Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, there is an edit button available before you choose “Publish”. After that you are done modifying that post.
Nov. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of years ago I was on lead against 3NT, holding KTx,xx,xxx,KJT9x. The auction was uncontested: 1-2;2N-3N. I made the normal lead of the J. But the only lead that sets 3N was the K, because dummy had: Jx,xxx,AQJTxx,Ax and declarer had: ATxx,AKJxx,xx,Qx. (approximately).

A trap of the Q when it isn't a singleton.

Only Minnie Bottoms in Frank Stewart's bridge columns would find this lead! (She has poor eyesight and mixes up her Ks and Js.)
Nov. 17, 2018
Stu Goodgold edited this comment Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could not find an edit button or any other method for modifying an article once it is posted. You have to live with what you put there, and can only correct by comments or removing the post and starting a new one.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most frequent use is the 1-1 sequence, which is explained as often showing a weaker hand not wanting to wrong side 1NT.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rndy asked: “is the BOG really 125 people?”

The BoG is made up of 1st and 2nd alternates and 3 BoG members elected from each of the 25 districts. That adds up to 125. Plus, all Past Presidents of the BoD (that are not currently on the BoD) and all Past Chairs of the BoG are lifetime members of the BoG. Last I noticed that was about 30 more people.

However, there are quite a few vacancies of BoG members from various districts. And attendance is not mandatory at each NABC. I would estimate that at a typical BoG meeting (1st Sunday at 10am of each NABC) maybe 70-80 BoG members are in attendance.

BTW, the bill for that continental breakfast along with the facilities support for the 2 hr BoG meeting runs about $4000.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The $516K probably includes the ACBL President's allocation, as well as the expenses of all the other board members. Even so, that does sound high. And this was the 990 form for 2016, where the president's budget has been reduced since your days on the BoD, Don.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Previously, I had discussed the ‘one person, one vote’ proposal that failed the BoG vote. That could be approximated by having a board of 9 members, each selected by about 18,000 members. You could divide the ACBL into 9 zones:
Florida, California, Canada, and 6 US zones: NE, SE, North-central, , South-central (with Mex), NW, and SW.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are other factors which no one has mentioned that might be the most important. They are enthusiasm and willingness to work.
That goes further than any expertise a candidate might possess.
Not everyone has the time or energy to devote to the task, and new candidates might not know exactly what the position entails.

Yes, you can argue that only the most willing would promote themselves as candidates for the board, but how do the voters determine which candidate is the best.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per the current ACBL Bylaws, the chair of the BoG sits on the BoD with voice but no vote. Perhaps the thought was that this should continue in some form even with a smaller BoD. Just my estimation of someone else's thought process.
Nov. 16, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top