Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In non-game-forcing auctions this should generally show a better hand than 1S/2S/3H but after a 2/1 showing both suits as early as possible at the 2 level is better IMO.
Dec. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He surely did!
Nov. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny that you post. There was a time when the “establishment” was trying to change the rules in the middle of a GNT qualifying stage in my Unit in Michigan to benefit some of their favored people. I objected and got creamed for it. A bigwig in Memphis named Ralph Cohen (you might remember him) stepped in and put those folks right. It was the beginning of a long and beautiful friendship.
Nov. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just think how the good young players of today are denied the pleasure of being talked down to, ruled against and generally ostracized by the older generation.

It was character-building.

Great post, thanks.
Nov. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only is a pass a logical alternative, but I question whether bidding (sans tempo break) is a logical alternative. You don't describe skill levels of these players which could be useful. It would seem that NORTH has an automatic 4H bid. Clearly in this case he was weighing that. There are auctions that don't suggest anything, this isn't one of them. A hesitation here (in my experience as a player and a director and an AC committee member) almost always shows extras. Whether you believe that or not, clearly SOUTH thought it showed extras!
Nov. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The solution to all of this is a modest playing/success requirement to maintain one's status. Let the riots begin…
Nov. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To paraphrase Arthur Miller, attention must be paid to Ping Hu. As I read this post I realized how accurate it was. Virtually the only thing we are doing right is the “Youth NABC” (thanks Patty Tucker).

As I made clear, I certainly support Jan's post and promoting our international youth and junior competitions (thanks Michael Rosenberg).

But to get momentum we have to get more kids playing at the grass-roots level. The way to do this is to have them playing with other kids.

Think back to when you were 12 or whatever. Would you be more inspired to participate in something your friends did or something your grandmother's friends did?

In places where the population allows we have to get kids involved in a group. I don't know how to go about this. The obvious answer is that it starts in schools. But I think chess groups themselves might be good recruiting grounds.
Nov. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When many of us started ('60s and '70s) there was no such thing as a “junior” - we were just wiseass kids who many of the “adults” wished would go away. Unfortunately many of us took that advice.

I would like to think that the US bridge community is more enlightened and more motivated to keep this wonderful game alive.
Oct. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the issue is a matter of Laws normally it is referred to the ACBL Laws Commission, as specified in Election 8a on page 137 of the Laws of Dupllicate Bridge.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good points Peg. I know several of the members of the sub-committee. I don't agree (at this point) with them hearing this, but they are hard-working dedicated BOD members. I don't think any of them can be enthusiastic about putting themselves in this virtually “no-win” position.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I agree with Michael Rosenberg that IF this is a matter of bias, the bridge ability of the committee (and I do not think that equals limited or little credibility - as far as I know they are good and credible people) isn't particularly relevant. In that event the committee should meet. If they determine that there was bias, then they should draft another appeals committee to rehear the case. I think bias is unlikely, but that is just an uninformed opinion. If this is a matter of Law (also unlikely) then the appeal needs to be heard by the ACBL Laws Commission.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a bidder but I don't like this convention in po seat - I wish I could just bid my major suit.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are referring to the original committee in Las Vegas, out of the 5 members you could certainly make a strong case for 2 being world class, one being (when he was more active) near-world class and one being less than world class, but a fine player and highly experienced appeals administrator. I confess I am not familiar with the fifth member of this committee.

However if you are referring to the proposed Providence committee as I understand it to be, I don't think anybody, including those people, would make the case that any of them are world class players. They are clearly less accomplished players than the members of the original committee.

Having said that, it is only relevant if you feel that having this second committee is legitimate in the first place. I do not.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The WBF clearly did the right thing vacating the Bali Sr. title. It is far from clear that moving other teams up was the right thing to do although I am personally happy for them. I am not going to rehash the arguments about this (Bali) but I do think they have merit.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In fact, it is little known because it isn't true (at this time at least). A party to an appeal my object to a member (and is generally informed of that right) but the committee is the final arbiter of its composition.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See also Law 93C3. Then go to the “Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors” section - and see the notes on page 137. You will see in Note 8b and Note 9 that the BOD specifically excluded themselves from this kind of action unless there is an allegation of bias.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To have a committee of the Board review (evidently with the potential to overturn) a bridge ruling by an Appeals committee 4 months after the fact isn't the worst idea I have ever heard but it is pretty darn close. For years we have had to put up with complaints about events being decided by committee after they end. Now we are going to have that potential months after they end! I am not taking a position on the original committee ruling, great, good, bad or terrible, but at some point it needs to be over.
Oct. 22, 2014
Robb Gordon edited this comment Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would ask Gus Hansen (only if it is off-suit)
Oct. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done!
Oct. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little coffee-house repartee - “you doubled me in 3 hearts - that's game!”
Response - “Only if you make it, Sport!”
Oct. 8, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top