Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not very good with google, are you Ray?

Let's see: Law 40C of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge reads:

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.

If you prefer, Appendix 4 of the WBF Systems Policy can be found at

http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/official-documents/Policies/WBFpsychicbiddingguidelines.pdf

FWIW, I find it surprising the that the “Conduct and Ethics Chair, District 21” would be confused about such a basic issue…
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The WBF allows regulatory bodies to do whatever the damn well feel.

For example, the ACBL is permitted to have regulations like the following “You may not use any conventions if your 1NT might ever contain fewer than 10 HCPs”.

Italy is allowed to ban psyches even though the right to psyche is protected in the laws.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my perspective, the critical issue is one that Adam introduced.

If the pair in question is playing very sound one level openings (sound in the context of a 2/1 system), then the 1NT opening appears questionable.

Before making any firm judgement, I'd like to understand how the following sequence is defined

1 - 1NT
2 - 2
Aug. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, the USBF conditions of contest include the following

“Each player in a USBF Championship, by entering the event, agrees that in the
event the player represents the United States in a WBF Championship, he or she
will comply with WBF requirements for the championship. These requirements
include, among other things:

Drug Testing: Each player must be willing to submit to drug testing
mandated by WBF.”

If the WBF includes a pointer to the CAS, then the USBF would seem to have agreed to the same.
Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Other people may think differently, but my limited experience
> with the monied class would lead me to wonder if many of
> them would forgo the dubious pleasure of a lawsuit, both
> because the sums involved were of little significance (to
> the sponsor), and to avoid public embarrassment of being
> exposed as having been taken in by charlatans.

Here is a rather famous epithet from a member of the monied class:

“No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.”
Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of what I do at work is presentations in front of senior executives. In my experience, these presentations go much better if “extraneous” information gets omitted.

From my perspective, the “coughing” charges are extraneous.

1. I sincerely doubt that the severity of the penalties would change if F+S were convicted of cheating via (coughing and board placement) as opposed to just coughing.

2. The coughing charges are much weaker and seem much more difficult to prove. As such, the coughing charges are a distraction at best and might even serve to discredit the board placement data.

If it were me, I'd start by prosecuting the board placement charges in isolation. I might try to introduce the coughing during allocution (if that were to come to pass).
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Only the times when they move the tray do we enter a
> subset of the 4 state realm. You can't really use the
> 4-state/5-state argument with EW boards.

Is this nomenclature that was introduced to analyze this specific case? I consider myself pretty well versed in statistics and the reference is eluding me…
Aug. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL spent close to two million dollars on a program to replace ACBLScore. This collapsed into a dispute with the software developer. The ACBL ended up forfeiting all of the money and the washed their hands of the software.

There was a retrospective to try to figure out how best to proceed. This uncovered so many other problems that ACBLScore is currently on the back burner.

I think that the current operating plan is to collect as much money as possible from the existing membership base as they slowly die off. At some point in time, someone will make a decision to turn the lights off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt1Pwfnh5pc
Aug. 6, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Aug. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> If you can't make it a condition of booking the hotel
> that it supplies you with printer(s) and projector(s),
> there is something far wrong.

Please recall that ACBLScore doesn't work with projectors. For that matter, ACBLScore also doesn't understand that there is anything but dot matrix printers.

Even if a hotel wanted to help us, we'd need to hope that they happened to have 30 year old piece of tech lying around collecting dust…
Aug. 6, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment Aug. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went and looked over the Facebook page describing the Denver incident.

I find it extremely surprising that the “defense” is attempting to use Alzhemier's related dementia as a mitigating circumstance. If someone's dementia is sufficiently advanced to be using this as a defense this raises some very real issues regarding the propriety of entering into contracts with them for bridge services.

This seems like a case where the cure might be worse than the disease…
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul is, of course, correct. I had a brain fart and decided to throw the 3=3=3=4 and a few random 2=3=3=5/3=2=3=5 hands in their as well. Sigh…
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any 16-17 Balanced OR
Any 13-15 with primary clubs and (5332 or 4333) shape
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is that the rule in question was put in effect to restrict strong pass systems that used “one level wonder bids”. For example, at least one of the strong pass systems had a 1c opening that showed either

8-12 HCP with 0-2 clubs OR 10-12 HCP with 6+ clubs

Similarly, the 1D opening either shows 0-2 Diamonds or 6+ Diamonds.

As such, I would interpret the worlds “length” as 6+ or maybe 5+ rather than “three plus”.
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to think that the leadership of the ABA has taken a look at the clown car that is the ACBL and decided that they are better off keeping the ACBL management as far away from their $$$ as possible.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I am badly torn about this whole bro-ha-ha and (unfortunately) find that my opinion might rest upon a technicality.

First: I am a strong proponent of “Innocent until proven guilty”.

To date, the members of the two teams have been accused but not convicted.
For better or worse, the ACBL has decided to postpone the hearing until Orlando.
I don't like the thought that a player might be denied the right to play under the presumption that they are guilty.

Second: Balanced against this, the format of the Bermuda Bowl is such that you can't determine who would have won had team Foo been absent. KOs are great for figuring out who is first, but not so good at figuring out how the other pairs are ordered.

Putting a team into contention when you know that there is a real chance that they might need to withdraw “after the fact” seems like a very poor decision.

Here's where the technicality figures in:

Let's assume that all members of the two teams are found to be in violation of the rules and suspended for one year.

Does anyone know when the suspension becomes effective? More specifically, does the clock start ticking at the moment that the offense took place or the moment that the sentence was handed down.

If it were the later (and I have no idea whether or not this is true), then technically the players on the teams are all members in good standing until they are convicted (and, since said conviction would not be handed down until after Poland, there would not be an issue with their playing)
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt

A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>> Why would the ACBL say no to preduped hands for a regional swiss?

> Probably just a local issue. But the first ACBL response to the request was no.

Alternative hypothesis: The ACBL does not object to preduplicated hands, but doesn't want to work with Nick…
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like an improvement over the current system.
Aug. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would seem that the sample size is too small and the records are too spotty to ever reach an adequate conclusion.
July 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is all well and good. However, I'll be much more impressed if ACBL were to come up with a reasonable approach to deal with electronic communications.
July 28, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top