Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the brief synopsis in the bulletin labelled you a cheat. It described your “crime” and set forth your punishment. The fallout was merely gossip run amok. Unfortunately, some folks will believe the worse about anyone without any factual basis or any logical analysis.

I find it incredible that some would believe that your crime was cheating and simultaneously believe that ACBL condoned such behavior with a slap on the wrist punishment. There is no logical nexus between the two. But maybe the disconnect says more about folks belief in the ACBL than it says of folks thoughts about you. How folks could belong to an organization that they have so little faith in upholding basic tenets of fairness is astounding. As a relatively new member of ACBL it seems to me that the organization has its work cut out to remind folks of its mission and instill confidence in its decisions.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nat, you're quite mistaken about the ABA. It was not formed as a “specialized organization” catering to people of color. It was formed at a time when several units in the ACBL refused to let people of color compete in their clubs. The ACBL submitted the question of admission to its members in ‘49 and the admission of black members were overwhelmingly disapproved. It wasn’t until 1961 that folks of color were admitted. It's not surprising that folks who were prohibited from playing in the ACBL would form an alternative organization that permitted them to play the same game. It happened in other sports, e.g., baseball, bowling. BTW, unlike the ACBL, the ABA never banned or limited the participation of white folks.
Aug. 17, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding of the brief synopsis in the bulletin is that Passell was found guilty of violating 3 laws. Prearranging a deal, or part thereof, was just one aspect. One can't really tell exactly what he has or has not done from the information given. It seems to me that if you can't tell exactly what he has done/been found guilty of, it is fool-hardy to attempt to pass judgment on the discipline imposed.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Umm…Peg, that depends whether you were on a 4, 5 or 6 person team…j/k.
Aug. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, it would depend on whom I am playing with: with a couple partners I would open 2 - hear controls response - 2NT (depending on control answer) - knowing that a 5-3 fit would be found because we play puppet. I would also know that if I hear 3 (an A and K) that slam is looking real good and would explore starting with my suit.

With other partners, I would bid 2 - 2 waiting - 2 - whatever (besides 2NT) 3 and either 4 or 3NT to play.
Aug. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With due respect, I think the absolute worse argument for retaining any rule and/or practice is that “we've always done it that way.” Thank goodness our country has evolved in the last 200 or so years; it has done so because so many folks refused to believe that “because we have always done it that way” was a valid reason to continue some rather unfair practices.

I said that to say this: if you have a reason for keeping the MP system as it is (for KO events) then put forth the argument, but please don't suggest that because we've always done it that way is a valid argument.
July 27, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand your argument. Money has value, thus you believe it makes sense not to increase the prize money for teams of 5-6. But MP have no value you state, thus, you see no reason not to increase them for teams of 5-6. If MP have no value, what's the difference in not increasing them? Obviously they have value. Sponsors spends 100K's on pro's to win. If the sponsors do not care about the MP, what exactly is the problem? If they do care about them, why should ACBL sell them?
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hmmmm, your surmise is surprising, especially since S opened the bidding in first seat. Yeah, in 2nd seat – maybe in 2nd or 3rd seat, I could see your point. But in first seat, N anticipates, that her partner opens in first seat with, at minimum, 12 HCP, and after the second bid…with at least 12 HCP and 6…for the 3 bid….now N can anticipate that p has at least 7 and 14 HCP.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On second thought, , X shows …at least 3 pieces…and 8-10 HCP. It still says “do something intelligent partner.”
April 21, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very enjoyable story. Thanks for sharing. If anything, it teaches us that today is not as bad as it seems!
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought 4 was a shut off bid; effectively ending the auction. I didn't want to end the auction at 4, so I did not bid it. Given the alternative, that 3 could be passed out, maybe settling for game is sufficient. It would give average score.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Solowly jump shifts have not been discussed. Generally, all our jump shifts have been weak.
April 19, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment April 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While your p's 3 is reasonable as blocking, I know that my preferred p would not make such a move (his 3 would show values as well as long ). Thus while I would definitely support my p's bid rather than double, if I knew my p's bid was not necessarily strong or long, I can see no reason to double.
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming that 2 is waiting and not showing controls, why not show your hand with 3 now? It won't be passed out; you still have an opportunity to support when p bids 3NT and should p support your , well then its a cakewalk….even with your 3 HCP.
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you don't have sufficient values to reverse to show your should opponents enter the bidding. You can mislead about shape or mislead about HCP, but never both.
April 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer 2 to your snapdragon double; you have sufficient values for a 2 level bid. However, since you did not show your values to partner, and he went to 3 without your support, surely you can show your support now.
April 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's only a 7 loser hand. If I have devalued it enough to preempt in first seat, I've adequately described the hand. The hand has not gotten any better with the passes. If I want to rebid, then I open 1. There is little reason to reopen a preempt. Either value your hand originally or don't. How can partner determine your hand, when you can't?
March 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual hand can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/pxuv7ur

The hand is cold for 6 and in actual play, almost all pairs made 7, albeit only 1 pair bid the small slam. My p suggested that if I bid 4 it would have alerted him that I considered the hand slavish. I thought a reverse opposite an opening hand said that.
March 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No agreement; but I do think 2NT would have been a better call :)
March 28, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment March 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pair is playing Namyats, why would W open 4 instead of 3? Surely when opener sees the 4 bid by his p, he is reminded that they are playing Namyats whether P alerts or not. In which case, he would not pass, but bid 5! immediately to say “I goofed” 100% wrong to leave P on the hook for your own mistake.
March 27, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top