Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. In that case it will prove there is no connection between damage and MI and I can left the result stay.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>>An innocent pair has no reason to fear expert analysis of the data and even less reason to fear a non-expert.

Sorry, it makes no sense. If somebody got in a road accident, would he like the court to base decision on non-experts opinion about the speed he drove or braking path he had?

>> not-guilty verdict by competent judges, based on scrutiny of the evidence, would surely have convinced many more observers

What make you feel it is not the case?
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not director, but in order to tackle that problem I would really like to make a poll. Two polls to be exact.
Some players provided with the same information that had player; and the same number of players provided with the correct information.
If I will see that more players bid 5 after receiving MI, I would adjust if not, I would not.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opponents are established pair it is expected, but what if opponents is picked up partnership or just C players?
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The last week sex related scandal from chess: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/worlds-top-female-chess-player-resigns-5-moves-repeatedly-made/
Women's world champion Hou Yifan protested that in the open chess tournament by swiss system she was paired to play against women 7 times during the first 9 rounds.
There were ~150 players including 25 women in the tournament.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My friends (very good and experienced players) were lectured by opponents for not alerting 1 in that exactly situation. Director confirmed that precision players should alert 1 bid because it is game forcing and suggested to explain it along the lines presented by topic starter.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it be better instead of asking (that creates UI for partner from your answer and possible UI for East from West's reply) silently take a look at opponents convention card?
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, another Russian speaking person is here :)

In that saying in Russian word “man” or any synonym is not in use at all :)

It is a tricky linguistic construction with subject missed or rather implied.
Умный в гору не пойдёт, умный гору обойдёт. (Word by word by word: Smart will not climb mountain, smart will go around mountain.)
Jan. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I clicked other because I learn 0:0 rule the hard way (due to my team accident) long before that discussions. I don't really remember what I thought would be the correct result before I learn the rule. Probably never thought about it.
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, this article reminds me jokes about explanations, given by husband who got caught by his wife in the most inappropriate moment.
“No my dear, it was not what you think you saw. I never saw this woman before. She just came to ask if we can spare an onion; she needs to cook dinner for her hungry children. Her diamond ring accidently fell of her finger. And there was a mouse. You know there are mice in our house, I always told you we need to get rid of these small beasts. The mouse took the ring and run with it. We run to catch the mouse. It was long and exacting hunt. I perspired and took off wet clothes. We finally got we mouse on the bed and you came at the same exact moment. Here is the ring. And here are my friends who can confirm what kind a good husband am I.”
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair, our club is not one of ACBL clubs. But we follow ACBL regulation anyway.
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well… It is one or another, not both in the same time.
If team captain actually is a person who returns slips, he should participate in score comparison or, at very list, be informed about what to return.

If we believe that one experienced player can put failed card into a hand without checking correct it or not, we should believe that another experienced team can report scores based on what was overheard.
Jan. 17, 2017
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment Jan. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I am a little confused. Could you confirm if I understand the following facts correctly:
1. None of players who participated in the unfortunate match reported to directors any result of the match at all.
2. None of players involved officially reported the incident.
3. Incorrect result of match (draw) was reported by the team member of one team, who did not play in the match, did not participate in the score comparison, never saw score sheets and did not verify the score with another team. He just was told to report draw and he did it without knowledge what it is not correct? Was he some kind of “designated slip returner”?
Jan. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real story.
Two years ago, Honors club. I am playing with my son, completely novice that time. No conventions in use by us. RHO open 1 and I jumped 2NT. My son explained it as 20-21 balanced.
Opponent chuckled, said “I don't think so”, and bid 3. dbl-pass-pass-pass. We lost trick or two on defense, but it still was 4 digit number.
Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Corey,
Sorry, but your post seems like a prove, of the opposite point of view.
You wrote: “Do we really need disclosure of conventions?” People who like to use scientific approach usually have no problem to answer: “Yes we do.” It is much more complicated with people who like to play “just bridge,” especially in the environment there scientific approach is frowned.
And your examples of misuse of permitted general chart conventions just proves the point.
"We also played an opening 2NT bid as unusual for the minors … how are the opponents supposed to bid over a 2NT opening? They don't know whether we're showing 7 points or 21.”
Sorry, WHAT? You did not tell your opponents 2NT opening was preemptive with two minors? It was cheating.
People should be educated that playing conventions is not a sin, but playing anything (even the most natural stuff) without full disclosure is.
Jan. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like Mister Shrek getting a new suit. Congratulations to tailors, they did a good and passionate job. An ogre in a nice suit is a better than naked ogre, I guess.
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It clearly could be the case in the first occasion. I did not see that director before, and did not see (or did not recognize) him after. My opponents called him by name.

I was not part of the second occasion, so cannot say anything about it.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it could be a problem. But it was not an issue in both cases here - card played from dummy was not the first card played on the trick and no cards was played after it before director was called.
In the second case problem in the most part was created by dummies action. I think the director should handle it differently, but at least I see the director's logic.

I cannot see the director's logic in the first case at all.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Yu,
Now I am confused. Are you talking about clubs where they play game called bridge or some other game?
In bridge psyching by natural bids explicitly permitted by code.
Law 40C
“Deviation from System and Psychic Action
1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced
understandings always, provided that his partner
has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents…”
Do we really need to discuss details of homebrew rules?

Sorry for being aggressive, this is one of mine pet peeves.

For my experience, imaginative bidding is much closer to the red line compare to bluffing, because it is much easy to become the implicit agreement.
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for my ignorance, but why does it matter?
I was under impression, that there are two important cases: agreements and deviations from agreement. If certain kind of deviation from agreements comes up repeatedly, it became part of agreement. As a part of agreements it must be disclosed and use of particular agreements could be limited (prohibited) by authorities.

What is the reason to care if it is gross deviation (psych) or “just deviation”? As long as it is not the part of agreement it is OK. As soon as it became part of undisclosed agreement it is NOT OK.
Dec. 20, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top