Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and grammar :)
Actually I life the idea of “please review” button.
I see it as following:
1. Special group of people who volunteered to review created.
2. If author choice to request review, members of that group receive notifications and read access to the saved but unpublished article.
3. They may or may not send author any comments by PM.
4. Author does not have to request review and even if he did he can publish article any moment, unrelated if any commentary received.

Not sure if it would work as planned, but as a not native English speaker I would certainly try to use that option.
Feb. 21, 2017
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I once read something that said ACBL doesn't allow partnerships to have no agreements about defensive carding.”

It is interesting. I never saw that regulation. If you will see it again, could you share it with me.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the same case book? I did not finish reading it yet.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Andy,
“But if that is the case, their partner should be just as much in the dark as you are about what's in their hand …”

Yes and No. Yes, East as much as dark as declarer about what is in the West hand.
But there is a difference. East knows that cards played by West contain no information about his distribution, he is aware that lead may or may not be law from two small; Declarer does not have that information, he is under natural assumption that West would lead top from two small.


“AND the partner should also be playing the cards randomly in similar situations.”
Why? They don't have an agreements to play random cards on defense, they have no agreements at all :)

I actually was East and I played the standard lead all the way. I was perfectly aware that my partner does not make any conclusions, but I though it would be fair to opponents. I also found it to be useful preparation to explanation of the concept of agreement about leads.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found case 2 to be very interesting.
Declarer claimed without stated the line. Successful play could require unblocking play.
AC agreed with declarer based on two independent arguments:
1. They found that failure to unblock K on top would be irrational play.
2. They said that probability of West to find the only play to create problem for declarer is very low, and we should disregard that possibility.

Majority of expert commentators agree, other disagree.
The first argument is judgment. I personally believe that failure to find any technical maneuver is not an irrational, but merely careless play, but if AC members think otherwise who am I to argue.
I found the second argument to be scary. It imply that that declarer could prohibit opponent to find the very difficult line by showing his cards. I firmly believe that director and AC should not weight the probability of defenders to find killing play after the claim. Play exist – it is enough.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And, of course, everybody thinks that he is truth, not the dust.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ed,
It is funny to assign to somebody who does not know transfers methods like Kickback or cue-bidding on implicitly agreed suits.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Barry,
It was a question about MI only, without UI considerations. What basically happens, opponent behind the 4 bidder, assumed 4 is a transfer and made a bid you can regard only as suicide. The only possible LA for both opener and responder was redouble, but it would not change number of match points.
I believe natural 4 bid is not alertable but not sure about “no agreement” situation.

By the way, your remark about no one opens NT with 6+ major made me laugh, because it was exactly what 2NT opener made on the previous table :)
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Extremely interesting collection of cases,
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is true. Thanks for correction.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Andy
“Since he thought he had the agreement” … no he did not. He did not even know he could have any agreements about leads and carding.

“(If the agreement wasn't actually there, his partner could have corrected him at that time.)”
Corrected about what?
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Andy.
Could you quote a regulation that says “ leading low from 2 requires a pre-alert”? ;)

Here is the ACBL alert procedure: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/AlertProcedures.pdf
“Leading Low from a Doubleton
If your defensive opening lead agreement is that the opening leader will typically lead the smaller card from a holding of Xx, you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.”

Please note word “agreement” there. People supposed to alert and pre-alert agreements, not leads.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Game was in the club. We cannot prohibit novices to play in “big guys” game, if they wish, don't we?
Of course, normal people would not make an issue about that kind of stuff, and actually nobody did.
But I see no reason why law should not cover it.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I found it very significant.
I would say even more. Like majority of people who reading bridgewinners I expected verdict “guilty”.
But verdict was “not guilty.” And this forced me to re-analyze situation one more time.

Who, more probably, made a mistake: majority of us, readers, or specially assigned for the task committee?
I have no reasons to expect me be smarter than committee members so I am looking at who used better procedure to investigate. I don’t really know anything about their procedure, except I know they used some procedure. This is an official committee, procedure tested on several other cases. I am guessing their procedure should be at least reasonable.
They worked more than a year and they come up with verdict. I don't have information to question their procedure and deny their verdict.

As for our procedure, it was terrible. We never had opportunity to listen the another side. Many people jumped into “guilty” conclusion much earlier than any evidence was presented. Kit Woolsey’s experiment was the only reasonable evidence of cheating, the rest was collection of nonsenses and anecdotes, but if you check the history of the forum, 90% of readers was convinced in cheating much before it was published. Quantity trumps quality.
Another, very typical argument was reference to authority. It often was presented like that: “Official authority made a dramatic act to un-invite them. They would not done it without a proof. We need to trust authority.”
Now authority made a more dramatic act by recognizing BZ non-guilty. It is funny, that the same people who asked me to believe in guilt of BZ by reading mind of authorities don't what to read the paper of authority. Well, it is human nature. As soon as person make up his mind he need much more proof to change his believe.

Correlation found by Woolsey is a very serious and remarkable evidence. Was it proof? I felt it was. I am not so sure now. Our minds were very well fertilized for the guilty verdict. It was not “double blind” procedure, number of boards was very limited and experts could see them and subconsciously follow their expectation.

So, I am taking the easy road - I believe in the verdict of DC unless I will see the evidence of mistakes.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a results of Individual tournament run as a part of 2013 SPORTACCORD WORLD MIND GAMES.
http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/beijing.13/microsite/Asp/totalindiv.asp?qtournid=1010&qgroupno=1&qroundno=3

You can find it ironic.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Eugene, some comments should be removed not because of public opinion about them, but because they should not be published at all unrelated to how many people said they agree or disagree with them.
Feb. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are talking about research made by Kit Woolsey and published here on Bridgewinners? I hope that was the part of the case presented to DC.
Feb. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, I missed the point that partner of 5 bidder could not bid 3 in the case of correct explanation. We were not given his cards, so it was easy to assume his bid is automatic, but it could be not the case.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peter
> At the same time they disallowed the statistics

Sorry, I am still confused. What do you mean by disallowed the statistics?
For what I understand “experts lacking credentials in polish club” part come to play when we need to find correlation between wide gap and strength of cards only. If we are testing hypothesis that wide gap shows the top of the range we need to know what range the current sequence shows in the system. To say it you need to know the used system.
I vaguely remember discussion on that forum year ago. It was one-sided bidding 1 - 1; 2 - 2. AZ or CB hold 9 points and put his last bid narrow. Somebody on the forum said: “Look 2 4th suit bid shows 10+ points, player hold only 9, so his narrow placement shows subminimum, match with hypothesis.” Actually, 2 bid in that sequence shows exactly 4 spades and 7-9(10) points, so there is no match to hypothesis.
Problem with evaluating strength by intermediate players is in a simple fact that all cases starts only from the second round of bidding, sometimes competitive bidding. They need to know the system beyond familiarity with convention card.

I believe DC correctly ruled out that kind of expertise and stick to players who know Polish club. Honestly, I have no information, but I have no reason to doubt in honesty and competency of the DC, so I just hope they did the right things.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I missed something?
I believe all evidence was available for DC.

All what was dismissed are opinions of some experts who or did not like to say their names or did not prove they are experts in that particular area.

All videos, screenshots and the rest were investigated by DC with help of experts who gave their names and proved their competence. Is it correct?
Feb. 15, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top