Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Moese
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 428 429 430 431
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn’t that just escalate the cost threat to the corporation and make managing risk unacceptable? I cannot begin to estimate what membership and entry costs would have to be to cover the additional risks done this way.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should be about losers more so than points. Partner shows one cover so 5 says we can count 10 tricks, expecting one more from responder.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’d liken 5 to mean opposite most minimums I need one more trick (than the one I assume you have) from you, partner. Assume min is 5-7 and we can count on one cover card. If Responder holds 3 control cards S/he can bid 6 (partner bids hoping I have 2 tricks for him). So K for me.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, if I am right that the legal costs and risks are what make governing bodies fail to act, then perhaps we must attack that.

One way might be to think through what the player’s share of the cost should be.

Unlike many, I see that the membership and entry fee prices are not set with litigation costs in mind. I also see that cheating lawsuits tends to focus on top events and professional pairs. Note my use of “tends”.

I wonder if a system whereby the governing body (GB) and the players in a MAJOR event could agree to share the burden not covered by litigation insurance. Say 70 teams play in the Spinderbilt Teams. One team is accused and convicted by the GB of cheating. They choose to sue for damages and loss of livelihood etc. Should there be a way for the GB to charge the remaining players in that event for 1/2 of the cost of the litigation and adverse judgment not covered by insurance or sunk GB overheads? That might come to $50-100 per player.

Players putting their money where their mouth is the missing solution to a stiffer GB backbone IMHO.

Another way would be to charge say $100 per top event per player as litigation insurance. The money gets refunded after 3-6 months if no charges are brought, and returned if any litigation goes in favor of the GB. Only if there is an adverse decision would the players “lose” their insurance.

If this idea makes us uncomfortable, then we need to examine the business model. We cannot keep costs low and maintain sufficient reserves to prosecute cheaters the way people want. Something has to give.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, wouldn’t one basis be denial of ability to earn ones living?
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bid 5N over 4.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan, thank you for your thoughtful post.

One question - is it possible under Swiss or European Law to require arbitration for appeal of all claims, and for said arbitration to be required to include bridge experts on matters involving cheating? If so, why not pursue that route instead of the CAS?

The universal right of appeal serves our game only if properly informed people are making a disinterested judgment.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simpler if 4 agrees with no intent on playing in . After 3N probe, 4 shows slam interest and sets .

We have to choose which ambiguity we want to accept. I dislike 4 here as an offer to play.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Precisely, Rosalind.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn’t the WBF require an electronic copy of the system card filed and available online prior to the event? Wouldn’t it be great if …
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not discussed. Assume yes.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another idea is to play fast denies. So their X or 2 must show explicitly.

Simply, use it as staymanesque where opener can accept the transfer with no stop and no major, bid NT with stop and no major, or bid major ambiguous as to stop. If the 3 level cuebid is still available, use it to ask/show a partial stop. Other uses make more sense if you play negative doubles,
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Splintering sets . Since redouble shows a control, 4 continues showing controls according to partnership agreement (here it is reasonable to play first or second round). However to bid this way must imply a control in , the now unbiddable/unreachable strain. Note 4 could be last train. Again, depends on agreement.

What it is not is a place to play. Wanting to force to a black suit game, 3 would have been sufficient.

The splinter is too big a fit statement to override it later.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig that’s called punishing only the foul you see. I’d hope you’d investigate all the facts first.
Oct. 14
Steve Moese edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob FWIW, “Comfortable Satisfaction” came from European jurisprudence and was adopted within the past 2 - 3 years by he ACBL to unify criteria under the WBF approach with CAS as the ultimate arbiter. ACBL went along with the change. Preponderance of the evidence was deemed not stringent enough of a criteria.

However if we reread the CAS appeal by FN we see the CAS panel themselves changed the criteria to “beyond a reasonable doubt” without warning, citing the seriousness of the charges as the basis for the change. Not only did they then retry the entire case, they arbitrarily raised the bar in favor of the defendants/appellants. These two legal abuses/gross overreaches by the panel curdle my skin and make it impossible for me to support that process in any way. Any way.
Oct. 14
Steve Moese edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’d simply ask your opponents to refrain from gratuitous comments publicly criticizing their opponents bidding choices. Such comments are never welcomed and are highly inappropriate. As long as a call is legal, it is ethical and appropriate.

If that fails, time to call the director.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gordon, if you “saw” that the code cannot be detected by the human eye (it can't) you'd be satisfied.
Oct. 13
Steve Moese edited this comment Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With no information isn't this a simple case of 11 open spaces to the left and 12 to the right? That's 52.2% for the drop. With 6/7 of the outstanding HCP to the LEFT, finesse seems obvious. More so if there is more than one Q outstanding.

West 13 spaces Missing 4 Cards East 13 spaces
West. East Ways. Specific Generic Group
2 2 6 6.78 40.70 40.70
3 1 4 6.22 24.87 49.74
1 3 4 6.22 24.87
4 0 1 4.78 4.78 9.57
0 4 1 4.78 4.78
10 10 16 28.78 100.00 100.00

We have 3 2-2 cases or 20.35%. For 3-1 we have 3 cases as well, or 18.66% 20.35/(39.01)= 52.2 as above.

Now let's assume there are AAAQ outstanding and LHO has at least AAA. If we assume 10 unknown cards (13 - 3 aces) and 13 cards for RHO, the odds change as follows:

West 10 spaces Missing 4 Cards East 13 spaces
West East Ways Specific Generic Group
2 2 6 6.61 39.64 39.64
3 1 4 4.40 17.62 49.92
1 3 4 8.07 32.30
4 0 1 2.37 2.37 10.45
0 4 1 8.07 8.07
10 10 16 29.53 100.00 100.00

That leaves 19.83% for the 3 relevant 2-2 cases and 13.20 for the 3 3-1 cases. So, 19.83/33.03 = 60.0% against the finesse.

(RHP's suit break calculator shows 13 vs 12 vacant spaces is enough to make the specific 3-1 and 2-2 breaks equivalent at 6.78%. Taking this one step further, putting 3 facecards in LHO requires knowing 4 cards from RHO before the odds for the drop or finesse break even (10 vs 9 vs's)).

see:
http://rpbridge.net/cgi-bin/xsb2.pl
Oct. 13
Steve Moese edited this comment Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry - perhaps an agreement that says “By purchasing this entry we commit to have two comparable convention cards during play. If not, we accept a precedural penalty of ________ per board until the deficiency is corrected.”
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, iirc, the ACBL directs arbitration to a body other than CAS. If that arbitration is final then how does CAS get involved? My head spins…
Oct. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 428 429 430 431
.

Bottom Home Top