Join Bridge Winners
What happened to the Bridge in BridgeWinners?

Part I: Rant I

On the front page of this site are (I think) 35 articles with 1815 comments.  Of those, 23 of the articles and 1815 or 93% of the comments are about the ACBL, ruings, appeals, regulations or cheating.  4 articles with 39 comments are are something else (one of them I have read and still have no idea what it is about except I don't think it is bridge).

That leaves 8 articles with 5% of the comments about bridge. 

(If I have miscounted that doesn't change the direction of this post).

If that reflects what the members of this site want to talk about then fine, but in that case perhaps there should be a subforum for the minority who are interested in bridge hands.

Part II: Rant II

On this site, 'civility and respect are paramount'.  Indeed, a poster was told off for suggesting that someone else had made a 'foolish comment'.  And yet somehow when it comes to rulings and appeals, there is no need for either. When we talk about experts making a bid or play we disagree with, there is lot of careful wordsmithing to say 'I don't agree with this', or 'that would not be my choice (because...)'. Yet when we talk about some of the world's best players involved in an appeal, it suddenly becomes acceptable to say things such as:

"This is a travesty"

"We have ample evidence of horrendous committee decisions" (do we? I don't, not at the top level. There may be some I disagree with, but that's not the same thing)

"the 5 bid is not bridge... it is an attempt to double dip, if it works great, if not expect to director to roll it back"

"This ruling is absurd.  The bid is not bridge in spite of any clever self-serving arguments to the contrary"

"I think serious consideration should be given to removing the 5 people who perpetrated this travesty from the AC process"

"No self-respecting expert would even think about it. It's horrifying to see such a double shot was allowed and rewarded"

"When the case goes to the AC, the whole world knows who they are going to screw"

"It seems the committee [did this] for no reason other than the get the score from 500 back to 450"

"This is true horseshit. This smells and looks corrupt and ridiculous."

"This stinks at all levels. What a joke."

"This entire basis for the director call in the first place is subjective bullshit"

These comments are blatant accusations of incompetence and corruption to the members of the AC and the South player involved. 

Part III Bridge

I'm about to go and play bridge for the weekend, so I should justify my earlier complaint with a bridge hand.

South
QJ105
A107
A7
A752
W
N
E
S
1NT
P
2
X
XX
P
P
?

2 was alerted, but you forgot to ask (it is asking for a 5-card major, could be a 0-count)

Your double showed a hand that would have doubled the 1NT opening.

Redouble suggested playing there

This is MATCHPOINTS.  There are quite a few matchpoints available if you get this right because it's a deathtrap hand.

Pass and lump it
2
2, then redouble, then pass partner's choice of major
2, then redouble, then pull 2 to 2 if it is doubled but stand it if undoubled
Other

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
56 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top