Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 334 335 336 337
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My idea is not that they fail to win. My idea is that they do not compete at all.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AK10xx opposite Q9xx is (or, at least, was) called a ‘sure trick play’.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: “Where are they going to draw the line for tolerating disobeying the event rules?”

The line will be ‘drawn’ where the COC of that event and the Laws of the organizing body say it is. I think I already read some COC or Law that said suspension/expulsion was possible for the type of action I would make. I doubt if you'll find any COC or Law that suggests suspension/expulsion for a revoke. In any case, I think that's a silly analogy.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “Refusing to play in an event will only disqualify you from that event. You would not be expelled otherwise unless you do some extra.”

I am not talking about “refusing to play in an event” (whatever that means). I am talking about sitting at the table and refusing for that round) to make a call. I believe someone on some thread already posted a law or COC that this could lead to suspension/expulsion for the player doing it. I'm not going to research it.

I think walking away from the table could possibly lead to the same result.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “You can argue that this hypocrisy does not matter……..but it does exist”

What I would argue is that stating an incorrect and unreasonable opinion over and over again, as if it were a fact, does not actually make it a fact.

“ I think boycotting the whole event shows a higher standard than boycotting certain opponents (which is a smaller sacrifice).”

Arguable. When you boycott one event, you miss one event. When you do as Roy/Sabine/Kit/I propose there is a possibility you could be suspended from ALL the events of the organizer - or even expelled from the organisation.

“There is no need to guess my motivation. I am nobody in the bridge world and do not know S/R. I just have an adverse view on what they did.”

Based on all your comments, it doesn't look like a guess. One can have a ‘personal’ antipathy without actually knowing somebody. The last two US Presidents are prime examples.
(Note to Bridgewinner's management: If this comment gets ‘flagged’, please remove the prior sentence - and this one.)

Giles: Sorry.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “What is the definition of hypocrisy? Isn't it saying (A) and doing (B)?”

No. That's not close to a good “definition”. Only if (A) and (B) are diametrically opposed. Not as here, where (A) and (B) are different approaches to a problem, where both approaches have the same ultimate goal.

A good example of hypocrisy is claiming to have certain moral standards, then acting in your personal life in a way that conflicts with your professed position.

Another good example of hypocrisy is when you attack your enemies/opponents for doing (A) then defend/support your friends/affiliates for doing the same thing.

Another good example of hypocrisy is when you attack some person(s) pretending that it's on general moral grounds - when the truth is you have a personal animus against the person(s).
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David C: First, you have the minors switched. Second, it would be ‘normal’ to bid 2 over 2.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale: “Everybody else is happy to bid like it's 1955 after the opponents make a non-space-consuming 1 level overcall.”

Perhaps that's at least partly because his partner might be about to make a bid that actually IS space-consuming - so you mght want to bid 2 on some pretty light hands
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: “M.R when/if has to play vs cheaters will refuse to play vs cheaters and get kicked from event..”

You don't know that's what will happen. Nobody does - since this is ‘new’. My belief is that, if enough people do it, it might well provoke a change in the minds of tournament organizers.

If we merely withdraw, the event will continue - only slightly disrupted. With no ‘spectacle’ during play.

Let's say it's 200 pairs and 13 rounds. For withdrawals to wreck the event, it might need 100 pairs to withdraw. But I think it probably only takes 3 or 4 pairs to sit and not play to disrupt the event and make it the subject of ridicule. And, when the relevant pairs see what's being done, maybe they will too. If it's 8 or 9 pairs, so much the better!

I'm not saying I'm ‘right’ here. Or that you're wrong. This is just my idea of the ‘civil disobedience’ action I want to take - it feels ‘right’ TO ME.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're always going to cover with the ten with Kx and KJx, you're making a case for going up with the ace if North plays low.
Thus, with KJx there is a good case for playing low - even if you discount the possibility that partner is void (unlikely on the OP auction, but not impossible - AQxx, AQ, Ax, 10xxxx. Some would certainly open 1N).
Covering with KJx may force declarer, with 10x(x) to use an entry to repeat the finesse. But you're probably not defeating those hands anyway.

Conclusion: Don't cover with KJx.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: First, yes - setting him two. That's not an insignificant gain - 3 imps.

But, even without that, how does South ever ‘show’ A or KQ? Why can't South's discards be deceptive? Alternatively, if you're saying that N-S discards are always totally honest, that means declarer, on the actual hand, will have a far better chance of succeeding.
Defending the OP hand has a poker element. Once ‘poker’ is accepted, it's difficult for the defense to communicate anything in absolute terms.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mine M: If declarer's only legitimate chance for the 9th trick is the Q, isn't he close to 100% to finesse the queen - whether or not you bare the K? If so, it doesn't seem so important that North not bare the king.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why can't he double bluff and pretend to have bared the K? There are no absolutes here.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On December 20, 2018, on the thread:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lanzarotti-readmitted-to-acbl/?cj=744701#c744701

I wrote this comment:

“When you prank someone, I think you're either a bully or having fun with a friend - I'm not in either of those categories. So I really don't like any of the snide comments/pranking ideas.

I don't know yet what I will do. I want to discuss with others. I think we should present a unified front.
My first instinct is to sit there and say nothing and do nothing. No words of greeting. No bridge calls. When the Director inevitably appears and asks me what I am doing, I say ‘I’m treating this round as a sit-out'. If this gets me thrown out of the event, so be it.”

I did write a (much longer) message to “others” - a ‘panel of experts’ that I am on. But, at the time, I didn't get much support for this particular idea (an idea which I believe is similar to Kit's suggestion).

I still don't know what is ‘best’. I support Roy and Sabine. I support those who boycott (though I'm inclined to think the Roy/Sabine/Kit/me idea will be more effective.
But the one thing I feel sure of is that we will do ‘better’ with a unified front.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim F: Adam said that it's not clear to him that striving for fairness is always desirable. That, combined with his using the word you quote - “perceived” demonstrates, at least to me, that Adam is biased - and thinking the wrong way about this.

A remedy for unfairness might not be good. Or it might be worse than the situation it's trying to remedy. But the search for a better/the best remedy is, in my opinion, clearly desirable.

I believe my remedy is clearly more equitable than the current Law(s). And I would not be surprised if things turned out, overall to be ‘simpler’. Certainly, the Law book would be shorter and simpler.

Thanks for the correction of the typo. I have edited.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about expulsion from the ACBL for anyone who revokes more than once? That would be “simple”. And would weed out all those pesky revokers.

If you're not going to think about fairness when making laws, I hope you (generic) have nothing to do with making laws in our great game.

Edited to add the word “to” to the last sentence.
May 7
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jurgen: “A group of bridge players appears ready to ostracize an individual, who in this instance almost surely deserves it. But what about the next case?”

My answer is one that I think you will probably not accept. I believe that true justice can be dispensed ONLY on a case-by-case basis. I believe one must look at the facts of each case to determine what is fair.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam W: “Michael, both the SSF and the WBF CC have sections for ”Bids that Require Advance Preparation.“ Would you just like to see that better enforced?”

I'd like too see the specific questions of the situations I brought up (Penalty passes of redouble, 2-way doubles) be on the CC. Also agrements about redoubles of 3N
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scott: Nope. My comment was ‘caused’ by yours.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam: Since we and haven't seen my suggestion adopted, we don't know whether the ‘judgments’ in these cases will prove as ‘contested’ as those in other UI.

“A revoke or LOOT violates the metaphysics of the game, and if the rectification sometimes seems harsh…”

And that “sometimes” is the problem. Sometimes the infraction leads to the making of an impossible contract. Even a grand slam missing the trump ace. Sometimes the infraction costs an overtrick. Sometimes the infraction costs the offending side absolutely nothing.

I'd want the designers of Laws to think at least as much about what is fairer as they do about what is ‘easier’. Especially when their ‘easier’ claim is likely a false one - since I think a far shorter rule book is a good thing.

To get to the ‘right’ place, one “sometimes” must take a chance…
May 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 334 335 336 337
.

Bottom Home Top