Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Old computer illiterate volunteers are great, but when they need to work with computers…

In all serious, I would love to know what the root cause of all these “technical issues” is
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thanks for the detailed notes.
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One other point that is probably worth mentioning:

The style of disclosure that is appropriate for determining whether or not a bidding system is consistent with local bidding regulations is likely to be quite different than the style of disclosure that is using before and event which may in turn be different than what is used during an event.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was referred to the unit board who declared the whole thing a stupid waste of time…

Given that I've never met the man, not had any interaction with him, I doubt that it was personal
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When Jay Whipple filed a recorder form against me, I damn well complained here on Bridge Winners because the whole thing was a ridiculous abuse of process…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the distinction that you are trying to make…

If someone can remember a defense to a strong club opening or a variable club opening or a canape style 4 card major opening or what have you, then they should be able to remember defenses to the various pieces that comprise Sam's system….
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say yes, however, the humans should be allowed to use an expert system that would translate the set of 1000 hand into something that a human can understand.

I would also say that the best way to effect disclosure between a human and a robot is completely irrelevant to whether or not people need to develop skills with core competencies of the game like being able to count out a hand or familiarize themselves with different types of bidding system.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, when I said “At the time the offense occurred”, I meant by calling a director

Also, given all the bile you spew, you hardly get to clutch at pearls worrying that someone might get called a “whiner”…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
YEap, every player has a right to go off and whine to the recorder, just as we have a right to say that this is a stupid thing to do…

If there are issues with the legality of someone's system, this should be addressed at the time that the offense occurred.

Alternatively, if there are higher level questions, by all means as the C&C committee. But this really seems outside the bailiwick of the recorder process…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Are you guys serious, expecting all players, even in a
> national event, to have generic and/or meta defenses
> for anything that comes their way?

Obviously not…

People are welcome to not bother investing time / effort in preparation. However, they shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy when they don't.

If Sam were playing some esoteric, it might be different. But this is really quite tame stuff..
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No I can't

But, the same holds true for most any pair playing 5 card majors and a weak NT…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Pretty tacky next time send him his request and than
> post here an article but the way did it I
> dont think showed much respect for Robb.

Comment 1: Robb is obligated to follow up on complaints that get levied to the recorders office. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to Sam to have an objection to the original complaint without this being any kind of criticism of Robb.

If anyone if cast aspersions at Robb is you and your insinuations.

> Why post it here is it to gain public support of players?

I suspect that the reason that Sam posted this publicly is

A. To inform people of the way in which the Recorder's office is being misused
B. To generate support for players

What's wrong with this?
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two immediate reactions

1. Consider an old fashioned standard American 1 opening.

For some, it denies 15-17 HCP in a balanced hand. FOr others, it doesn't…
For some it denies 5-5 in the blancs unless you have enough strength of a high reverse. For others it doesn't.

There are all sorts of ambiguities with respect to the definition of opening bids. The issue here is that you don't approve of the system that Sam is playing so you are applying more scrutiny to what he is doing that you do to others.

2. The standard that you propose has absolutely no relationship to the way in which conventions are licensed. Its cute that you have invented an arbitrary new standard, but it's ultimately meaningless.

Case in point:

I am allowed to play a Majors first 1 opening that shows

“4+ Hearts, ~ 9 -14 HCP, ight have a longer minor. Denies 11+ - 12 HCPs and a balanced hand.”

However, if I want to use a 1 opening to show the same hand, this is deemed too difficult to defend against and banned at all levels of play in the ACBL.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> The game is greatest ever to most on here does this
> make it even greater, not to me. The declaring and
> defending is the true beauty bidding not so much.

This is precisely the attitude that killed the game…

It's good enough now…
Why should I need to learn anything new or different…
You kids get off my lawn!
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> What is great about this for bridge?

Someone is thinking, being creative, and advancing the state of the art…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's assume that the answer is “no” . That the actual boundary is fuzzy and that there are some 8 counts that don't get opened

1. What material impact would this have on your decision making?
2. How is this any different from the fuzzy boundary that would exist if Sam were playing Acol or Precision and chose to open 1?
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Experts may have meta-agreements and not
> need to much discussion. We don't, and
> probably never will

Fair enough, however, my expectation is that people who play against Sam's system either

1. Play at his local club in which it is reasonable for them to be expected to invest time in a defense

2. Are playing in expert level events

As a practical example you state that

> At the club where we play, pretty much everyone plays
> close to the same system.

So it doesn't sound like Sam's choice of system will affect you in any way
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, you seem to be introducing a number of rather controversial claims. I'd like to understand what brave new world that we are heading towards: It would appear that either

A. Convention licensing is now operating at the level of individuals and that people who practice poor disclosure can be banned from playing methods that are legal for other's to employ. To me, at least, this represents a dramatic turn however potentially a welcome one because there are a whole bunch of people out there who are grossly incompetent with respect to their disclosure obligations and I welcome the chance to use this new tool to improve the game.

B. If one individual fails to provide adequate disclosure about the methods that he is using then this justifies draconian revisions on what methods can be played across the the country.

I look forward to understanding which world we're heading towards
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The big problem with this argument is that NO ONE is able to adequately disclose their methods. I am quite sure that if we spent a bit of time looking at all the style and nuance that pairs playing so-called natural systems use to color their decisions we'd quickly find that the amount of disclosure is grossly inadequate.

The issue here is not whether or not Sam the amount of disclosure that Sam provides is appropriate or not, but rather, that he is playing stuff that looks weird and folks are using this as an excuse to bitch and moan.

With respect to disclosure, I would far rather sit down opposite Sam than one of those Gold Flight pairs who regularly reverse on a 3424 12 count…
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Edgar mentioned, the convention charts committee also
> could revisit the issue of giving the directors discretion
> to prohibit a pair from playing any system that IN ITS
> TOTALITY is too complex for the opponents to grasp

If the typical ACBL director is competent to make these sorts of decisions, why is this being addressed by the recorder's office?
July 26
.

Bottom Home Top