Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Greig
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnn, I suppose a particularly selfless pro and similarly selfless and deep-pocketed sponsor (with a somewhat perverse sense of humour) might hire a cheating pair and sit them out for the entirety of the relevant competitions.
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Newspapers that don't mind making fun of the university would, I'm guessing, have fewer qualms about making fun of bridge players…
Oct. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you might be referring to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, headquartered in Lausanne.

Coincidentally, the University of Lausanne's Law School also houses some of the leading experts in the field of Bayesian analysis of evidence provided in legal proceedings.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's BIT pass could well suggest ‘I have a convertible values double but don’t want you to screw up whether to pass or not - please double so I can screw up the decision'.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure that in this auction 4 is unambiguously a cue. what about a hand with 4 cards in other major, and long clubs (maybe over 3 this hand would bid 3 but if partner bids 3 over double this might get murky…).
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that partner has shown a minimum takeout double. This for me could be a weak NT with (43) in the majors so I am happy to reach what I hope will be the best game via 4 holding a doubleton diamond. Would be interesting to see if people changed their views holding AQJ4 AJ752 3 A76 or indeed AQJ4 AJ752 763 A (where doubler is perhaps more likely to hold a singleton diamond…).
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Gary, my point was not whether this hand merited a think (which is clearly does) but rather concerning the variety of expert opinion in a ‘textbook’ situations. I also freely accept the possibilities that I might be reading the wrong textbooks or that I might be doing the textbooks I do read an injustice.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For anyone who wishes to see the variety of expert opinion regarding what is a hand that is bidding game to make opposite an opening preempt then look no further than hand 27, QF2 of the recent BB/VC/d'OC:

Holding…

T
A874
KQJ8
AT95

… opposite partner's second-in NV vs. NV 3, 11 of 24 tables played 3 with 4 making. Not every auction started with 3, and many pairs undoubtedly have wider-than-textbook suit quality agreements for the 3 bid but this hand would probably be as close to a textbook 4 bid opposite a textbook 3 opening as one could hope for - losing 1 trump, 1 diamond and 1 rounded suit trick - i.e. hoping that i) partner doesn't hold three small in the suit they lead or ii) they cannot cash two tricks in the rounded suit led.

BB results:

http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/chennai.15/Microsite/Asp/BoardAcrossKO.asp?qboard=027.02.QF.1134&qphase=QF

VC results:

http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/chennai.15/Microsite/Asp/BoardAcrossKO.asp?qboard=027.02.QF.1135&qphase=QF

d'OC results:

http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/chennai.15/Microsite/Asp/BoardAcrossKO.asp?qboard=027.02.QF.1136&qphase=QF
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not procedurally correct for me (though I am neither high level nor a TD).

First, a player of any standard has had the benefit of a suitable pause by RHO after partner's bid to perform any ‘analysis’ needed (further, a high level player should arguably be more capable of protecting his consistent tempo using this delay).

Second, a high level player should just ‘do what he does’ in tempo. As bidding or not might work, a given player may always do one thing or pursues some mixed strategy, however there doesn't seem to be any information to analyse that warrants out-of-tempo thought.

As a side thought, for a beginner I would say that a pause is a breach of correct procedure (I think that this was Edgar Kaplan's preferred terminology); for an expert I would say this is, at the very least, verging on poor ethics (and a history of such probably merits recording).
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds eerily like the UCI's initial response to the USADA investigation of Armstrong and US Postal…
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion reminds me of a great article by Michael Rosenberg, ‘Ethics for Experts’ (published in Pamela's and Matthew Granovetter's ‘For Experts Only’ - not sure if it was published elsewhere). It discusses, amongst other things, ethical considerations surrounding ‘basher’ vs. ‘flexer’ bidding styles.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, to me the law as written seems to contain language that is both partially redundant and unclear: ‘of whom it is judged some might select it’ is not the same as ‘of whom some would select it’.

The language ‘of whom it is judged’ indicates that this part of the rule is left in the hands of the adjudicator (so whilst a polling of experts concerning what they would actually do might be relevant evidence for the adjudicator it need not be considered ultimately determinative) and ‘might select it’ seems to reiterate what is said in the first part concerning what an expert might consider.

As written the second part of rule seems to significantly remove the force of the first part (I cannot imagine I am the first or indeed the last person to make this point…).

Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, I'm intrigued by your '20% of peers would consider … and 10% of them would actually make ' guidelines. Am I wrong in thinking that only the first part of this is actually relevant to the laws as written?
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just the one? (Canadian, not grinder that is).
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, more surprising is that World Championship bidding boxes are not better supplied with pass cards.
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though this low probability of a random match should not be equated to a probability of innocence (prosecutor's fallacy).
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner then, I guess, could not have bid 4 as non-leaping Michaels ( + M)?
May 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to bid 3 but unfortunately I think that that should guarantee a fifth spade.
May 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would be helpful to know what style of other responses to 2C we are playing.
May 21, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top