Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Roger Rigby
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 48 49 50 51
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The idea of a sponsor putting a clause in the agreement could be a huge disincentive to cheat. I don't know if the details should specify “if a title is removed due to you being found in ethical violation” or something less specific… but wouldn't that make a cheating pair think more than twice about whether or not to risk it?

In fact, a player that has signed such an agreement to pay back ALL monies, if found by an appropriate authorized body to have cheated, could well be a nice resume item for advertising cleanliness at bridge.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
grand-standing again??
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't take brain surgeons to understand and address the concepts being discussed. This nitpicky lawyering in many of the threads is for the birds… wish they would all flock off and fly away.
Nov. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For example, Hanoi R. posted “ She had played in World Championships before (including a Venice Cup).”
Nov. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bizzaro? 10+ likes for the inaccurate reporting of “The rules-breakers are showing sportsmanship, those who are following them are not.” -

- Nowhere did anyone say or imply rule-breakers/benders are showing sportsmanship. What was said and implied by several commenters was that in certain circumstances against certain capable opponents, it would be sporting to give them the benefit of the doubt on what might be construed as a lazy or time-saving or otherwise believed technical violation that doesn't seem to justify an abnormal-type result windfall.

(yes, some did suggest it is unsporting not to make such allowances.)

But you all surely know that. Just as some surely know the “allowances” espoused were made in conjunction with facts suggesting the pair that lazy-claimed were successful Venice Cup players, rather than “all 600-900 payers at transational are WorldClass”.

So there's probably nothing more to say that could break through the code of insolence that seems to pervade the insistence that strict lawyering rule the day even when a softer take might be sporting as well as benevolent.
Nov. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Bill, I do agree that lazy and perhaps inattentive (to blockages that will easily be handled but are somewhat distant from 100% assured beyond any shadow of doubt) claims deserve disdain. The fact that many (including myself) routinely do this does not make it right or good or applaudable or even excusable. One is just asking for trouble, and when you get it we have a big mess, like here.

If one truly believes this particular declarer on this given day would get it wrong, was so asleep at the wheel with a fast lazy arrogant bad-habit quick-claim that they deserve to go down while opps earn a big profit, then I can perhaps easily stomach a director call with the result likely as in the actual case.

I might call the director myself, against some folks I don't particularly have affection for, or if I don't believe they were that likely to get it right. But because I do this sort of claiming myself at times (not miss something I looked at but just a lazy don't bother to look at it closely if I can avoid it to save time and energy both) and can be more than a bit “late” - I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to most declarers.

But I am convinced here (thanks) that these types of claims should be exiled to parlor games, if then. Is a harsh lesson a good way to achieve that? Perhaps. Maybe you have to be there. If the opponent always makes precise unlazy full claims and perhaps wants to “teach by punishment” I suppose that is both ethically and technically their unabashed right.

If they are attempting simply to “gain by punishment” in a position where it is both something they themselves at times do, and the position and caliber of player and time constraints are such that it quacks like a duck (minimally deserved windfall profit) I think calling it unsporting is OK too.

I think all in all myself and others should avoid these messes by avoiding these “questionable” claims, and if and when the messes do happen, strive to find the right mix of sportsmanship and propriety. Peace.



Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will surely concede that the world class declarer, doing what countless others have done for years, lazily just showing their hand and nothing more, may have thought it obvious and was indeed lazy.

Any further discussion with someone who may think that there were not obvious tricks in all the suits in the layout, which is what I said, is fruitless for sure.
Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from the technical legalities of the laws, is there really anyone who doesn't think:

When a world class player has 6 obvious tricks in one suit, 5 in another, two in another, and one in another, and entries in both hands? —that…

…It is unsporting to effectively disallow an indication of claiming the rest to courteously save time?
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems a stretch to label a claim by a world class player, with something like 6 sure obvious tricks in one suit, 5 in another, 1 in another, and 2 in the other, and side entries in both hands, a “false claim”, especially when no inaccurate comments or actions were attended to the claim and which was purportedly to courteously save time.

I am not against punishing false claims, blah blah blah etc etc.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems sporting to believe someone that claims in good faith (pun intended) that if left to playing bridge without special circumstances ( misleading explanation affecting line of play, time pressure or courtesy of saving time affecting play or statements) would reach a certain normal outcome.

If a normal bridge result is so achieved, and myself and many others believe that's the situation in these 2 cases, I will applaud.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My focus is on fairness and equity, which I think is “sporting”. (IMO) The declarer obviously relied on Irina's representation (flawed by language differences perhaps, intended to be helpful, etc) to her detriment…playing accordingly. This at first created a windfall for the OS that in some part was due not to bridge and bridge logic and luck, but by the tainted explanation. I saw it as restoring equity and believing declarer sincerely relied upon what gleaned from “the mess”. The AC reversed that outcome to one IMO more equitable AND sporting.

In India, my focus is the same.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Damn, I thought I was gonna be able to hit him with a false claim charge for saying “apologies”, when there was only one apology I thought I issued. But alas, my own hoisted petard shows he is right again. Sigh.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unsportsmanlike reply to perceived personal attack from Mr. R. deleted, with apologies.
Nov. 4, 2015
Roger Rigby edited this comment Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's also not hard or time consuming to say “I am down 1” rather than “down 1?” … so what, people take shortcuts all the time in situations where they sincerely and honestly feel it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. It may be habit, laziness, a sense of attempted efficiency, whatever. No need to lawyer them about it.

If Bobby Levin showed his hand in a certain way; implying he has the rest and technically constituting a claim, no player of suitable rank and temperament would consider calling the director or making a fuss over a hand like the one in India. This would of course be “sporting”.

If xyz hopeless Jones did the same thing, the same claim starts to fall into the “bad claim” suspicion. And it could very well be true if xyz is thought to be incapable or otherwise asea as to things like seeing and accounting for unblocking even minimally complex positions. It is likely not considered “unsporting” to contest the shortcut claim then.

Sure, a bad claim is simply a bad claim to some degree. But a claim bad for one circumstance is not necessarily bad for another. If one feels the time circumstances and capable declarer skills and objectives of a time-saving shortcut claim is one that would be a no-brainer instant accession to a Bobby Levin, then if xyz could be given the same consideration, it may not be accurate for this claim to be called a “bad claim” for the circumstances.

We lack full facts about the circumstances and skills attendant to the deal in India. And taken in a vacuum of details and applying the letter of the law to a presumed bad claim, many have savored the outcome and vilified anyone that questions the sporting nature of it. But to those that believe since a shortcut claim is not necessarily a bad claim, and that perhaps someone was unjustly marked as an xyz Jones to secure a favorable and largely unlikely windfall, the term “unsporting” comes to mind.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For myself (and I suspect many others) the first sentence starting with “IMO” has some accuracy. The others, including the ones that also include the words “no doubt”, well…
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From purely my own sense of sportsmanship, I do not find significant sporting difference between the 7N claim not accepted, and this above claim

Is MY position clear?

Ooops, supposed to be silent here now. Sigh.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No pistols. Going back to silent steaming for as long as I can bear it I know I am not alone giving up on this thread.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A sweet but clearly infirmed declarer gets all the way to 2S with 19 high versus 11, playing very slowly and deliberately trick after trick. After 2 other slow (and misguided) boards and with everyone starting the next round, dummy says: “if you have the rest at any time partner, claim because we are very late”.

After some pause, declarer then claims 11 tricks, but due to JT9x of some side suit, really can only make 10 tricks. The opps are fully aware of this but concede the rest. Their expected score and feelings of kindness seem more than sufficient for their mindset to consider this a sporting and time-saving gesture.

This “knowing” concession is presumably a violation of some rule or law in some way. Would anyone hold these opps accountable for this gesture?
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see many are still at this campaign of what I see as lawyering bests sportsmanship. I have not commented for some time on this thread because it steams me, but today feel like I “just/must” due to the above.

Many who are so unabashedly righteous about getting their legislated gains from taking clear advantage of someone's sincere attempts to save time and be helpful and see it as “stuff happens” are within their “bridge legal rights” but are missing the bus on other avenues.

That being that this unsporting approach makes people undeservedly feel “some sort of way” (nasty is just one of many), drives folks away from the game, and basically just “stinks”. If you keep doing it when in practice many just say “well diamonds are 5-1” but we'll concede due to “certain circumstances” and feel this is “just/must” well, glad you sleep well.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So as James Fenimore Cooper might say, have we now seen the “Last of the Monacans”?
Nov. 2, 2015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 48 49 50 51
.

Bottom Home Top