Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Steve Willner

Steve Willner
Steve Willner
  • 6
    Following
  • 10
    Followers
  • 27
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
June 14, 2013
Last Seen
July 18
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Live and play in Boston area.

Country
United States of America

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
None
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Chess Cheating Scandal
Does anyone know more about the statistical model mentioned in the article? I'm _guessing_ they compare a player's moves to those of one or more popular chess programs and flag players who have too many matches, but I have no idea whether that would work.
Meanwhile in San Antonio
Probably 10 in the lower brackets, 12 in the upper ones. The idea of a KO is to play long matches.
Meanwhile in San Antonio
Or 6 6 6 6 7 or variations on that, putting breaks at places that best reflect the team strengths and preferences. As other have mentioned, the real problems are 1. MP don't reflect team strength very well, and 2. teams have different preferences about the strengths of opponents ...
Club Ruling
John has it right: even if failing to double were a "serious error" -- and as others have written, it doesn't come close -- it's related to the infraction. The only provision of L12C1e that could lead to a split score is the one about "gambling action." Even if you ...
Off Topic: Independence Day in the U.S.
"Aphelion" day?
Director, Please: Revoke
That must have been a very long time ago. Though I don't have a copy at hand, I am pretty sure the 1963 Laws contained the "restore equity" provision equivalent to today's L64C. I also thought the automatic penalty (now "rectification") was two tricks until 1975. Of course ...
Director, Please: Revoke
I looked up past laws, and the one Paul mentioned was in effect from 1987 until 1997. From 1975 until 1987 and from 1997 until now, it has been one trick plus the revoke trick if won by the revoker. I don't have the 1963 Laws at hand, but ...
Comparable Call?
One way to think about this is to consider partner's (here advancer's) possible problems. Dave Waterman above had the same idea. Suppose advancer has a weak hand with 2=3=4=4 shape. With no irregularity, after partner doubles a 1 bid, advancer will have to guess ...
Takeout Doubler’s Cue Bid after Minor Suit Advance
How would partner bid if holding Jxxxx xx Jxx xxx ?
Ruling & whats do you think is the best
"no requirement to explain what a bid might have meant in a different situation." Might be true, depending on what "different situation" one means. You aren't obliged to explain in the OP case what an opening 2 bid means, for example. That's a different situation. Edit: poor ...
.

Bottom Home Top