Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Mixed Teams entry fee in Sanya is $1200 USD per team. For that you are guaranteed 2 days of play (qualification) up to 5 days if you reach the final. Screens (and the space to put them) cost money. Also there are VERY few locations that would accommodate 300 screened tables. ACBL events are MUCH larger than WBF events. Having said that I think screens and pre-duped boards should be used much more often than they are at this time.
July 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For you or the kibitzer Josh?
July 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As somebody who knows all of the parties involved pretty well, I am quite sure that nobody had any evil intent or hidden agenda.

Like many here I wish it could have been resolved differently. The level of participation here is emblematic of the passion on both sides.

I would beg everybody involved to put this behind them and continue to move forward with support and promotion of high level bridge across national boundaries.

This event was not that important but the ability to have this type of event is very important.

Personally, I would like to thank everybody from Jill and Warren who worked so hard on this project to the 12 players who graciously agreed to participate and yes, even to the USBF Board who work hard without recompense and who are noticed only when they do something unpopular and not for the hard work they do to make our international bridge participation a success.
July 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
June 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is one thing to insist that a participant have the option of withdrawing if an unacceptable player(s) is included on the team. It is quite another to insist that an entire 12 person team be accepted exactly as presented.

OTOH I am not nearly the player that Geoff is and there are LOTS of people as good or better than I that I would not play on a team with - having nothing to do with Bridge ethics.
June 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are asking my opinion, it is that the ACBL and USBF should approach relationships with private organizations with great caution. They should be sure that the goals of such a partnership fit their goals. I don't think this event qualifies.
June 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What exactly were the selection criteria?”

That is the point. OK, we selected a fine team but we know nothing of the methodology why “a” was picked and not “b”. I mentioned earlier that the USBF is involved in selecting the SportAccord teams in December. They have a process that involves polling top players (with a set of defined credentials) and using the results of the poll. In that case, coming right after the fall NABC, not all of the top pairs are willing to play, but nevertheless a good team is selected. The selection of the chosen pairs is not unanimous by a long shot, but it is fair.

But one thing about the selection process I am quite sure of is that they didn't use the “platinum point” method - nor should they. It is quite silly given all the sponsored teams and given that a weak sponsor would win the same number of platinum points as his/her professional teammates.
June 26, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top