Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dan Denison
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the event I passed, and it was bloody. Down three. Either 1N to protect the tenaces, or XX resulting in 2D from the other side, would be down one, or lead to opponents bidding and making a part score. In retrospect, I like Richard Fleet's suggestion of treating the heart suit as 4 cards and opening a weak no trump.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm. You passed in real life. And a very solid majority supported you. But the majority is not always right.
June 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a recent convert, but now strong believer, in the theory that in this type of 5-level auction, pass is forcing, and I should pass with one diamond and double with two. Partner can then make an informed decision. Bidding is optional with a void. The theory, which I read when posted by Jeff Goldsmith, has worked spectacularly well for us. I am not sure whether Jeff created it or is merely promoting it. But either way, we are very grateful.
Feb. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to all for your votes. This hand was from the recent Keohane Individual event at the Newton, MA regional. My choice was to pass, which resulted in a zero. I posted this hoping to reassure myself that I was not the lone ranger. I am somewhat reassured.
Jan. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think at high levels, there is conspiracy to defraud. A pro pair's sponsor is paying them for performance to achieve an objective, which will be taken away if they are found to be cheating They are competing against other pros who fail to achieve their own incentives when they lose to a cheating team. The sponsors of cheated losing teams also are not getting what they paid for. There seems little difference to me from cheating a casino; and casinos sometimes refer criminal activity to the proper authorities. And conspiracy requires only active collusion to try to achieve unlawful gains, regardless of whether the gains are actually obtained.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IANAL - Definitely! And I did not intend the word “complaint” to refer to a court filing. “Referral” is probably the appropriate word. My post was aimed at the overall target of drafting a BOD motion. I suggest that the NABC procedure explicitly include a referral to the appropriate agency (FBI? US Attorney?) when there appears to be evidence that that a federal crime (conspiracy) has taken place. The mere possibility that this may occur may inhibit this form of cheating. If the suggestions below for a more open process are adopted, there will be a time when the suspects know that others are virtually certain that they have a “wire” but are still engaged in the process of discovering what it is and how it works. If there is an option at this point to voluntarily admit that “I may have had a pattern of unethical behavior” in exchange for a 5-10 year ban (plus whatever), rather than face the possibility of a criminal referral after more evidence is gathered, as well as the lifetime ban. I believe that the ACBL has not only the right, but perhaps an obligation, to make such a referral when the evidence has mounted to the Beyond Reasonable Doubt level. But it would benefit to have that Referral step included in the regulations.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about adding the possibility of the ACBL filing a federal criminal complaint for Conspiracy to Defraud for the cases where Beyond Reasonable Doubt can be established, and the event involves pro teams where significant money is/was at risk for both competitors and teammates? That could be a significant additional motivation for early confession. It could bring the power of US law to bear on offenders who might be willing to scoff at the threat of ACBL's jurisdiction. It could also be structured in a way that would motivate one conspirator to cop a plea at the expense of his/her partner.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Misplaced posting removed. Sorry.
Oct. 19, 2015
Dan Denison edited this comment Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IANAL and multinational venues clearly complicate things, but this is the first comment I have seen on lo these many threads that has identified criminal punishment as a possibility. I think it would be fine to have a two-tiered system: Preponderance of evidence for internal sanctions of some strength, but criminal charges actively pursued when beyond-reasonable-doubt seems to be in play. I think that possible significant criminal penalties would greatly inhibit the crime-of-opportunity players. Legal casinos in the US (and i presume those abroad) have the ability to bring Fraud charges against cheaters. In the US, federal Conspiracy charges dramatically raise the stakes for Fraud complaints, and they would seem to be applicable in many cases. Whether the money not earned by victim-pros on other teams could be considered fraud loss, I do not know. But if not, perhaps the sponsors could be motivated to put part of their pros' total compensation into a prize pool, to be divided similarly to professional tennis; that would establish a clear “victim” for fraud charges.
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 10-13 with penalty doubles at the two level only and have had steady success with it, particularly at imps. The weakness lies in the difficulty of competing effectively in part score deals where we have a 4-4 fit, and that is more costly at matchpoints. We have had many fewer problems with opponents making doubled contracts. The great results of being able to double when it is right have more than offset the problem hands. Admittedly these overall odds may be inflated when playing against weaker opponents, but we are pretty happy with the choice.

I agree with Robin and Michael on the danger of a reopening double. In addition to the risk of getting hammered, there is the frequent risk of giving the opponents a second chance to bid their game.
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nowhere above do I see the following thought. The proposed new rule is likely to have little immediate impact on the desired objective of prompt starting times. A huge amount of people will show up 35 minutes before game time, creating a backup that is largely invisible under the legacy process. The last person in line will be duly tagged. But processing the now-longer line will take much more than 30 minutes. And some enterprising folks may stand in the line on spec hoping to buy entries for friends (or customers) who do not show up on time. The best case outcome is that this is just the first step toward creating a better process, after it is tweaked a couple of times in the future. More sellers? More online entries motivated by the desire to avoid the new chaos, rather than by discounts? Requiring seeded pairs to pre-register so that they can be spread over the headcount in line? As presented, the seeding process cannot begin until the entries are sold, not just when people stand in line.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It strikes me that there is a 50-50 chance I will be playing in 1 doubled soon. I don't want to interfere with partner bailing me out when it comes around, if he has some shape. The doubler probably has a 1=4=4=4 ten count. I think a new suit from me at this point shows 5 cards.
May 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What if partner has KQJxx-Kxx-x-KJTx, Chris? Maybe it is better to accept her judgment that a limit raise is not enough? I agree we have a limit raise, but not much more. An opening lead of Ace of Spades and a spade will make this dummy look very unattractive for many of declarer's possible hands. I agree with Tom's point that LHO is a key factor. Who has more clubs? LHO or partner?
March 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the event, I passed without reflection. North at the other table successfully bid 4, the only making game contract, to win the board and the match. I wondered whether BW voters would consider that action. So far Jim Munday is the only 4 voter out of 18. I would value comments by passers who gave serious thought to 4 and decided against it. Thanks.
March 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with this at least 99%. I have some partners who would frequently pass 1 with a bad 6hcp and a spade shortage; with them 3N is probably just fine. But with someone like me who might have bid 1N with void=Jx=Jxxxxx=Kxxxx, you need to protect yourself with 2N, especially vulnerable at matchpoints.
Feb. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Six hearts not four; you are ruffing two spades after the pitches.
Feb. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a good story that goes with the lopsided vote on this hand. I posted the next round of bidding in a January 29 posting that created a broader spread of results. It now also has the whole story in the comments, if you are are interested.
Feb. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This poll was a follow-up to my Jan 23 poll. In that poll 97% voted for 4 over 3N with a 1=5=2=5 rich 10-count. My partner chose 3N, at least in part on the theory that it may pay to go counter-field when playing a team that you know is better than you are. The 4 bidders here seem well on their way to 6 which was the contract at the other table, but the 4 and 4N bidders here were right to fear a misfit problem. As the cards lay, they both make on the nose. 6 appears to be a 50% proposition involving a Queen-guess, but turned out to be a 0% play when Clubs broke 5-0. This motivated the West pro player at our table to intimate (ever so kindly and gently) that they may have been fixed. And so they were. It swung the board, the match, and was enough to switch the positions of the two teams in the final standings. But such things are part of what makes bridge so much fun.
Feb. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the event I doubled (sharing Bob and Mike's aversion) and it worked out well. We played 2, and par was +140 vs. 1N-1. But my partner was unhappy with my bid. I am now convinced that I was wrong, X showed a diamond stack, so I should have passed or bid an ugly 2 lacking Richard's 2 convention.
Nov. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing negative free bids, X may or may not mean “I have hearts.” It could be game forcing with some other shape (although it is tough to create four hands for this auction where responder thinks he has a game force). There should be an understanding of whether X means long good diamonds or 3 hearts, before negative free bids are put on the card.
Oct. 16, 2014
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top