Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 355 356 357 358
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's easier to for North to construct a bunch of South hands where North can't make game (xxx, KQx, QJxx, xxx and even THREE hearts is in jeopardy) than it is for South to construct Morth hands that can't make game. Hands with xxx and a stiff , missing K and A might well just pass 2 (or bid a preemptive 3). I can construct some, but not as many.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, missed the short suit GT (for careless readers such as me, put it in the bidding box).

In that case, how about 'If I have a reasonable accept without the K, but I have the K extra, I bid game. You still have 10 strong HCP in a 6-9 range
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about 'when I raise my partner to 2 showing 6-9, and my partner invites, and I have 10 points made up of an ace and two kings in the suits partner bid, I bid game?
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Jan. But I was thinking you would be the person to answer my other question. I think it was in Chapter 73 of my ‘War-and-Peace’ tyoe treatise. Don't know how you missed it.

It was: When the white noise machine was tried and hated, was it the on/off method? Or was it constant?
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ilan: I certainly believe that about the Ortrhodox Rabbis. However, I would not state it as an absolute truth. I try to avoid 100% certainty about anything.

But that is not my point. I think you misunderstood my conclusion. What I meant was that, since each person has to decide which of the various things that ARE ‘questionable’ to follow, it follows that there is some choice involved in whatever ‘everything’ they end up with.
Choice is a part of everything we do and say - except what the laws of physics compel on us.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig Z: ““I don't actually see a huge difference between opener's 1NT rebid case (where everyone would play that 2 by responder was NF) vs. opener's 2 rebid case (after opening 1).”

Here's the difference. When opener rebids 1N he has AT least a 4cards in the majors - and more commonly has 5-7 cards. He usually has 3-card support for one of the majors - and can never have a stiff heart or a void spade.
Opener's single most likely number of major suit cards? I'm guessing 6 (though it might be only 5).

When opener rebids 2, it wouldn't be wildly surprising if he has a total of 3 cards in the majors. Either major could possibly be void (though heart void is pretty unlikely), and a singleton would not be surprising.
Opener's single most likely number of major suit cards? I'm guessing 4 (though it might be 5).

In any event, it's definitely true that 1N rebid will have more major suit cards on average than 2 rebid will.

The need for NF 2 over 1N is greater than the need over 2. If responder has a weak hand with majors, 2 (if partner bids it) rates to be a better contract than 1N
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, as Jan keeps trying to point out, the advent of tablets changes things. If the ‘religious solution’ for that is to use bidding boxes for those tables, I think the burden of providing those boxes should rest with those that make their use ‘essential’.

Btw, another issue with tablets. There will likely be some who can manage bidding boxes, but do not have the physical ability to use the tablet. If so, we will need to make a bidding box accommodation for them.
Again, the ‘choice’ word comes into play. But I do believe that IF we make an accommodation when tablets are not being used, we should find one when tablets are being used.


I’m curious as to how a comment by Ilan “has been made by a user that has not yet been verified” yet, later in the thread, there is a comment by Ilan.


Pre-printing stuff or giving system notes is, for me, unworkable. If you want to see me write more, you can ask why.

Coming to the table with a ‘tile’ for each possible word/number could theoretically work – except it would take way too long to give the proper explanation. Too unwieldy and time-consuming.



I know it’s likely that what I write here will cause me to lose the friendship/respect of some people. But. like them, I say and do what I believe is correct.

Ultimately, it just doesn’t feel right to me that we need to spend hundreds of combined hours thinking about and discussing this problem. It also doesn’t sit right with me for one side to call the other ‘insensitive’ (or worse) merely because the other side wants the simplicity of ‘rules are equal for all’.



I’ll leave you with these words of Adam W. – I can’t put my position much better – except I might change “the non-observant” to ‘those who do not wish any exemption from the Conditions’.

“we should make no concessions that might significantly compromise the integrity of the event or disadvantage the non-observant. This is a problem the players in question choose to face - it should not become *our* problem. If it means a player decides to skip the event so be it.”
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty’s “white noise” solution was interesting to me – I don’t remember ever hearing about it before. But when he suggested that it would always need to be turned on by the screenmate before each explanation I lost interest.
Whatever our ‘solution’ may be, it’s not fair to the opponents that they need to keep doing that. And ‘constant’ white noise on both sides of the screen won’t work either – you would have to speak louder to be heard – self-defeating.

Even aside from the ‘burden’ objection, I disagree with Marty that it’s not a significant objection that the machine will trigger knowledge that an explanation is given. If writing is done carefully and properly – with a ballpoint pen – it is basically silent, not “scratchy”.
(As an aside, another good thing to do is remove all your Pass Cards from the bidding box – so you can pass more quietly without touching the box.)

Jan said white noise was tried and despised. While I don’t think the on/off solution is any good for the current issue (or any issue), I think constant white noise would probably be good for masking anything that might happen on the other side of the screen. Was it the on/off version that was tried?



Adam’s idea of allowing a player to sit out a whole day seems mostly workable when we have 2-day matches. The only issue there would be if the RR was on Fri-Sat. No way to fulfil the Conditions – unless Shabbat begins after play is over.

But when the matches are less than two days, this solution doesn’t work nearly as well. And, of course, with 4-handed team (or 5 with a pair), it doesn’t work at all.

The whole point of screens is to have it be, as far as possible, as if one side of the screen knows nothing about tempo, mannerisms, questions and explanations from the other side of the screen. I’ve occasionally had screenmates where I felt the job we did was ‘perfect’.


Of course, there is always an elephant in the room. Here, I’d say that the fact is that most players DON’T observe proper screen protocol. Quite a few don’t even try. And I’d say even more don’t care if they do. But our job is to make rules so that things CAN work if players behave properly.

Raphael said “ I don't actually think we whispered questions and answers any more than we would have under normal conditions.”

The fact that he says “under normal conditions” tells me that many do not understand that there NO conditions where whispering is appropriate. No talking is permitted – the conditions call for you to write. Even pointing is not appropriate – because then there is no written record. The ‘no talking/pointing thing almost never happens in practice – but is the way things ought to be..
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, back to the main questions. Is it a choice? Marty H. said:
“Most people who are very religious don't view compliance with their beliefs as ”optional“”.

Maybe so. But their “view” doesn't change the fact that it IS ‘optional’. People, such as Marty himself, have chosen to change. Whether anybody likes it or not, it's a fact that this is a choice. It might be a mathematical and “insensitive” fact - but it's still a fact.

I believe in being honest. I cannot imagine changing that belief. Yet I am keenly aware that, at each moment in my life, that I have the choice whether to be honest or not. I recognize that it's always my choice.

Marty H. said: “So you'd put a priest in jail for refusing to testify in court to things he was told during confession? ”.

That’s not a reasonable analogy, imo. Going to jail is hardly on a par with not being able to play in certain bridge tournaments.

Raphael said: “ Imagine if the USBF scheduled an all-night match, and did not want to “accommodate” for players who wished to sleep on the basis that sleep on this particular night was a choice.”

If the tournament operates ‘unreasonably’ then it would be inherently unfair. So I can’t “imagine” your scenario. But if it did (as some might claim the WBF sometimes does!), yes, one would have to choose. But are there any screen procedures in our Conditions that are inherently unfair? I don’t think so.

I don’t know, but I’m guessing there are multiple, perhaps hundreds, of Orthodox Judaic interpretations of ‘everything’. Rabbis likely disagree on several (small) points. Perhaps there are no two people who have identical ideas of exactly what is and is not permissible.

Thus, it’s reasonable to say that each person ‘chooses’ which precepts they should follow and which ones (followed by others) they can ignore/flout. That’s getting dangerously close to a discussion about hypocrisy – which I already said I don’t want to get into. But I think it does show that each person does, in fact, make a choice.


Another issue that has been brought up is accommodation for disabilities. Letting a pair be stationary is an accommodation that does not hurt the integrity of the event. I see no problem with that. Extra light? No problem.

On the other hand, I think some of the accommodations given to the blind, or nearly blind DO hurt the integrity of the event. I’m sure I’m in a small minority, and I’m not being politically correct, but I believe that when cards must be called out this is just wrong.
Long ago, I decided that, if it ever happened to me, I would not compete. Perhaps the combination of karma, and my lack of religious belief, will result in my being so afflicted. Then we’ll see if I change my mind or stick to my own ‘religious belief’

Raphael said:
“Following these religious laws is hardly different from these physical disabilities in terms of being able to bypass them as an Orthodox Jew.

To me it’s still different. Religious belief is not, for me, equivalent to the laws of Physics. And I would not want to accommodate physical disability – unless it can be done ‘cleanly’.


I think accommodations for disability ARE the correct solution for society – people need to live. But I’m not sure that translates to our game, if the accommodation creates serious problems.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment is so long that I split it into 4 parts.

I see two separate ‘events’ for which we need procedures.

One issue is what to do about the JUSBC in December in Atlanta. This is an event where the entries are already in. Since we have made accommodation for religious belief in the past, I think it would be unreasonable to force those players to choose between withdrawing from the event and flouting their beliefs. Some solution/accommodation needs to be found.

The other issue is what to do going forward. Here, we (meaning the USBF) can determine whatever we want. We can keep the same rule we make for Atlanta (or use some rule that has already been used); we can make an even more relaxed rule, or a ‘completely relaxed’ rule ('players with religious beliefs can explain their bids verbally'); or we can go the other direction and make more stringent rules - all the way up to ‘no accommodation’ - players must follow the rules or not compete (or be disqualified if they do compete and do not comply).

Leaving aside the Atlanta issue (I have my own ideas about that), I will address the issue of what to do in future tournaments.

I think a good starting point is Marty H's paragraph here:

“Our society has made a choice. When feasible, we normally try to accommodate people's religious beliefs. It's not always feasible, but often it is.”

I believe that is true. However, I also believe our society is not infallible. They don't do everything fairly. So, assuming we have the power to make our own rules, we should make those rules the ones WE believe are equitable - what society thinks should not matter.
For example, if society (or a part of society) discriminates against women or against gays or against African-Americans (each of which I think it could reasonably be said society has done and/or still does), does that mean we should also? Of course not - we're better than that.

Reading the back-and-forth between Adam W. and Marty H., I can see Marty is passionate and eloquent about the subject. He is not unconvincing, and he has written much more than Adam here. Yet it is Adam's words that resonate more with me - I don't see any flaw in what he says. Of course, the fact that his position was my position beforehand may have a lot to do with that.

Certain parts of the discussion seem to me to be side issues. What does the WBF do? Now that we allow players to compete in our Trials without going forward, I don't really think that matters.
I don't believe we should care much more about what the WBF thinks than we should care about what society thinks. We should do what we think is right. Of course, we do need to have some plan in place for a player that, if we send them to a WBF event, might be disqualified.

As for things like paying the entry, professionalism and turning out the lights, I don't think that should matter to us. Do we really want to get into judging each individual's sincerity/hypoocrisy on a case-by-case basis? I certainly don't.
Aug. 21
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I don't remember any of that. Or at least I didn't when I read your comment. But now I have some memory of Pepsi bidding that, me assuming a splinter, and him having club support (maybe 4-6?). I don't remember the recurrence in the final.

However, I don't think I would ever make that bid without specific agreement - I guess Pepsi and I didn't have one. If my expert partner made the bid I would still assume splinter.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what Gerber was when it started, but long ago the following rules became Expert Standard.

1) Gerber must be a JUMP to 4C
2) The last bid must be in NT (so 1N or 2N)

There are other rules that may apply, and you can agree to exceptions. And there is one other auction that perhaps the majority of experts might think Gerber is Standard - 1N-2, 2-4.
But, without discussion, the above 2 rules are Expert Standard.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aviv: Obviously the intention of the OP was that 2 was F1

Steve M: “If playing 3rd suit forcing (2), this is NF.”

If playing 3rd suit forcing, then 2 is 3rd suit, therefore it's forcing.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same as every other ‘unclear’ double.

'Undisclosed values I want to show, no better descriptive bid. Only penalty if there is no other possibility.'

If we were robots, we could define every auction and have more situations which are penalty. There are some situations I don't play penalty when it's probably percentage (not sure if the oP is one).

But we are not robots. Each pair (and it's really junior pairs I am addressing) should have a “List of Penalty Double Situations”. When partner doubles, and you're not sure, go through the learned list in your head.
If it's not on the list, and there is any other possibility, then it's not penaslty.

You want the list to be pretty short for ease of memory.

Btw, against novices, and some non-novices, the above is clearly NOT percentage. But we expect to beat those teams anyway.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you need to define “it” and “can”. (1)2 or (1)3 “can” be natural - but I doubt you play them that way.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: If it's not natural, what hand can it be other than a good 3 bid (or better)?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to WHO is more likely to hold 4 trumps, I would think it's the non-leader. Otherwise, a trump lead might have been preferred. Indeed, on a trump lead I think the hand simply cannot be made.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Long diamonds; not enough to bid 3 OR too much to bid 3
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances: Yes, true probability doesn't matter much when determining whether to bid game (though a true understanding increases your chance of the optimal decision).
True probability can be used to determine whether a contract is good or not; how to declarer a contract; and thwarting criticisms that are based on fake probability (there are many such criticisms).
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: I have never made a definitive statement about what percentage is needed for a desirable game. What I have stated is that true probability is not properly understood. I continue to maintain that position.
Aug. 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 355 356 357 358
.

Bottom Home Top