Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I do not believe that CAS or, indeed, any National Court can prevent the Credentials Committee of any National, Zonal or World Federation the right to refuse to invite players to their Championships should they consider them undesirable for whatever reason. I know that this may be considered draconian, but as long as it is used with caution and with safeguards in place, then in my opinion it is necessary to have such sanctions available in Bridge as it is the only way to eliminate for sure some players who appears to be addicted to che@ting.”

Where the future rubber meets the road?
What safeguards are in place when a player is denied an invitation and sues for “restraint of trade” or “tortious interference” or ?

Caveat. IANAL and have no idea if my idioms are appropriate.. but you get my drift.

Other intentional communities have employed shunning and ostracisim successfully. What are the legal ramifications of denying someone, without adjudication, access to the game we are trying to protect?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One item of positivity:
“TOs will be able to select local staff if they are available and reduce their tournament costs.
DiCs will have input on the staff selected and will be able to ensure that the event has the right mix of skills.
Locals who might have been hired before as TAs will be brought in as ACBL employees. They will have opportunities for training and support and DiCs will be responsible for monitoring them and ensuring they are properly paid.”

Often local directors/club owners have to close during sectional and/or regional tournaments.
I don't know about ACBL employees, but training and support for local non-ACBL directors so that they can competently augment the DIC and other associate national directors in effectively running a tournament would be a big plus for TOs and
1. provide lost income to local directors/club managers
2. positively impact a tournament's bottom line.
3. increase the competence of local staff.

Effective training will lead to better rulings at the club level and a better informed club player on the proprieties, laws, & ethics of the game.

Any approach should be bottoms up, not top down from the league.
Fixed director costs? A complete non-starter

Did TOs have any input into the crafting of this discussion item/'big idea'? Is it a ‘big idea’?
Feb. 16
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might I suggest that the odds of an 8-4 fit make the auction 1 - 1N decidedly unlikely.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you care to quantify the odds that partner has a round Ace and another trick?
Partner rates to be 1=5=(4-3)
You suggest that it's likely dummy has enough to make 4 yet couldn't overcall.
LHO likely 1=4=4=4 or 1=4=5=3
I could be suffering a diamonds ruff at T3 on a bad day.
It seems doubtful, to me anyway that partner will have AQxxx.
My only dummy entry could easily be in diamonds unless partner has an ace and a king and the ace could be dislodged at T1.


Agree with Marty that risk reward would be more favorable if white vs. red.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
did you read Spy vs Spy in Mad magazine when you were younger?
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if partner has roughly 10hcp and 5+ hearts where was his overcall?
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe the depth is about the same
I think the masterpoint decay for low scratches in a larger section is greater.

the formula for section awards is easily found at
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/MPBOOK.pdf

seems like you could dummy up a game using both web and two sections
and calculate the values.

Selling the concept that everyone plays all the boards and the game is much more fair ought to be easy.
It has been at our local clubs.
Feb. 13
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As mentioned above Law 12
© An assigned adjusted score may be
weighted to reflect the probabilities of
a number of potential results, but only
outcomes that could have been achieved in
a legal manner may be included.

Seems to me that the director should have polled a group of West's peers to find out what call they would have made had the jump raise been properly alerted and East had doubled.

Some would pass and defend 3X
To set this contract two tricks requires double double dummy defense… that is a double dummy lead of a spade from KJx and an underlead of the A.
Would this happen more than 10% of the time?
Director could ask the West's who pass what they would lead? If it isn't the 8 then 3X is down only one.

Others would bid 3N. It's not at all clear that West can find 9 tricks in NT. West has to attack diamonds early.

I see no basis for the director assigning EW making 9 tricks.
In a hypothetical distribution of results should half the pollees pass and half bid 3N:
EW +100 x 4 400
EW +200 x 1 200
EW +400 x 3 1200
EW -50 x 2 -100
So I would compare +170 for EW here against whatever the result was at the other table.
I would also assign a 3 imp procedural penalty to the offending side because it became impossible to get a normal bridge result due to the misinformation (failure to alert)

As I direct very infrequently I am happy to hear from more experienced directors if my process is sound or found lacking.
Feb. 12
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not leading a trump because I think partner has great hearts but because I think they need ruffs to come to ten tricks. I have one chance to start cutting down their ruffing power and I am going to take it.

appended hours later:

I don't know how to parse the club situation but I can imagine frozen suits and am not going to unfreeze it.

Any other lead could subject partner to a finesse. Why not lead a trump?
Feb. 8
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The MGSC strives to conduct games in a tournament atmosphere and director calls are encouraged when irregularities arise.

Tutorials for intermediate players who are advancing on tempo sensitivity, misinformation, and UI would seem to be a valuable resource.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
trumpets ta daaa
thx Linda

The sooner we can see the Philadelphia BOD Journal the more time we have to digest and share comments.

Should someone from this forum be the point person to ask?
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ty for the comment
in your blog example was the 2N bidder aware of:

A. Unintended Call
1. If a player discovers that he has not made
the call he intended to make, he may, until
his partner makes a call, substitute the call he
intended for the unintended call. The second
(intended) call stands and is subject to the
appropriate Law, but the lead restrictions in
Law 26 do not apply.

It seems clear to the table, at least to the partner, that there has been an irregularity…that the call on the table was not the intended call. Maybe the 2N bidder doesn't know their rights?
Can/should someone else call the director. I can understand that it would probably not be in the opponents' interest to help their opps clarify original intent.

I've never experienced this scenario at the table.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If N passes the double does that confirm North having the weak 2 hand?
if so, then East has a cuebid available to show a stronger hand than a leap to 4.
East's later 4 call delineates the 3 bid as extra strength.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The WBF is supposed to submit a report to the ACBL:
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER7B315.pdf
CHAPTER VII – INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE
B. WBF REPRESENTATIVES
Section 1 – Policy Re WBF Representatives
1.4 A report shall be presented to the Board of Directors from the ACBL Representatives to the WBF prior to each meeting of the ACBL Board. This \report should be emailed to the ACBL Board of Directors at least 15 days prior to any ACBL Board meetings, or it may be included in the Journal.
This report shall include but not be limited to the following information:
a. Any actions by the WBF regarding World Bridge that have
transpired since the last meeting of the ACBL Board.
b. The agenda or any actions expected to come before the WBF prior
to the next meeting of the ACBL Board.
c. Financial information such as budgets, operating statements and
balance sheets including explanations of unusual expenses.
d. The assignments that ACBL representatives have in the WBF.
e. Any compensation, reimbursement or benefits from the WBF to any
ACBL Board of Directors member.

Where are these reports located? Can't say I've EVER seen one, though I haven't searched for them.
Feb. 6
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you have a player with aces in your long suits. Pearson notwithstanding, and in the absence of an opening bid elsewhere, I would expect to go plus declaring.

On the OP prospects for successfully declaring at a higher level are significantly diminished.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave N made with a winning call.
Don't click on the link until you've made your guess
bd 1 http://bridgewebs.com/cgi-bin/bwok/bw.cgi?pid=display_rank&msec=1&event=20180202_1&wd=1&club=mgsc
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the same manner that a 1 opener can rebid 1N over 1 with a balanced hand. Responder will show a four card major if they didn't have a one-bid hand

We rebid 2N after a 2/1 if we have stoppers in the other suits and it looks right positionally. A rebid of an unbid major just shows a stopper. 1 - 2, 2N shows stoppers in both majors and doesn't deny a four card major.

Am I out on the fringe here?

I would bid 2N on the OP auction holding QTxxx KJxx Jx AQ. We won't lose a 4-4 fit if we have one.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are we showing shape or stoppers after a 2/1?
You don't lose hearts if opener rebids 2N and responder bids their hearts.
If opener bids out shape (2) then opener must show diamond tolerance to avoid rebidding issues with 5=4=2=2 and responder can bid 3N. I don't think opener's 3 promises 3 and I would expect opener to bid 3N with a positional stopper even Qx.
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
arguably absurd

LAW 73
COMMUNICATION, TEMPO AND DECEPTION

If the Director determines that an innocent
player has drawn a false inference from a
question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of
an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge
reason for the action, and who could have
been aware, at the time of the action, that it
could work to his benefit, the Director shall
award an adjusted score.

No player who is looking at an opponent's scorecard is innocent and no adjusted score should be awarded
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does “advanced” but not experienced mean?
Not life masters?

I find myself remembering a rebuke in the second session of the Men's Pairs in Gatlinburg after I earned my very first Gold points with a section top.

One of the Sieberts (had a white German shepard) sat on my left. I hesitated, I think with a very modest 4x1 hand over a NT opening.
He had a good hand and KNEW I had nothing to think about. I, of course, didn't know.

Did he think I was advanced because I had a section top? I was not advanced and not experienced.

Any player who is “advanced” should have no problem, imo, passing in tempo. I would be suspicious of this advanced player.
Jan. 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
.

Bottom Home Top