Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 37 38 39 40
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that playing online, there is no harm in self-alerting. That said, if you cannot imagine something requires an alert, suggesting that the failure to do so is “terrible ethics” seems a bit much.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not remember exactly what comment said, but it seems to me if whether Montreal happens depends on when Canada/US return to normalcy, what the leaders of these countries have to say on this *is* relevant to the discussion.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume he's from Montreal give the subject of the OP?
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I would not have made a post suggesting that diseases somehow magically is less contagious in a rural region than in a urban one, even if you gather up thousands of people in a convention center”

I could not tell if part of the joke was that this was such an obviously terrible (and extremely ignorant) idea from a public health perspective that only an organization as incompetent as the ACBL would suggest it. This could either be intended as a shot at the ACBCL or those who think the depths of the ACBL's incompetence knows no bounds. If this was the intention, I think it's pretty dark and trollish, but a little amusing.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, maybe those whose 1NT overcalls of 1m explicitly promises a stopper should be the ones alerting :)
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He could also create his own set of standards e.g. either won a Spingold/Vanderbilt/Reisinger, a world championship, or whatever other prestigious thing would make the truly world class players eligible and eliminate scrubs like me
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You kids get off my lawn!!!
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need to start with club K. I bet that there are at least some on this site who would rule against a declarer who didn't state the order was going to play his clubs.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the issue is you want to make the opponents block the clubs or something? I agree that it would be better for S to play the club K and then a low club to make it obvious what he's going to do (also I find in general playing a few more tricks saves time), but given opponents can reject I am a little more accepting of lazy claims online (and if I accepted I would never call the director).
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bud: Personally, I think a statement that said something to the effect of “the tournament is not currently canceled, but that is subject to change and we will reevaluate closer to the date” would be much better.

Certainly I hope the situation is better by the end of April and the tournament can proceed, but it seems reasonably likely that this will NOT be the case and I think the sentiment (as I read it) “we are prepared to do something irresponsible for purely financial reasons unless the government intervenes” is pretty gross.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What did you hope to achieve by your criticisms?”

Help construct a more useful survey?
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The attitude ”I know what's right, and if people don't do what I want I'm going to get the government to force them to do it“ is anathema to me.”

Surely you recognize the value in some laws restricting what people can do? I agree with the sentiment that I should be able to do whatever I want, but only if it doesn't negatively affect other people. Once my actions start affecting others, I think it becomes a little stickier.
March 9
Shawn Drenning edited this comment March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Should it be that the NABC does occur, I still have great difficulty comprehending why people are upset that willing people attend an event they wish to attend.”

Peg: Maybe you didn't see Barry's comment above? The concern is that many feel that it's possible that holding the NABC could be harmful to more people than just themselves. You may not agree, but surely you comprehend why someone who believes that would be upset?

“MY dismay is that many individual decision-makers seem to think that the ONLY consideration is the size of their personal risk.

Perhaps the defining feature of COVID-19 is how easily it's transmittable by individuals with no symptoms. People going to large gatherings expose not just themselves to risk (which is indeed low for many), but they also expose all future people they interact with to risks IF they become infected and thus a disease vector. I'd be much more comfortable with the emphasis and reliance on individual decisions if I saw more evidence that you and others recognized this larger issue.”
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: In addition on what Richard said, I don't think the article you linked necessarily supports the argument you're making. My takeaway from reading it is that many (most?) traffic deaths are avoidable and there are steps that could be taken to limit their impact on society similar to how there are steps we can take to lessen the impact the virus has.

“I don't understand why some think that they should have the right to force others to do what they think is appropriate rather than letting each of us choose.”

Suppose you knew that holding the NABC would lead to the avoidable deaths of X number of people in Columbus who are not bridge players. That may not bother *you*, but for some value of X I would argue that the ACBL has a responsibility to step in and prevent its members from being irresponsible. It may be the case that choosing to hold the NABC will have negligible effect on the spread of the virus (X is zero or small) in which case we should hold it and let everyone make their own decision. The problem (I suspect) is that we don't all agree on how large X has to be before it's worth the inconvenience of upending our lives (and it's murky enough that we won't agree on what X even is).
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think at least SOME consideration should be given to the greater good. For instance, if the ACBL elects to hold the Columbus NABC against the recommendation of health experts (not saying this is currently happening) even though my personal risk is lower than average, I would still feel irresponsible attending. Others may feel differently though, which is why I think it is incumbent upon the ACBL to make the right decision.
March 8
Shawn Drenning edited this comment March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I view being able to bid in tempo as a bridge skill and I do not see how being bad at some part of bridge can be considered unethical.

Playing with me, partner will realize that giving UI usually decreases our EV on a hand and (hopefully) will get better at not doing so. Playing with some of the other people responding to this thread, it seems giving UI will increase his EV on the hand so maybe he will have less incentive to get better at not giving it . . .
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not unethical to not be able to bid in tempo (unless you're doing it on purpose)
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: I agree that UI like you describe during the play is difficult. Personally, if I have it I try to imagine what my view of the hand would be without the UI or if the UI allows me to more easily come to conclusions I could also work out from AI I try to imagine what I might do if I were playing on autopilot (e.g. partner's tempo gives away he has a singleton in a side suit he's shifted to, so when declarer plays a trump through my Axx I duck even though I can tell flying won't cost). Obviously I didn't do a good job making my point in the OP (or maybe I did and people just disagree), but because UI is so hard to police is why I think it's important that player's try to self police and be honest with themselves about what they think might have happened if they did not have UI.

Since I cannot really convince local players to see things my way, I sometimes try to appeal to authority and quote others. One of my favorite quotes on this site on the subject of UI is one Justin Lall made a while ago in a thread (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/)

Yes, “I just did what I would have done anyway” is infuriating. It shows just how intellectually dishonest people are with themselves. I'm sure they believe that, but it is a rationalization to do what is suggested by the UI. If you know the answer to a problem, it is very easy to work backwards and figure out all the reasons you should get to that answer.

In reality if you don't know whether your partner has a singleton or a doubleton, you will have various things to think about and reasons to go for one or the other. You have to weigh them against each other and make a choice. Once you have UI that choice is biased, you have no idea what you “would have done without the UI” no matter what you think. Even if you somehow did, this is self serving and the laws cannot incorporate that. The only way you should “know” what you would have done anyway is if there is no other logical choice. In that case, of course the laws allow you to do that, but it is because there is no logical alternative, not because you somehow knew what you would do in the absence of UI.

Another thing people like to say is “just do what you would have done behind screens.” This is another silly thing to say, behind screens you might not have UI and can do whatever you want whereas without screens you might. Does this mean that screens actually HELP ethical players? Yes, it is a benefit of screens to receive less UI not a downside. As an example, you hold 6331. Your partner opens 1C, and it goes 1N overcall and you bid 2D showing one major. It goes p p X ?. Behind screens I would certainly bid 2S, my partner has likely forgotten our agreement. Without screens I know my partner did not alert 2D and passed. People told me I could still bid 2S here but they are wrong, because without screens what if your partner HAD alerted 2D and passed? They are almost certainly 0256. There are a million other examples that prove that the “just do what you would have done behind screens” thing is also BS, things people say to rationalize what is ultimately just a desire to not play 2D X without a fight; after all there is no downside to trying 2S here (maybe they don't call the director, maybe the director rules that it is legal, and if they don't it is simply rolled back to 2D X), other than not being able to look at yourself in the mirror at night. But if you can rationalize that away with “I know what I would have done” or “I woulda done this behind screens” then…
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“you believe bidding 4H is a clear error”

The intent of this was to emphasize that if (say) you read this as a bidding problem in a bidding magazine and thought about it for awhile, you'd realize it's probably not a great bid (as many in this thread have pointed out). Once you have the UI that partner has 3, you can of course also work out at the table that 4H is probably not the right bid. Whether you like it or not, the premise of the problem was that sometimes you wouldn't think about it at the table and bid 4H if partner didn't wake you up.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“He's full of sh!t.”

I have no expertise to comment, but why do you think this (are you an epidemiologist?)?


“Follow the money.”

I don't quite understand what his financial motivation for predicting that 40 to 70% of us will contract the virus is.
March 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 37 38 39 40
.

Bottom Home Top