Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Zolotow
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If as various posters have stated there was UI, 2N showed extras in the Polish system, and the double indicated the Kc was offside, I'm amazed they didn't get to 6N, which needs 3-3 spades or J in short hand instead of 6D which needs a relatively lucky spade position.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is another pair of free shots: 1)use UI and perhaps have our result taken away and 2) claim the opponents used UI and perhaps have their good result taken away. Seems like there is more downside to 1) in if ruled against you will get the least favorable ruling possible.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Department of free shots (attempts by losers to win a match they lost at the table.) Both of today's losers should demand that winners be drug tested (per WBF rules.) Who knows maybe someone takes Provigal or steroids or whatever?
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most instructive part of your match was the ineffectiveness of lead directing doubles. There was a hand where 6D was bid at many tables (even though 6N was much better.) It made where an earlier club Q-bid had been doubled, since declarer knew to avoid a losing finesse, and failed where there was no double. You doubled a 6S slam with a diamond void (I must admit it seemed like a good bid to me too) got the ruff, but the slam made easily, since diamonds could now be set up. Unfortunately England was on the wrong side of both those slams. Obviously a few hands aren't enough to prove anything, but they certainly provide food for thought. Either fewer lead directing doubles or psychic ones designed to keep the opponents out of slam or lead to their misplay?
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps pairs that have already played a lot and now play all 3 sets in a day are exhausted. As much a stamina contest than a bridge contest.
Oct. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it just my imagination (or the random selection of hands I happened to watch) or was the average level of bidding and play worse than I recall seeing in recent BBs. I seem to see a lot big numbers, mediocre to bad slams, missed defensive opportunities, etc.
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This might create one more way to win a match you've lost. Ask the officials to test the other team for substances.
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand doesn't seem very interesting. 6N is slightly good (luck with black Queens or long d hand getting squeezed,) but bidding it or not doesn't seem that big a deal. Should average to about 1.5 IMP gain for bidding it vs. not.
Oct. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately the IOC hasn't devoted much time to creating regulations on coughing, sniffing, pencil placement, board pushing, unauthorized information, etc. I'm sure they'll correct this oversight soon.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leaving aside the best line of play and purely discussing the odds makes this a more interesting question. If 3d is 5th best then AQ are onside. If it is 3rd best, then probably 1, but not both are onside. Actual odds become confusing since you have to know what chances are that opponent would chose this lead from Axx, Qxx, or xxx vs another suit.
Since he would usually lead from a 5 card suit (even at matchpoints) and less often from a 3 card suit, I would like that were it relevant it would be best to play the Jd, assuming leader for AQxxx quite often and Qxx some of the time. (Here odds aren't really the issue, best play is Kd and then some winners before club finesse.)
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scotland just voted down a split. Texas has considered splitting. Spain-Catalonia and Ottawa-Canada discuss splits from time to time. When they realize they'll get extra Bermuda Bowl entries the splits should pass by vast majorities. LOL
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While Round Robins have problems, so do KO's. Seeding assumes tremendous importance. If random seeding, then there is a danger 2 best teams play in round one. If not random, then best established teams are given a further advantage, while best new teams have a lot tougher road. With RR first, each team earns its position in the KO.
Oct. 4, 2015
Steve Zolotow edited this comment Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is also the possibility that some people look at cheating as ‘a game within a game." Seeing what you can get away with becomes a game in itself. In the same way that someone climbs Everest because it’s there, they cheat because it's something else to do to prove your superiority over the hoi poloi (fighting spell checker so the Latin may be mangled.)
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I understand this thread relates to good/great players, who cheat to become superstars, I wonder how many mediocre players do stuff as well. Sure they're only good enough to go from average to average plus, but they are much less likely to get the scrutiny that better players do. We need to develop ways to make it much more difficult for anyone to do anything. Videoing the final rounds of big events does nothing to prevent cheating, other than make it more likely top level cheats will eventually be caught.
Sept. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two quotes that seem relevant to me. Red Sanders, a UCLA football coach, once said, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” A poker player from Texas who was trying to talk me into colluding in a game in Vegas stated, “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t trying.” The ethics, or lack thereof, that underlie these sentiments are extremely common in the modern world. We are programmed from an early age to seek success, fame and money. Supposedly these will lead to happiness and fulfillment. There are abundant self-help books advising their readers how they can achieve more or earn more. Singling out bridge players or game players is wrong. People take advantage and try to ‘game’ the system in all areas of life. The recent scandal at Volkswagen is just another manifestation of this behavior.
Sept. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know of anything in Norwegian that has ever been censored in the US.
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bright Ray of light … clever pu
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Roy and Sabine are great. I also think that this post highlights one of the main reasons why I strongly favor instituting techno-bridge. Pairs, especially young successful pairs with many bidding innovations, may find themselves caught up in a swirl of innuendos and accusations. The early practitioners of Roth-Stone, Italian Club Systems, and Precision, honest pairs like Meckwell and not so honest pairs like F-N and F-S all become subject to these rumors. Imagine trying to justify an assortment of close decisions that worked out, while a panel of ‘experts’ tries to correlate every bid or lead with coughs, smoking breaks, pencil placement, board passing, etc. Even if the authorities become more adept at distinguishing the cheats from the others, cheaters would have a few years before being exposed and the honest would still have to suffer through the indignity of being suspected.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we continue doing what we have been doing, albeit with slight modifications, we will get what we have always gotten - some cheaters. Boye and others have suggestions that might lead to their being exposed more quickly, but is this really enough? Suppose FN had been stopped after only 5 years instead of 12, would we all high five and say boy this new system is great?
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Online poker created a generation of technically strong players, many of whom lacked table feel and the ability to read their opponents while concealing their own strength. I would expect that electronic bridge would have a similar result. Players, who aren't technically cheating, but who rely on table feel, watching their opponents fumble between calls in the bidding box, how cards are assorted or played will find their results get worse, while those with the strongest technical skills will thrive.
Sept. 18, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top