Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Roland Voigt
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 143 144 145 146
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Narrowmindedness in perfection. In David's world there seem to be only two alternatives, the Dark Ages or this supposedly bright future where players found guilty of thinking are shot where they stand.

I would expect a person who has been playing and administering bridge for forty-odd years to realize that there might be a middle ground, but you never know.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anticipation does not solve nearly as many problems as one might be tempted to believe. A long time ago I learned that it was a good idea to think before bidding Blackwood to anticipate the responses and plan ahead. Very recently, it has been suggested that the BIT before bidding 4NT could be used to distinguish different meanings of the bid. Go figure.

The sad truth is that the paranoid ones among us will always find an explanation why thinking is evidence of shady practice. And the apparent “solution” is to eliminate thinking entirely. Or, we could take a step back and stop seeing ghosts behind every corner.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot imagine ever playing a game that David directs, but if I were forced to, I would probably make the first call/play that comes to mind on most occasions. The chance that it happens to be the right one is higher than the chance that I find it by thinking and am allowed to keep a good score. Maybe this is his idea of bridge; it isn't mine.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David keeps telling himself (and others who make the mistake of listening) that he acts only in the best interest of the game. In truth, if all the directors would rule like David in UI cases, it would be the death of bridge.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If South chooses the option that fits his partner's hand, there is evidence of illegal communication.”

I used to think that David suffers from heavy paranoia, but I was wrong. He is not suffering; he actually celebrates it.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I don't see declarer's hand, I am not declarer. If I am not declarer, I don't play declarer's (or dummy's) cards.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16 says that an “unmistakable hesitation” constitutes UI. But, assuming Pass and 3NT from South are the LAs, it does not suggest one over another. The director should rule that the score stands.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South should not give the impression that the bid explicitly shows something if there was no explicit agreement. However, it would be proper for him to explain inferences from other partnership understandings the opponents might not know about (such as agreements regarding 2 followed by 3).

If South did the former, I would rule that there was MI. If South only did the latter, I would rule that he followed Full Disclosure principles, and that there was no infraction. It is impossible to make this determination from the distance; only someone who speaks with the players first-hand - in particular regarding the use of the word “probably” - is in a position to judge which was the case here.

If the director decides that EW were misinformed, I think it is appropriate to adjust the score to 5 undoubled. In that case, the presumed strength of the 3 bid will mislead East about whether NS are bidding to make or to sacrifice, so the damage (due to East's double) is consequent to the infraction.
July 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you done with your nitpicking? I could reference a dictionary explaining why I think the bid is illegal, but I am sure there is some smartass only waiting to prove me wrong again about this, so don't bother.

The bid violated a bridge law. You make it sound like the sufficiency of the bid is the only thing that matters. You enjoy splitting hairs so much that you no longer see the substance.
July 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is completely impractical to introduce a rule for one particular bidding situation when there are a hundred more like it.
July 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have become paranoid. There was a time when these actions were taken and nobody would say a word. Again we must ask ourselves if we want “suspicious” as the default assumption.
July 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A priori partner expects only four spades. In many cases you still want to be in 2, but you have no way to find out.

Of course it is a guess in any case, but I would rather guess first and leave the final guess to the opponents.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Point taken. Replace “disallowed” with “found illegal”.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I answer a poll, I do so with the implicit understanding that I would take the same action again under similar circumstances (or at least seriously consider the same choice - there are many borderline problems after all).

This is just my attitude, of course. But it troubles me a great deal if someone votes for a psych. If the same player then decides to psych in real life, I am having doubts if he is disclosing his methods accurately.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't play the given methods, but if I did, I wouldn't feel bad about overcalling 2. The bid has a significant obstructive effect. If I tried to show both suits, the bidding could easily go (1NT)-2-(2/2)-p-(p)-?, and now I have no idea what to do because the opponents have told each other what they needed to know and we haven't.

And I don't think the hand is too strong to overcall 2, either. This is a typical hand where both sides can make some partscore. Taking the straightforward route puts pressure on the opponents and takes away the pressure from our side.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is because the poll is poorly worded. Damage is only relevant for the score adjustment. The 7 bid can be disallowed without knowing whether it worked out.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(moved)
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If it hesitates, shoot it” is never the right approach, period. The director must determine whether there was UI, what the LAs were, whether the UI suggested one action over another and whether there was damage.

The case is quite clear in my opinion, but that does not relieve the director - any director - from his obligation to follow proper procedure.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the trump lead is a mistake, let alone an egregious one. In order to affect the ruling, the action in question must be a major blunder, not just an unlucky choice.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When two bridge opinions collide, you will very often find two people on opposite sides claiming that their view is obviously the right one. It does not say a lot about the opinions, but about the people who hold them.

In this case a poll would probably show that both 1 and 1NT are valid opening bids. The comments only serve to make clear that some people (“obvious 1 opening” vs “obvious 1NT opening”) should never form a partnership.
July 1, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 143 144 145 146
.

Bottom Home Top