Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Secretary Bird
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first started this series, the ACBL received some complaints. In order to continue the series, I needed to add a disclaimer.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At a tournament not too long ago, an elderly woman approached the directors and said she thought there was a terrorist sitting close to her. She said that this person was standing near her table, speaking a foreign language and had a backpack on. She pointed out who it was, and it was one of the top young polish players, Kryztof Buras. She was very excited to learn that it was one of the top players in the world and couldn't wait to tell her partner.

I think it's sad that young people are looked at with suspicion rather that welcoming arms. But, it's nothing new…as our elders have said, “Get off my lawn!”

Disclaimer: These are my own personal views and not those of the ACBL.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was mostly responding to those questioning my knowledge of laws. I also thought the idea was interesting, which is why I posted about it (along with finding it humorous).
June 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While that's true, I've written quite a lot of articles here. I think they have been taken in the humorous view I intended for them to be. I certainly hope that's true. My goal in writing for bridgewinners is to add a little lightheartedness and laughter to bridge (something many people forget to do when playing).
June 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My articles are (intended) to be light and humorous. Yes, having methods is illegal, that's why I thought it was funny. Obviously people have taken me all too seriously. It saddens me.
June 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a big seeded KO from a nationals within the last year. That's as much as I'll say (and I'll add this was on day 1) ;)
April 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not entirely true. That time is also for everyone else at the table to be considering their action. If you pass immediately because you had nothing to think about, but your LHO needed time to consider (no more than the ten seconds you should have taken), then it is known that he had a problem because the auction came around too quickly for him. It's not just about you needing to look like you're taking time.
Nov. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the director's sake, I'd include the second clause. I would really hate to get that call back (and I'm SURE I would, at least some part of the time).
Aug. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After South looked at me pleadingly, I told West that it wasn't. Perhaps I overstepped my duties, but I felt I should help.
Aug. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you never will. Since I was not called back to the table, I never saw North's hand. Sorry.

I wasn't really posting the story so people could analyze whether South had his bid, it was mostly something I found unbelievable/amusing that I wanted to share.
Dec. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a strong suspicion that it was not accidental, but no, I didn't ask.
Dec. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I actually want to expand on what I said. Let's say that, at the table, I decide that South does not have his bid and was influenced by the BIT. After all, North has made a simple one level overcall opposite a passed hand and has taken every weak action possible (assuming I've also found out that pass over 2 was North's weakest action). Now, North hesitates and signs off, which south puts in slam. If South was always going to force slam opposite a simple overcall, why not just bid it, instead of subjecting partner to possible UI situations.

So, now I've ruled that if 6 makes, I'm rolling it back to 5 and if it goes down, EW gets to keep their result. So, NS tell me that regardless of the result on the board, they're appealing.

Now I take this back to my colleagues and tell them the story and the majority feel that either:

a) South has his bid or
b) the BIT didn't suggest bidding on but was just a processing BIT so South can take his chances.

So, after consulting, I find out that I made the wrong decision and now I have to go correct, thereby upsetting EW in the middle of the match, as well (and possibly infuriate NS who were steaming about the fact that I ruled against them to begin with).

Or, looking at it from the flip side, where I rule that South has his bid, but I find out my colleagues unanimously disagree. I find that it's always best, and less likely to err, if consultations take place before I rule on a judgement situation.
Dec. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any ruling which requires bridge judgement, I always consult with other directors (especially the director in charge of the event) before making my ruling. I have found that sometimes my views are not the same as everyone's and before the case goes to appeal, I'd like to be a little more thorough than making a snap decision.
Dec. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously that was the next step if they called me back. ;)
Dec. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy has it right. Before reopening the auction, I need to find out what, if anything, West would have done differently since I can't back the auction up that far. EW are still protected, especially if West would have acted and East now passes the hand out. Always better to get that information before people see all 52 cards.
Dec. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are truly a legend in your own mind :)
Oct. 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL Steve! I have seen similar things (wrong hands getting pulled out of a board, etc). Most recently, I was called over because the EW pair wanted to look at the hand they had just played, but they didn't realize North had already flipped the board, so they faced their new hand. *sigh* People get so wrapped up in thinking about the hands, they forget to pay attention to what's going on at the table. Oh well, at least all of you were having fun and enjoying yourself. That is, absolutely, the most important thing! This is a game and it's meant to be enjoyed :)
Sept. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The revoke was established earlier in the hand (when West failed to follow suit to trump). Here, I can not prevent the revoke from happening, although I did ask the question, “You (South) are leading the Q and you (West) are ruffing?” When I got nods from both, I let play continue. This would establish the second revoke, so, I should have let N/S make 9.
Aug. 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Alvin,

Yes, I did, in fact, sit down with the table and explained to N-S what had happened and that it's all a part of the game. I also explained, as you mentioned, that trusting partner is of the utmost importance :)
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get some of those too. :-)
July 4, 2013
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top