Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a fairly fast player but do not care for the idea of “fast pairs” since I do believe that bridge is a thinking game. However, I would never say it wasn't “bridge”. It is just different bridge like matchpoints is different from IMPs.
Sept. 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Super-G I have you down for 2024.
Aug. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with the folks who say it is fine (and expected) to “swing” when down a significant number of IMPS. I think the “alert” issue is pretty clearly behavior not consistent with ACBL regulation.

At the risk of going “off-topic” I would like to bring up a somewhat related issue. In a pairs event, particularly a multi-session event, most pairs have a pretty good idea that they are out of contention. All too often I see these pairs doing random things just because it doesn't matter (to them). I am not talking about throwing boards to friends, I am just talking about people who psyche or operate just for fun, affecting the outcome of the event. I think that the implicit obligation to “play bridge” ought to be come an explicit obligation, and be enforced. I am not talking about inferior play, I am talking about wild actions.
Aug. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You kids are whippersnappers! I turn 57 next month. When I was your age…
Aug. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The overwhelming liklihood is that LHO will bid 3NT. I think it is “good bridge” to get your lead director in. This is perfectly legal and moral. You don't need to have an agreement. Partner understands the situation and knows if you have a decent hand YOU will double 3NT when it comes back to you.
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the weaker the field, the less should be allowed. However, I also think that the complexity of permitted methods should also relate to the number of boards to be played against each opponent(s). So pairs and BAM with 2-3 board sets should be fairly basic, 64 board KOs should be almost anything goes.

This is not just about fairness (although it is a factor) but also time. Playing complex methods takes time to explain and time for the opps to develop a defense. Unless we want to go to 10 minutes per board, we should keep the pairs events simple.
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very sorry to read this. Linda & I will miss him.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have anything against 10 and 3 - I am a “day person”. But when you have 10 and 3 on the east coast it is terribly disruptive to west-coasters. First of all 10 is 7AM. Secondly, if like me you have a business in the west, it is impossible to conduct business. I don't know if this is a “legitimate” reason not to have them, but it affects me - I simply won't go to a 10/3 tournament in the Eastern zone except for a WC. What I don't understand is the ONLY NABCs that have 10/3 are the ones in the east, which seems bass ackwards to me.
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recorder forms can be pretty useful when the offender later does something the causes a C&E to happen. But we do not use technology nearly enough. Directors should have these files (virtually) at their fingertips.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this thread is becoming absurd. I don't know whether she is slow, fast, or has polka dots. But I don't think any of those justifies abuse. There are other mechanisms for dealing with a persistently slow opponent.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too have known Michael for many years. I have only met Gabrielle. I totally agree with Judy's assessment of Michael. First class gentleman. I have known him both from the trading floor and from bridge, two high-pressure environments and I never heard him raise his voice nor say an unkind word.

Playing less high-level bridge these days, I have been focusing on improving things other than my bridge game. I have made a very strong effort not to be unpleasant to anybody (I have a bit of a prickly nature). Sometimes when provoked I miss the mark, but I try.

I can certainly understand why an assault on the senses such as Gabby suffered over a period of time (these are LONG matches) would provoke her to lash out. I don't think what she said was nice, but I certainly understand what caused her to do so.

Frankly if the cause of her opponents' nastiness was being overweight and undersexed, the whole bridge world would be like a gang fight :)

But I think when we talk about this incident, we should focus on the actions which provoked Gabby's reaction more than we should critique the reaction.

I hope that some of the players involved, or not involved but recognizing their own behavior here will take it to heart and try to change.
Aug. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule of thumb is if you have to ask you probably should not do it.
July 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only unjust part of this is that the perpetrator is still an ACBL member. No that isn't quite true. It is also unjust that Kyle left us too soon.
July 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, I apologize. Obviously somewhere along the way I missed the fact that you were trying to make a point.
July 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK Jonathan - here are the two comments:

“Robb, you didn't read the suggestion that preceded Jeff's comment.”

“It might be a good idea for some folks to actually read the whole conversation, so as to find out what is being discussed, before weighing in.”

Disregarding the fact that both comments are factually incorrect, if you cannot tell the difference in tone in these two comments, that might be a fundamental part of your problem.
July 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, thanks for you input but I am not sure what you mean. Jeff presented his situation (now) 46 minutes ago and the last prior post was (now) 14 hours ago. So if the suggestion was germane (not clear to me) then obviously Jeff did not understand it. Since he seems to be sincerely trying to understand I though my post might be helpful.

Jonathan, thanks for your comment. No thread is complete without something useless and snarky from you.
July 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, you are missing part of the equation. First of all, the board does not get thrown out. The result is achieved and then if damage has occurred the director adjusts the result according to Law 12C - in the US specifically 12C1e. But wait, there is more! If the director determines that your violation of 16 or 73 is sufficiently flagrant or intentional, he may assign a procedural penalty (which does not accrue to the opponents) in addition to the score adjustment. He might also refer the result to a recorder and/or to a conduct and ethics committee. Crime here really does not pay.
July 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan, we often disagree, but I sure agree about this. For myriad reasons, Linda & I will not attend any 10/3 NABCs in the eastern or central time zone.
July 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Yes, I am aware of that…but clearly it is not something that is strictly followed, else all professionals would be recusing themselves. ”

This statement on the face of it reveals that we have irreconcilable differences :)

I can only say with that attitude, if I was a professional, I would tremble at the thought of being an appellant before YOUR committee!
July 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In American legal proceedings, judges/justices are expected to recuse themselves if they have a potential personal interest in the case. ”

So are appeals committee members. Also, the first question asked by the chair at any NAC appeal is whether either of the parties have any objection to a committee member. The committee is the final arbiter of who must recuse, but I have never seen a committee member stay after somebody objected.
July 24, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top