Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you play it differently for MP and IMPs? I believe actual situation was in IMPs.
Oct. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Partner, I have a stopper. Please pass if you have 8 other tricks” :)
Oct. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North is pulling, because redouble of South on the lead direction double from West means exactly: “Partner, my are bad and I am afraid of lead. Please pull if you cannot help me to stop hearts”
Oct. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bob,
I believe it happened against you when my partner bite of and almost choked with part of his pen.
By some reason he had pen in his mouth when he realized that I open 1NT with 6-5 in majors…
(I did not do it by purpose, had 15 points of following shape:
xxx
xxxxx
xx
xxx)
Oct. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can recall about 20 cases when I made a wrong reply on Blackwood. Different reasons: by purpose, miscounted key cards, misbid, wanted to make one bid but actually made another “due to loss of concentration regarding the intent.”
I cannot recall the single instance when my wrong reply was based on _mechanical_ error.
Sept. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Psyching an Artificial opening bid” listed as “Disallowed Bidding Agreements.”
Because psyching by definition cannot be covered by agreement I don't think it is correct place to put it.
Aug. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Size does not matter if penalty assigned consistently.
Aug. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Dan,
I believe you are mistaken. Alerting and providing information in that case not only proper, but it is duty of the player according the law.
All information from the correct explanation is UI to partner, it would not benefit him, because if that UI used, directors are in good position to adjust result.
Of course no one wants to provide 100% detectable UI to his partner, so people often abuse common misconception that it would benefit partner.
East (who are competent in bridge rules, according the original post) must know it.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And why do we need to “increase the number of similar contracts and similar opening leads on boards”? This supposed to be a bridge game tournament, not quiz solving competition.

As for robot caused luck … this particular luck you are trying to eliminate very strongly connected with skills.

There is a huge amount of pure luck we cannot take away, why to bother about that one.
I noticed several cases of huge difference on defense performed by robots on the same board with the ONLY difference was: one human declarer discarded from the DUMMY 2 from 732, and another discarded 3.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, side question.
What about 1 bid by West. Was it alerted by East? If yes, what explanation was provided?
My thoughts are:
1. EW using Mathe, so 1 bid that does not promise more than 3 cards in hearts is alertable.
2. East has duty to alert alertable bid and explain it according the system, even if he knows partner mixed up the agreement.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it could be good idea or bad idea, but why should anyone to try to prohibit it?
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Doug.
Could you quote the law to confirm the following “The GiB opponents are being misinformed about what system the human is playing, which is a violation of the laws.”
I was under impression that opponents are entitled to know all _agreements_ only.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jonathan,
I have no doubts that if people like Peg and you saying there is a problem, the problem is real.
But I cannot see that problem out of results from the latest Philadelphia regional. So, my post was to understand if I am misinterpreting the data or there were something specific for that Regional that made the problem with masterpointwise inequality between pairs and teams less acute.

Hmm… looking and my data. Masterpoint awards for Sunday. 28 tables teams and for Thursday, 137 table teams almost the same. Does not feel right at all. Am I missing something? I am also confused by words “based on”. Do they have any special meaning towards the actual conditions?
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Peg,
I just look at results the latest regional I played and do not really see _that_ kind of problem. Not sure if we were lucky here or I just missing something:
I copied data with masterpoints given for first 4 places below:

Sunday AX Swiss - 28 Tables: 1st - 32.09; 2nd - 24.07; 3rd - 18.05; 4th - 13.54

Saturday Open Pairs / Based on 29 Tables: 1st - 28.88; 2nd - 21.65; 3rd - 16.25; 4th - 12.18

Friday AX Pairs / Based on 81 Tables: 1st - 34.29; 2nd - 25.72; 3rd - 19.29; 4th - 14.47

Thur Flight A Teams / Based on 137 Tables: 1st - 32.23; 2nd - 24.17; 3rd - 18.13; 4th - 13.60

***

By the way, there is another problem I can see from that data - shrinking of attendance on weekends.
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But don't we already have it? Everyone can play ACBL robot games that cheap, stratified, have much less boards and give away huge amount of masterpoints?
July 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to refer to Edgar Kaplan “ETHICS HUDDLES AND PROTESTS” article, which I personally regard as the most important article about bridge ethics.
Idea of Kaplan is the following: player should be able to “say “I have been damaged” without implying “I have been cheated””
All kinds of ethics violations, according Kaplan, should be addressed as a merely technical violation, similarly to exposed card.
Here is an illustration from Kaplan’s article:
“At the meeting, South, a lady of absolutely irreproachable character, told us that she had hesitated slightly, but only because she had a slight problem, certainly not to give partner information. We believed her. North, a gentleman whom we all knew to be of blameless reputation, told us that he had not allowed partner’s hesitation, which he hardly noticed, to influence him. We believed him. And we awarded an adjusted score, for one no-trump, undoubled, down two.
We did not have to weigh North South’s morals or delve into their minds. North, no matter why, had taken doubtful action after partner huddled; and, under our rule, he was not entitled to do so. We certainly did not think that East-West had been cheated (if we had thought so, we would have referred the matter to the Conduct and Ethics Committee.) But we did think that they might have been damaged (not were damaged, but might have been damaged, observe), so entitled to redress.”

***

If you look at the situation from that point of view, you can see that absolutely worst think you can do at the table is to “educate” your opponents about ethical side of their action.
What you supposed to do is:
1. Reply on question without unnecessary comments. No calls for director at that moment. Opponents had a right to ask question, your duty is to reply. No possible violation of rules yet.
2. After lead made if you feel that lead might be suggested by UI, you should call the director and say: “RHO asked about club bid, LHO lead clubs. I think I might have been damaged.”
3. If director will not agree you were damaged you can appeal or not, but you should carefully avoid discussion with opponents about how ethically correct was their behavior. If they ask, you can explain that RHO choose very unfortunate timing for his question and you feel that it could affect his partner decision about lead. You agree that they did not try to do anything bad, but rules are rules and we have director to check if some accident violation was made and corrective action is due.

It is how I see it. I might be wrong.
Agree, it is much easy in theory than during the actual game.
July 11, 2017
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment July 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Medical students' disease (also known as second year syndrome or intern's syndrome) is a condition frequently reported in medical students, who perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of a disease that they are studying. “

I have a feeling that is a very similar case. Good students of complicated science of bridge ethics, like medical students, perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of unethical behavior from opponents much more often than unethical behavior actually exist.
It is not innocent disease, because imaginary “black magic” from opponents together with absence of expected response from directors, make student feel bad and act such a way that make them real issues.
July 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that particular case, according OP, RHO of topic starter hold unsupported King of clubs with Ace behind it. I doubt he actually wanted his partner lead that suit.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for explanation John.

I guess I see the problem.
Masterpoint Awards document (http://web2.acbl.org/codification/MPBOOK.pdf)
has “the absolute limits on the depth of all overall awards” that is 50 places for Four Sessions (page 11). If I read the document correctly, this is the upper limit of depth for all possible masterpoint awards.

Because of that limitation if we have one huge section, only very limited number of players can get masterpoints.

If field will be divided in sections, depth of the section awards according the same document “is 40% times the number of pairs in the comparison group, rounded to the nearest whole number with .5 rounded up,” so about 40% of field could be awarded.

As a result for 1000 participants up to 50 can be awarded in each session (maybe even less). By dividing to 10 sections by 100 player in each number of awards could be increased by 10 times.

***

I guess majority of players on BW does not care about masterpoint awards. Test is test, lets ACBL to have room to make the second game more “masterpoint hunters friendly”.
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it's a pity
July 10, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top