Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Lech
No, I was very serious.
Yes, I did exactly what you suggested - clicked on your link and watched it for a few minutes.
I see Zhmudzinsky declaring and both of them intensively scratching different parts of their faces. Are you suggesting that dummy signals to declarer cards that face up on the table or declarer sends to dummy information about his hand?
March 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I am suggesting ceasing any public attempts to re-energize that particular accusation. Bridge already lost too much in that failed attempt. Future necromancy after authority dismissed the case does not do any good. If somebody had serious suspect he could try to collect team and verify evidence it in private and make it public only after he has something more serious than referred video. It is not a bit better than ridiculous video with accusation of Boye made by FN team. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/mysterious-video-does-anyone-have-information-about-it-or-its-origins-or-content/
March 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a limited experience to play with screen, but whenever I played, I was not able to see any parts of my partner's face. Things we see on video made by camera, are not the same things actual players could see during the game.
March 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly the same that can go wrong with a partnership game that is trivial to cheat in that had a mid 7 figures contract with sponsor.
March 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://youtu.be/ylb5Gp14sS4
Russian hockey championship (hockey with ball). Final score 11:9, all 20 goals scored on themselves.
Feb. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John Wilmott:
Rumors are that “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” was trying to make some bargain with bridge criminal prosecution. In order to get a better deal for himself he named 3(?) other cheating pairs and described methods they used to cheat.
One of them was Smirnov – Piekarek. They confess, so in that aspect “Lo rd Voldemort” was right.
The second pair was BZ. Sheriff verified the evidence and found it strong enough to charge by sending email to WBF.
Sheriff also verified the accusation of third pair. He did not find the evidence to be strong enough and did not initiate the process. For the best of my knowledge, names of players of the third accused pair were never released to public. I have no information and no desire to know if names of third accused pair were release to officials. I also don’t know if any bargain deal with ”He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” was agreed.
Let me finish by saying one more time that I believe Boye and his team handled the situation the best possible way. IMHO it is WBF who dropped the ball in B-Z case. The only task WBF was trying to solve is the following: “How to demonstrate we are fighting with cheaters and don’t be legally responsible for our action.” Their brilliantly solved that task. No other tasks were on WBF radar, so we got what we got.
Feb. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Uh, I've got a name. Ha! And it's a boy's name, too.” (Fa Mulan)
Feb. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Ed
Feb. 21, 2017
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
.

Bottom Home Top