Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, good analogies, but what about rules that are hard to comprehend, such as the infield fly rule? Many casual fans will never understand that rule.

And what about a runner on 2nd stealing signs from the catcher and relaying them to the batter? Because of that, catchers resort to complex signaling to the pitcher when a runner is on base. Yet there are laws against a coach stealing signs from centerfield using binoculars. Hard to understand why one is allowed and the other not.

As for David's comments - yes it would be ideal to educate all bridge players, expert and novice alike, on Law 16.
Although I have seen some reputed experts, and many B players, who are not totally conversant in Law 16 details, almost all novices and C players develop a blank stare when you discuss UI with them. You might as well be talking about the Riemann hypothesis. The concept of using UI is way beyond their comprehension.


Having a relaxed enforcement of Law 16 for newer players makes some sense. We should only apply it in obvious situations - obvious to the novice that is.

I like to use s volleyball analogy. Played for fun at a picnic, the game is vastly different than the game played at the Olympics. The rules of the game are bent or even ignored. Carrying the ball is not called, nor is hitting the net or stepping under it. Even the number of players per side can vary. But it is still volleyball.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Basically, what I advocate will catch all cheats and a few innocents. But the innocents will rapidly learn not to break tempo in tempo-sensitive situations (thus actually reducing, not increasing, the number of director calls).”

The innocents, especially the newer ones, will rapidly learn to leave the bridge table and not return. Calling the TD for a hesitation infraction is viewed by newer players as saying they cheated. So is the suggestion of hitting them with a penalty for hesitating (while letting the result stand).

Newer, and quite a few experienced players, just do not understand Law 16, and never will. To them it goes contrary to the whole concept of bridge being a game of information, where you make use of whatever information you can without collusive secret agreements.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You may look at your hand for 10 seconds only, close it. Now bid. Play normally.”

Even I can, and usually do, just that. It just takes a little practice. Playing normally…. now that's harder!

Oswald Jacoby could spread his hand, look at it for about 2 seconds, put it in his shirt pocket, then bid and play without ever looking at his cards again. And he could play like, well, Jacoby.
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too bad the stop card was eliminated from most bidding boxes. Makes it hard to use it to stop the auction.

I do wonder about bidding to the 4 level. What happens if you make an insufficient bid and don't correct to a comparable bid, or you make an illegal bid? What happens in you situation where West must never pass with a Yarborough; if he passes or makes an illegal bid, is his partner barred for the rest of the auction?
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An interesting concept. It would certainly benefit the hosting organization since you require 3 sessions of 18 bds for 3 entry fees in one day. Yet one plays just 54 bds in those 3 sessions, rather than the usual 48-56 bds in 2 sessions (depending on whether it is a 24 bd/session KO or a 26 bd/session pairs).
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While Law 25 states that your Pass should stand, there are some circumstances where it may not. Some years ago, in a club game I opened the auction, which went 1 (P) 3!. My RHO then asked the meaning of the alert and I explained “Bergen Raise showing a limit raise with 4 card support”. RHO then passed. As I was reaching into my bidding box, RHO then asked a second question. That distracted me; as I turned to face him, I simultaneously pulled out a Pass card.

The opps were kind enough to let me take the pass back and bid 3 without calling the director. But the director should have allowed the correction anyway.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Hawaii regional is run by D20, who most likely gives that responsibility to the Honolulu unit. The ACBL has little to do with the regional financially, other than to collect sanction fees and provide TD for which they bill the hosting unit.

Perhaps the regional will not fair well because those from other states and countries do not wish to return to Honolulu so soon after being there in Nov/Dec, just as you say is your reason for not going next month.

Other than that, the loss to the ACBL for the NABC shortfall in attendance does not directly affect the January regional.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even new BoD members don't get a manual explaining their job. They are encourage to understand their responsibilities, and the current state of the ACBL, by pouring over the ACBL Codification document.

As for the BoG members reporting to their district, that is one of the primary jobs of each BoD member. Having 5 BoG members do likewise would be redundant.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The BoG meets for 2 hrs at 10am on the 1st Sunday of each NABC.
A good portion of the time is devoted to the ED (aka CEO) giving a state of the organization presentation, followed by the highlights of what the BoD just voted on days before. Then comments and motions are heard from the floor.

Presumably, the delegates to the BoG take this current information back to their districts and units, and thus act as conduits of what transpires at higher levels.

Richard Popper, the BoG chair, noted that the continental breakfast that the hotel serves cost the ACBL $4000. He entertained a motion from the floor to do away with the breakfast and it passed handily. So the BoG meeting in Memphis will cost very little.

If you wanted to do away with the BoG, it would require a change to the ACBL Bylaws since the BoG is explicitly identified there.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is what the ED (Executive Director) reported at the Board of Governor's meeting. In additional (or substraction) to the $630K penalty for not meeting the room-night requirement, it was reported that about another $50K would be lost due to the actual attendance being far below the expected number. There are expenses for support that are budgeted in advance and based on the expected attendance such as allocation of fund to the hosting district for providing food, registration gifts, etc. plus getting TDs to the site and paying their expenses.
Dec. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was no indication that Grue's comment was the answer to a question. So his comment was extraneous information. Per Law16D2 the TD should have been called. After that 16D2c might have applied, if it is judge the extraneous information affected the result.

Of course, the AC ruled the EI was irrelevant, negating any consideration of Law 16D2c.

In any case, I do not see any law that defines an extraneous comment by an opponent as AI.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect 27A1 would apply here, followed by 25B1. East accepted the IB by both not calling the director and then accepting the change of bid when he passed over 4.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's wrong with a variant of the Monte Hall problem, one that most people would get.

You die and go to hell. The devil is there and tells you there might be redemption for you. He shows you 3 doors containing: Fire, Brimstone, and Passage to Heaven. He tells you to choose one and then he'll show you one of the others. You pick a door; the devil opens one of the other 2. Do you keep your choice or switch?

Apologies to Gary Larsen's The Far Side, where there are only 2 doors: Damned if you do, and Damned if you don't.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik, why not? Although North's 4 bid was a premature correction, East accepted it. That is specifically what Law 25 addresses.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was basing my opinion on the fact that there are only a few rational choices of cards to play. The offenders partner would likely guess about 25% right by closing his eyes and picking one.
Making him not pick that one because of UI seems unnecessarily strigent. For that matter, what if it was trick 12? His chance of guessing are now 50%.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In clubs directors often are busy, filling in for a late arrival, playing to fill a table, or making lunch in the middle of the game.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I agree with the order of the 5 irregularities you noted.
But the director should not roll back the auction at the time West calls. Of course, he can, but shouldn't. Law 25 addresses what happens when a change of bid is accepted, and East accepted 4H.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From a laws viewpoint, Law 16A does not address comments by an opponent as authorized information. I did have trouble locating the law that specifically authorizes comments from by an opponent as authorized, although we commonly assume that to be true.

Law 16 does not state what happens when you have both commentary by an opponent and UI from your partner. One should take precedence over the other, and it might not depend on which came first.
Since comments from an opponent are customarily assumed at your own risk, it would seem that UI is more definite,carries more weight, and should have precedence. That would seem to be the basis for the decision of the appeals committee.

Personally I feel that the criteria regarding UI should be different for playing than for bidding. In bidding, if 10% of peers would choose differently that make it a LA. In playing, especially for an opening lead, it should be a much higher percentage, say 25% to be a LA. There are always players, even world class as exemplified here, that would choose a different lead than their peers. That's true in bidding, but there are many alternatives in bidding, whereas there are generally just a few choices in playing.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were the director, I would rule that North's 2N bid was intentional but his change of call was accepted by East when he passed, thus Laws 25B1 applies. That states that the 4H bid is valid without restriction but Law 16C may apply per Law 26B3.

Now after North's 4H, one would have to see South's hand to determine if 4N is the only logical alternative. (Or conduct a poll, which may not be reasonable in a club game). If pass is also a LA then after the play I would roll back the contract to 4H if 6H made.

However, the director at this club game made his ruling as he saw fit without determining the applicable laws. The resulting decision may not be right, but he is the authority in this club game. It may even be right, but not for the actions your director took. You might want to point out to him that knowledgeable directors have a different opinion, and quote the applicable laws.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our local bridge club has ceded our otherwise moribund Monday nights to group of social players. They typically have 4 or 5 tables. None of them are ACBL members and they don't want to be. I believe they contribute $2 per table toward the rent and other expenses. The monthly rent is $3200, so their share in miniscule.

Is this how we should be working with social players?
Nov. 18, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top