Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 36 37 38 39
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations Eddie - you are truly deserving and a real credit to our game!
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a safe bet that Bridge World readers are aware of the cheating scandals. It isn't a magazine for the masses. It is appropriate for such an article to appear, it is journalism. A comment in the article about the controversy would not be misplaced but it surely isn't necessary for this audience.
Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the kind words. I do have to confess in that picture I am not wearing any pants… I hope I don't have to give the award back. I couldn't afford the whole outfit.
Feb. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to say - I am amazed that in a proceeding so serious there are so many comments related to sartorial issues. This isn't a fashion show or a prom! It would be a pathetic panel indeed that judged the defendants by their attire!
Feb. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The late Henry Bethe had a great writeup of the history of masterpoints - http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-history-of-masterpoint-awards-tournaments-and-events/

This was very accurate - only a couple of quibbles -
1. The Summer Nationals schedule that I remember was a bit different.
2. What he calls “gold” points from the “60s were actually ”National Red“ and commonly known as pink points. The 5/3 ratio is correct.
3. Actual ”Gold“ points were introduced in 1969 because of people becoming life masters with red points from side games. Existing members were grandfathered but new members had to earn 25 Gold points which could ONLY be earned with a regional/national 2+ session event section top or by an overall finish in one of these events. They were pretty hard to get and btw you could not get gold points in ”Flight B".
4. Silver points were introduced in the late ‘70s or early ’80s. They had nothing to do with making LM a tougher goal. They were all about increasing attendance at sectionals.
Feb. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He is British, we are lucky he doesn't spell everything with an extra “u”.
Jan. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This very discussion thread proves one thing that is incontrovertible - the Alert system is broken and needs to be overhauled. It needs to be consistent in the level of “unusualness” that requires an alert. It needs to be capable of articulation and it should lead to essentially identical rulings by various directors and/or committees. It is none of these now.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the best bridge articles I ever read was Edgar Kaplan's blow-by-blow of the 1957 Masters' Individual which he won.
Jan. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have a horse in this race by I know Tim Bourke and he is without a doubt the prime authority on Bridge literature and ephemera - and a heckuva nice guy too!
Jan. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason I feel the call is alertable is the possibility of 0-3 HCP. Many would bid this way with some 4 counts or greater but 0-3 surely falls in the category of unexpected.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a similar situation come up about 20 years ago in a WBF event. We had two different defenses vs. nt depending on range. RHO opened 1NT and I saw the card “13-17”. It also said they were playing Blue Club. So I knew that this was generally 15-17 with an exception for a hand with clubs. But I didn't know that my partner knew that. We didn't discuss this particular situation. Our rule was that the defense was based on the low end of the NT range with us defining “strong” as 14+. So I made my natural 2H overcall. The tray went around and my partner inquired and was told “usually 15-17”. So my partner “knew” that my bid showed both majors. This did not end well. We took it to committee (back when WBF had committees) - I thought we had a clear case. Not only did we lose the case but they kept our $50 suggesting that the appeal had no merit! I have never gotten over that.
Jan. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is an impossible question to answer. Honors in New York City charges as much as $30 for a club session. OTOH there are clubs where one can still play for a dollar or two. It might be reasonable to compare the costs of sectionals to regionals to NABCs but the club is a different animal.
Dec. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it destroy Bridge if a Regional were to schedule Saturday (for example) to be one event - open pair, qualifying and final with a consolation? They used to be so much fun. I can't imagine what Barry Crane's reaction would be if he dropped into the US bridge scene in 2015.
Dec. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Paul Newman once said “sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand”.
Dec. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good article.
Dec. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am guessing that this was the “threat” - “But if you want to continue to destroy what must have been a hard-earned reputation as an affable and reasonable person, keep on posting.”

Indeed I see this as a “hot stove” caution, not a threat. Whether it is true or not, it is not something Eugene intends to cause.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For somebody who has been accused (fairly) of having some socialist leanings, I am kind of a free market guy in most cases. I can see a case for somebody opening a business with the rule that nobody is allowed to say “beanbag” in his store. This opens up an opportunity for another guy (or woman, I am not discriminating) to open a store across the street with a sign that says all words welcome, “beanbag” included. So what I am saying (I am sure it is obvious) is that some people created a site “Bridgewinners.com” and decided to make some rules for the customers who chose to do business here. This leaves a perfect opportunity for somebody who thinks he has a better model, like no censorship for example, to create a competing website. Maybe he could call it bridgewinnersunplugged.com. But I ask that we stop interrupting conversation threads with objections to the conditions of contest here.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seem to be 4 issues here -
1. The propriety of making accusations in a public forum. I was raised (in bridge) to think that this is a big no-no, but it seems to be accepted in the recent context, and perhaps with good reason.
2. The policy articulated by Bridge Winners concerning cheating allegations.
3. Your interpretation of this policy - for example this essay on “first-degree” and “second-degree” cheating.
4. Specific examples.

I was totally comfortable with the first three, but you lost me on #4.
““Pulling 2♠ was an act as horrible as murder.” I’m not accusing that player of being a murderer, but of taking an action that was as horrible as murder. Most people would disagree with my comparison, but I would also not be making a murder accusation.”

To me this is specious. My favorite example is when somebody doesn't like somebody and compares him to Hitler. Yes, they aren't saying he actually IS Hitler but…

Sorry, I think this is a distinction without a difference and I encourage you to reconsider.

As far as Mr. Fredin's post (or any other) I am willing to accept that you (and your staff) as proprietors of this site have the right to judge what should and should not be here. I am not implying anything about this particular post. I am just articulating a comment on the principle that you are trying to state.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a couple of comments -

- Ira said “A few years ago my wife played in the women's KO with 23 teams. She was in a 3 way with the eventual winners and another team which she beat well but lost to the winners and was out-they came down to 8 teams.”

That must be a LOT of years ago. NABC events haven't had 3-way matches with one survivor in at least 20 years. If it DID happen it was certainly outside of formats in the CofC.

- Ira makes many important points (I agree so they must be important).

There are often unintended consequences when we start messing with the schedules of NABC events. It used to be easier. Before 1987 AFAIK there were NEVER 2 NABC events in opposition except the Reisinger/NA Swiss (The NA Swiss started in the mid–70s) and Mens-Open/Womens.

Now we have so many it is a nightmare.

I totally agree that we ought to schedule events so that they don't (with the exception of extended KO) cause a contestant to lose 2 other NABC events. Two-Day events starting the second day of three-day events is an example. Perhaps they could start with the Platinum Pairs/IMP Pairs.

- An acquaintance approached me several years ago after he had returned from a Regional. He was hopping mad. He played in a morning KO and there were only two brackets and he made the top bracket. He was outraged that he had to play against “pros”. What is this world coming to?!

This mentality, which is the norm is totally alien to me and I would guess to other players like Ira who started in the ‘60s and ’70s.

As Ira indicated, there were only a few 2 session+ events at Regionals. The only conflicts were mens/womens, and master/non-master events. There were really good players who had never won a regional or only won a few. Open pairs were huge, and it was exciting to qualify for the finals.

When they did have KOs, they were seeded so if you didn't have many points you got to play the top seed. That's right, you GOT (like a prize) to play the top seed. What a great position to be in! Nobody expected you to win but when you did, what excitement! But more frequently, the experience from playing against high caliber players, and the advice they might give you was invaluable.

Well, that ship has left the harbor and I feel sorry for newer players who are inculcated in the notion that playing against top players is a waste of time.

I mourn for our regionals.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit that I am confused here. If declarer indicated that she thought she had 10 spades combined she would NEVER finesse for the Q so I don't see how you would rule this way. It would simply be irrational to finesse when all followed to the first spade (yes I know she saw the second spade played on her left).
Dec. 9, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 36 37 38 39
.

Bottom Home Top