Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what I have seen Steve, you are way off. Mobile is taking off among the baby boomers. Also, Michael makes a great point. I got great pleasure out of NOT paying that ridiculous LV internet fee.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank for all the votes and great comments. I do agree that the new mobile site is outstanding. However I think too much of that “mobile” mentality affected the regular website which would have benefited from more nuanced design. There are two problems I have - 1) I think “news” should go on the front page. You shouldn't have to click a button, especially for something important. 2) there are too many sections that require multiple buttons, nested menus as it were.

I really hope somebody from the ACBL reads this thread - there are a lot of constructive suggestions here.

I don't believe the site cost anything like $2MM.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All of those are good points. But I was only interested in the “regular” version of the website, and the results issue isn't relevant (I don't think) to the design of the website.
Aug. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I complained about some postings a while back and was essentially told at the time the owners wanted to take a “hands off” approach to the extent possible, count me in the group that applauds this forum being moderated and the flag function.

I don't mind putting my name out in objecting to a post but the net effect of that is often to start a “flame war”, exactly the kind of thing I for one don't want to see here.

This site is way too valuable for exchanging ideas, experiences, and even availability for events (pro or not) to have it drown in a sea of ugliness and name-calling.

Thanks to Steve and other BW folks for seeing the light.
Aug. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was exactly the problem. We had not discussed that situation (long since remedied).
Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I got it. I unloaded.
Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It will probably change no minds but I need to clarify something. This wasn't a 13-17 NT where they opened 1NT on 13 when they felt like it. It was two specific shapes - two specific shapes, 3-3-3-4 and 3-3-2-5 that could be 13-15 otherwise always 15-17.
Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It does surprise me a bit, but hardly shocking. When I talked to Edgar about this (as I said this was a while ago) he said he would have ruled against me. Roger, I too would be happy to have Adam on or chairing any committee. He is knowledgeable, earnest, and fair even if I don't agree with his conclusions all the time. It is sad to see somebody who works hard to give back to bridge impugned. That is another reason I appreciate the level to which this thread has “basically” risen.
Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is “standard” to play a 2/1 over their t/o double as non-forcing. However with most of my partners I play transfers beginning with 1NT where a transfer back to openers suit shows a better hand than the direct raise.
Aug. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been impressed with the intellect shown in some of these arguments. Many years ago I appealed a “screen” ruling at a WBF event. The opponents NT range was 13-17. They were playing a Blue Club-type system where 1NT was actually 15-17 unless the NTer had a long club suit in which case it could be 13-14 as well. We had two NT defenses with the pivot point being a lower range of 14. So when RHO opened 1NT I glanced at the card and employed our weak NT defense. When partner got the tray she inquired and was told “basically 15-17” so we of course had a costly misunderstanding. The director ruled no infraction and we appealed and lost. I was pretty unhappy about that but as I grew older and hopefully wiser I have learned that words like “basically” or “usually” beg for more inquiry. Failing to do so puts the burden back on the inquirer. I think that if people come to play in ACBL events they should have enough nuance in their understanding of English to be aware of this (surely there are similar “caution signs” in other languages). I will take Kit and Michael on my committee please.
Aug. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, they can - right after they finish ACBLScore+ :(
Aug. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Considering the performance of some of the juniors in Las Vegas perhaps we “experts” could use some coaching from them? Michael, Debbie and Barry, thanks for your devotion and hard work!
Aug. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some issues that come up are judgement issues. If you pick up KXX QJXX AKXXX K and decide that 1NT is the best bid, nobody would have a problem. But I submit that if you need a “convention” to show a singleton in partner's suit after you open 1NT that your evaluation of what an opening 1NT bid should be is sufficiently out of the mainstream as to be considered either a psyche or an illegal treatment. I am not on C&C so I can't speak to the convention charts. But if it walks like a duck…
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on the conditions of contest for the hypothetical event. A team can always withdraw before the match is complete but in doing so they forfeit. So if both teams withdraw I would guess that the winner of the event will be the winner of the other match.
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In question 2, the “super-accept” is in effect a psyche control and is not permitted. I think Mike was trying to say this but was not clear.

Question 3 asks who (among the players at the table) is allowed to bring attention to an insufficient bid before further action. In my opinion this question was answered clearly and correctly.
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It often is the case that a correct answer is obfuscated by inartful language. Let's take Q1. In this case the director was called when the auction went 1S - 2H - 2D!

The 2008 Laws have a somewhat more complex Law 27 (insufficient bid) which requires the director to follow certain procedures.

HOWEVER, the ACBL has special conditions regarding the use of bidding boxes; They are contained in CofC Appendix G. They state in part:

“2. A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25A, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding card and the player corrects or
attempts to correct his mistake without pause for thought and the player’s partner has not made a call. ”

The way this rule is normally interpreted is that if physical evidence (adjacent or similar bids or other calls) and rational evidence (the hand suggest that the intended action is clear cut) so indicate, the irregularity may be corrected without penalty.

Mr. Flader is COMPLETELY correct to suggest that the player be taken from the table to ensure that no unauthorized information is passed in the case that the intended action is NOT so indicated by the evidence. The confusion here is because Law 27 does not apply. It was “interrupted” by Appendix G and its interpretation of 25A.
July 31, 2014
Robb Gordon edited this comment July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't feel strongly in my own case, but the starting time is the starting time. Enough time, in theory at least, is included in each match for shuffling and dealing. I would not be unhappy if my opps showed up at gametime.
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have known many bridge players who dressed beautifully and conducted themselves abysmally. These guys (who by 2014 standards are not dressed badly at all) are all models of impeccable behavior and ethics at the bridge table. I would be proud to have any of them (and the clothes they are wearing) on my team. Just when I think I have seen the most ridiculous discussion thread possible, somebody always seems to come up with a better (more ridiculous) one.
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the question goes to motive. If the director is advising them based on what he knows the majority of contestants want that is legitimate. If he is advising them based on his staff's needs only that is not. The tournament committee in any case certainly has the right to override the director. In other venues I have been on tournament committees that have overridden the director (with mixed results).
July 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a function for the tournament organizers. If enough people wanted a break they could schedule one.
July 30, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top