why we need clocks. If there was a penalty for going over the time and the penalty only accrued to the guilty side - and we have definitive evidence of who that is, - then players would not go over the time limit very often. Just as happens in chess.
Instead of what we have now where the ‘innocent’ side speeds up in an effort to stop the table going over the time (or minimizing same). In a competitive game, it does not make sense that this is a collaborative effort.
Btw, I have played many hands out where most could see no prospect of an extra trick. Yet I have often made that trick (often on a pseudo-squeeze).. I had one of those recently. In doing so, I always play without taking time - though the opponents often take time.
There was a ‘famous’ one against Meckwell. Sadly, I did NOT make the extra trick on that occasion - it would have been a good example to publicize. I actually thought I was going to make the trick on a pseudo-squeeze…
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, that's what lots of people always SAY…
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if you read hesitantly…
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wodehouse was amusing - but not infallible.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am disparaging a process that allows the committee to get it wrong. ”

You asked me a question about disparaging the leader, and I answered it saying that I thought disparaging the appellants for pursuing the matter was worse than disparaging the leader. I did not state that you disparaged the appellants.

If you DID disparage the appellants for pursuing the matter to the extent they did, then the quoted statement above is false and/or misleading. If you DID NOT disparage the appellants for pursuing the matter to the extent they did, then your quoted statement above is non-responsive. I did not state that you disparaged the appellants.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah well, the future is not yet written.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally agree. In life if you commit a calculated pre-planned murder, you should not ever be free to pursue anything in life. Collusive cheating in bridge is analogous to calculated pre-planned murder in life. You should not be allowed to pursue anything in bridge ever again. Of course, you are free to cheat (or otherwise) in any other walk of life. That DOES seem pretty lenient.
The only argument that I see making ANY sense for a ‘second chance’ is confession - what they did, how they did it and when they did it.. We want to encourage suspected pairs to own up. Makes our lives easier - and is more satisfying.
I hadn't thought of Chris's disgorgement idea, but it makes perfect sense to me. It should take that AND confession for that ‘second chance’.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale: P.G. Wodehouse?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course. I should have said ‘hear/see them’.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ If a player, say North here, does not believe there are logical alternatives…”
Players (and people in general) have a habit of believing whatever it is they want to believe. It's natural. It's human. But this particular belief is not, in hindsight, reasonable.

“Do you think it is okay to call this player ”unethical“ in any way for leading a diamond under those circumstances?”

The truth about whether it's “okay” or not in this situation resides within the mind of the leader. So the answer is no. But I think it's A LOT more okay than disparaging the appellants for legally pursuing the case after the BIT. Because what they did was not wrong. Which is not true of the leader.
Disparaging either the leader or the appellants for their action is ‘wrong’ - because it's mind-reading. But the actual action of the leader leading a diamond can be classified as ‘wrong’, whereas the action of the appellants in pursuing the case was not wrong - it was their right.

Way too many people look at way too many actions and say ‘that is wrong’. Instead of thinking ‘I wouldn’t do that'. Those two things are not the same.
Dec. 11
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. But, in context, I thought (without BIT) that's what we were talking about.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other: Eligible to compete as long as they declare in advance which event they are going to continue in.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When partner is on lead, let him lead. After the lead you can ask for ‘screen down’ and then ask your questions. That's a lot better than asking prior to the lead being made even if (with screens) partner cannot hear them. Just the fact of asking questions could influence the lead.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick L: Actually, in bridge that is wildly untrue. Many times if you make a mistake quickly you will survive (or even gain!). I've seen it countless times - and have often done it myself.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main difference being that whether your opinion “matters” is not as much affected by the tempo that preceded it….
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They could add that if you have an obvious claim for the rest then all time subsequently taken is assigned to your side. No accusation - just a blanket rule (so claim of ‘blackout’ is irrelevant).

Ultimately, we MUST have clocks. Because the idea that you need to play faster than you want to so that the opponents can avoid a time penalty is, to me, insane in a competitive endeavor..
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andreas B: “No one could have anticipated the conversion to 7NT holding an ace.”

Even if true, that does not mean that you are COMPELLED to think. You are actually ALLOWED to act in tempo - even if you're not sure what is ‘correct’. And the one thing you can be certain of over 7N is that it's ‘better’ ethically-speaking, to act in tempo.
Come to think of it, bridge players often take a long time on hands - and at the end of it are no wiser than they were when they started. In fact often they'd do better just to go with their first instinct.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michaewl H: “ If I think during the auction, then whether I bid or pass, partner is still involved.

The only exception is if I pass and the auction ends, then or through a pass on my left, and we are the declaring side.”

Not sure I understand the last bit. But certainly ‘auction-ending decisions’ made by the declaring side do not hurt in any way. For example after 1m-1M, 1N-2, 2M, if either 3N or 4M is now auction-ending there is no reason not to think if you are going to make one of those bids.
There are many other situations which are not that tempo-sensitive. And, for many situations that ARE tempo-sensitive you can reduce the UI by planning your auction.
Some of the ones you really want to avoid are non auction-ending sign-offs; passes where you have previously shown no values; oh yeah and passes over 7N. You want to avoid BIT (whether fast or slow) where the message is clear and relevant. The game is better off if you try to avoid those.
We are human and sometimes do something we shouldn't, both giving and using UI. But, when we do, we should be happy if a ruling can change that.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael H: “Make it a rule that I am not allowed to think, and you can say goodbye to my ever playing the game again.”

Nobody (hopefully) is suggesting in any way that you are not allowed to think. What I would suggest is that you don't think and then take an action where the thought speaks volumes about the action - and partner is still involved.
If you restrict your thought to all other situations, and think about everything there is to think abot, you will go way over any sensible time limit. Bridge is a tough game. Definitely think - just don't do it in an inappropriate way.
Dec. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 297 298 299 300
.

Bottom Home Top