Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are specialist web sites out there where people can discuss climate change to their heart's content. I don't see the value in allowing folks the opportunity to vent here.

Conversely, I can guarantee that a wide spread discussion about, say, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement will rip this forum to shreds.

Consider how heated our bridge related discussions get. Do you really want to expand our scope to include religion, politics, and money?


Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I think that you have a small typo

> Yet, in pairs, it is tough for a pair to really familiarize > itself with their opponents' CC

I think want you meant to say is “Americans don't bother to look at convention cards”
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely not.

In my mind, one of the biggest mistakes that BBO ever made was adding a Watercooler to discuss non bridge related topics. In my opinion, the presence of these threads had an extremely divisive effect on the community.

Simply put, we don't need to discover whole new sets of reasons to be disgusted with one another.

Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10 years ago or so, there was a player that Draper / MIT club that everyone knew as “Binkley”. Binkley would balance on ANYTHING.

One time, I was sitting on (approximately)

S KQJT
H Axx
D KQx
C Axx

Playing 4 card majors, partner opened 1H as dealer, Binkley pass, and I needed to decide what to do.

I decided to start with a simple raise to 2H. As expect LHO and partner both passed and Binkley emerged with a double. I redoubled, showing three hearts, a maximum riase, and an interest in blood.

Such the fun hand.


Nov. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I rest my case.

I'll remember that next time I am playing in an EBU event
Nov. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran / Ed

I think the root of your disagreement revolves around differing interpretations of what the word “that” modifies.

Let's assume that we're unlucky enough to be playing in an ACBL event and that the GCC is relevant to this discussion


> General Convention Chart, Item 3 under Disallowed: Psychic
> controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used
> in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for
> that psych.)

Next let's assume that we're looking at an auction like the following

2S - (P) - 2NT - (P)

where 2NT is defined as an asking bid, says nothing about the 2NT bidder's hand, and this is disclosed properly.

The 2NT bid can only be a psychic control if the the original 2S bid was a psyche and no one (so far) has described a case where people are psyching the 2S opening.

In theory, the rebids OVER 2NT might server as a psychic control. (for example, let's suppose that opener is barred from bidding rebidding MORE than 3S). However, here once again, we run into the issue that there hasn't been a psyche. The 2NT bid has been accurately described.

It might be reasonable to claim that a 2NT bid that CLAIMS to promise game invitational values but, in fact, was made with a preemptive raise create issue IF the response structure barered rebids > 3S with a super max. Here, the responses might be construed to protect the 2NT psyche. (My mind isn't made up on this one). However, in the more general case it seems clear that Ed is misinterpreting the regulation.






Nov. 15, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment Nov. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of these decades I really need to finish the write up of my system notes…
Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> if I understand your position, you play a similar card,
> or perhaps an organized system of wonder bids.

By preference, in serious partnerships I would play

1. MOSCITO (strong club, 4 card majors with a majors first opening style, transfer opening, and frequent use of relays)

2. Assumed fit preempts





Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Conversely, if you are convinced you are out-classed,
> randomisation may be perfectly sensible.

Many forms of bridge reward placing in first, second, or third place but don't apply any form of penalty for low scores.

Given this type of scoring system, its pretty easy to demonstrate that increasing the variance in your methods is a a useful strategy. In fact, one can show that there are conditions under which your chances of placing will be improved if you trade off an increase in variance for a decrease in expected value.
Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I know that I am 100% right and that is all that matters to me.
> Just not talking to the right crowd.

And I'm the one you characterize as “holier than thou”?
Nov. 14, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I agree completely. (Believe it or not, I am well aware of these aspects of the laws)
Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken,

I seem to recall that Boye, and SW, and Kit have all gotten lots of support for their efforts.

As you your self admit, no one agrees with your insane little crusade. What was the quote? Oh yes

> Why am I the only person who cares about this subject? I
> feel like the Lone Ranger.

Perhaps the fact that no one agrees with you, means that you're wrong.


Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, I have no doubt that you are a far better bridge player than I am currently, or ever shall be. Sadly, you don't have the good sense to understand that the relative difference in our ability to play bridge doesn't mean that your sense of aesthetics are superior to mine.

The aspects of the game that I find interesting are those related to the exchange of information across a limited communication channel. You don't like these methods. This is all fine and well. Live and let live.

Where I have a problem is your self appointed little crusade to drive people like me out of the game. (Before you go around criticizing me for a “holier than thou” attitude, give some good consideration to the the stance that you just advocated).

On the bright side, based on on own posting later in the thread, it sounds like you're just an isolated idiot, off braying in the wilderness.

> Why am I the only person who cares about this subject?
> I feel like the Lone Ranger.

Nov. 14, 2015
Richard Willey edited this comment Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, I really hope to sue you some day.
Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am well aware of all of these bids (and a whole lot more).

I don't consider any of them to be psyches, largely because I think that the entire notion of a psyche is outdated and needs to be replaced with concepts like “mixed strategies” which more properly describe players behavior.

FWIW, I consider many of the bids that you describe as psyches as systemic in my preferred systems.
Nov. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Love the name
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well written article.

I agree that titles should be vacated. I disagree that we should attempt to predict what might have been. I don't think that we can reliably determine who would have won an event absent the presence of cheaters. (This holds doubly true for single elimination KO events).

Yes, it is distasteful to have so many events and titles lay fallow. At the same time there is value in this. The complacency of the bridge playing community is what allowed this to take for so very very long. The gaping hole in the records book will serve as a graphic reminder how badly we all screwed the pooch.


Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The following might prove helpful https://vimeo.com/79954057

If not, consider http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I still think that some form of positive accreditation
> is a step in the right direction; the devil is in the
> detail.

First step: Collect Underwear
Second step: ???
Third step: Profit!
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were being paid lots of $$$ for my services as a pro, I would certainly like to be able to vote on whether other players could enter the market…
Nov. 10, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top