Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, did not write the distribution down and cannot recall. LHO hold 18 points, two small . RHO 6 or 7 points, 6 card .
Distribution had nothing to do with result, declarer skills for that person are in a good match with other bridge skills.
Even if I would remember the play (I don't, sorry) I would never dare to demonstrate it on the family friendly site.

Just for illustration. In a different board against the same opposition I took 4 tricks without losing a single trick in the suit 1097хх across a singleton J.
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most funny thing about it, they were not new players. LHO playing at least 5 years, RHO much more.
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the first commentator nailed it. Barometer is a little more fun, but it seems noticeable harder to run. It would be nice to have that opportunity once in a while, but that is about it.
By the way, Philadelphia Regional at Valley Forge is one of the most pleasant tournaments.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was very lucky to have a friend with timeshare there. We stayed almost by free, cooked home, and all parking and transportation to airport expenses were shared by 4 of us.
I also got unbielively good price for flight ($114 NYC - Orlando round trip).
As a result entry fee was about half of my spending for that NABC.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I understand her point correctly, ACBL consider removing titles from teammates of cheater as punishment (disciplinary action) and looking in CDR for guides.
Logically speaking it is wrong. Innocent teammates did not commit any disciplinary violations and there is no reasons to punish them.
But title they won with help of cheating teammates simply should be recognized as not valid. Rectification, not punishment.
Dec. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe so, but could you show me part of regulation that was broken? (Not a rhetoric question, I just don't know and would like to know).
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just for the sake of arguments.
Let imagine that, completely hypothetical situation.
You inform opponents that you are using strong club system and they announce their defense against your 1 club opening. Defense does not look playable for you, because certain bids covered too wide specter of hands. In addition, descriptions of some bid are partially overlapping. “We use our judgment and table presence to select one from the few permitted by system bids,” explain opponents.
Is anything wrong so far? If yes, please refer to regulations.

You open 1 club, opponent used their judgment to choose intervention bid from one end of the permitted specter of hands and you found out that your default agreement for cases like that (let’s say negative doubles) does not for well against their defense.

After losing 11 IMPs you discussed with your partner (at the table, of cause) to use penalty doubles against that intervention bid from opponents.

Surprise, surprise! Now opponents using their judgment to made that bid only if they have cards from the opposite end of the permitted specter.

Is anything wrong with that picture?
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could you clarify what are “unanticipated disruption methods” used by your opponents?
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bob,
3.
Here is to ACBL suggested defense:
“Note: Direct bids are sound. Delayed bids are lighter.
Defense:
After a 2-level transfer preempt:
Double = 13-15 HCP balanced or strong.
2NT = 16-18 HCP, Respond as after a 2NT overcall of a weak 2-bid.
Cuebid = Takeout of suit shown.
3NT = To play.
Other calls are as over an opening preempt in suit shown.”
Link: http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/mc09.pdf

Having this defense in hand I simple cannot bid 2 intending as Michaels, as I did at the table. I had to choose between pass and 2 … probably pass based on the Note, my partner is a very aggressive balancer. How would bidding go is not clear, but if opponents follow rules we would not be in the same position. I believe link between accident and lack of defense is as hard as it could be.

2. Agree. Honestly, I personally was extremely thankful to opponents for not letting us to play multi. I played that match with my second favorite partner who undeservingly (in my opinion) in love with multi. I found it easy to agree to use it, than to convince him that it is not the best convention. When they called a director to prohibit us to use multi, I felt like Christmas is here. Actually magic continued during the first half of the match, every card was on the right place for us and we were leading very comfortably. On the second half that opponents run from us to another table and … well … we did not win the match. :)
But all the above does not cancel the fact why I describe the situation - director does not allow as to play multi based on the fact that suggested defense on site was changed 2 days ago and we have printouts of the old version.

1. Sorry, 4a is not applied here, because we have only 1 known suit:
“4. a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.”
I verified with directors if the can play it on the last National. Answer is: “only after artificial 1 and ”could be short“ treated as natural if only 4432 allowed”
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it was exactly crux of the matter. After discussion with fellow directors, our director asked our opponents exactly this and ruled accordingly. Absolutely correct ruling as far as I can see.
Dec. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ron.
It is correct, that my partner replied 2 suites, but his understanding was based on his own cards, not on agreement or meta-agreement.
I know he was not supposed to reply based on his cards, but sometimes source of the knowledge is not obvious.
We discussed situation after session and figure out that our meta-agreement is actually take-out, we both let our cards influence opinion about agreements.
As for my side information from the partner reply in UI, I am always trying my best to ignore it, in hope that other players and directors follow rules too.
Nov. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was so hard to prove that “I am not a robot” that I actually started to have some doubts about my identity :)
Just kidding. Thanks for the service.
Nov. 16, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top