Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Lehman
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 294 295 296 297
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Poor choice of language by me. I did not mean that double “shows” two suits; what I meant was that double “allows for finding” two suits.

Excepting any unlikely pass of 2X, I just don't see any reason to prefer 2 over double.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kida has great potential, I think, to interest young people in playing bridge.

But … at least when I last reviewed it …

The product has insufficient front end instruction to permit today's youth to even begin playing it. Concepts such as clockwise play by four players constitutes a trick, requirement to follow suit or else discard, rank of cards, who wins a trick, who leads to the next trick, how discarding a trump can win a trick, etc., were not explained.

Anyone who thinks all of above is known or can be surmised by today's youth is simply mistaken.

I'll repeat my plea from another thread: give Amaresh some money to hire programmers who can address the items lacking above and the help of someone who is expert in app marketing and distribution, and we who want bridge to flourish among youth might find the Next Great Product to help satisfy that want.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In context, there is not even one bid I feel is best. 1 does not risk missing a heart game, 2 shows one suit at two level instead of both suits, 4 is not necessarily an eight card fit.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Overlooking the rather substantial issue that BOD has not shown great receptivity to being influenced, should the “influence body” role of the geographically represented BOG be replaced by a stakeholder and expertise represented series of committees? Examples of stakeholder committees could be owners of large clubs, owners of small clubs, operators of tournaments in densely populated areas, operators of tournaments in sparsely populated areas, teachers, professional players, club players, tournament regular non-professionals, etc. Examples of expertise committees could be tournament site negotiating, governance and fiduciary, finance and accounting, technology, etc.


Each committee would advocate for their group's interests, trying to garner broad support for their proposals and then presenting their cases to the BOD. Written summaries of their objectives and how their proposals would accomplish the objectives would be welcomed to be broadly available to membership, as would written summaries and updates about how such proposals were received and acted upon by the BOD.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the partnership agreement on the meaning of advancer's double?
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, my question was, in essence, how many of the directors share my belief that many players (and, yes, not just inexperienced players) believe that it can be an infraction just to break tempo? And, further, that many of those players believe that the infraction is excused if the breaking of tempo is caused by their having a legitimate problem deciding what to call?


Those players are, I believe, wrong on both counts. They are wrong that the BIT is an infraction in and of itself. And they are wrong that any infraction that results from actions following the BIT is excused when there is a legitimate reason (i.e., not cheating or coffeehousing) for the BIT.


Yet, players will continue to be wrong in their beliefs so long as directors fail to correct the misbeliefs by explaining to the players what the laws really say. Directors are failing at educating players, by my observation. And sometimes the inactions of players who do understand the laws (that is, inaction by failing to call the director because “it is only a club game”) help contribute to the misbeliefs.


Btw, I like the way you use terms “irregularity” and “infraction”. That distinction is not one I had learned, but I think the use of that language – which I assume comes from the laws themselves? – could helps clarify what actions by players would cause a score adjustment.
Dec. 10
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many of you who are directors believe that many of the inexperienced players who broke tempo and then hear the director called think that the act of not bidding in tempo is an infraction in and of itself?

I am not a director, but I believe the answer is “a lot”. And if the director does nothing to correct that thinking – as would be the case if the director says not much more than “call me back at the end of the hand” and then is not called back – how do you expect the player to learn that the BIT constrains the choices of that player's partner?


(I say “a lot” because I have heard players try to show the director their hand or even say “well, I had a problem”, implying that just because they had a reason for their tempo break, nothing that happens thereafter should be disallowed.)
Dec. 10
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about “call me back if you think a different call was made less attractive by the (break in tempo)”? That seems to roughly reflect the laws without suggesting an accusation of sharp practice against either player.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Appending to my comment above … I think many players feel that committing a BIT is an offense, when, at least as I read Law 16, the potential score adjustment arises from certain actions by the partner of the player who committed the BIT. I think that if some more players were educated to understand that, there would be less angst and better understanding about director calls. But, of course, that won't arise if either the director is never called (as an opponent excuses the noncall because “it is a club game” or “I'll just upset the lesser experienced player”) or the director chooses not to include any educational explanation in his response to a director call.

Not saying that committing a BIT is a good habit to get into, but …
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dan, I think the use of the expression “call me back if you feel that there is damage” helps feed any anxiety felt by the inexperienced player, and can cause them to feel potentially “accused”. I think it would be preferable for the director to explain why he believes there was a call (for example, if because of a BIT, to say something like “Bridge is a thinking game and it is reasonable to have broken a normal tempo in order to think about what call you believe is best. However, sometimes the mere act of having broken tempo can pass along information to your partner and if that is the case and the information might have caused your partner to avoid taking a particular action, then both fairness and the laws of bridge can necessitate a scoring adjustment. If your opponents feel that that MIGHT be the case, then I should be called back in order to make a ruling”).

I would want the director to take advantage of the call to help educate the inexperienced player and remove some of that player's anxiety over an alleged “accusation”. I don't think “call me back if you feel you have been damaged” does either.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, Ed. But my interpretation of the comments of many on this thread is that they don't call the director because it is a club game or because an opponent is not experienced, rather than because they feel that the actions taken by this particular set of opponents has not created an infraction, even though the same actions taken by a different set of opponents might have created an infraction. By my observation many – but certainly not all – inexperienced opponents are perfectly capable of committing an infraction when, for example, not bidding or playing in tempo.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the attitude of calling the director “against” a player is one of the two big parts of the problem. The director is called to ensure that the rules of the game are applied in a manner so that the competition is fairly scored. Hardly much different from lots of sports activities that are scored and have rules. Players should be quite cautious about how they summon a director, to take into account the way that the call might be perceived by a lesser experienced player who might have committed an infraction. Try hard not to allow that player perceive that the director has been called “against” the player.

I think the other big part of the problem is the directors themselves. When issuing a ruling, explain the cause for the ruling in an empathetic manner. Avoid the common “call me back if you feel damaged”.

In short, what The Bridge World Needs Now is not the avoidance of enforcement of bridge laws, but rather the enforcement of such rules in a considerate, empathetic way that can be understood by all players and from which the players can be educated. And possibly even readied for the next level of play.

Finally, I would note that the language of the laws suggest that the conclusions reached by applying the laws can be different depending upon the experience level of the player who might have committed an infraction. The laws clearly define the field of “logical alternatives” by reference to the affected class of players. I think one can make the argument – although I wish the language of the laws were clearer – that the same can be said about “demonstrably suggested”. Whereas a BIT, for example, might demonstrably suggest one action over another when made by or received by an experienced player, can it be argued that no such suggestion is transacted when either the giver or receiver is insufficiently experienced to begin to interpret what can be inferred from the BIT?

When I fail to call a director, it is not because I am avoiding “subjecting” a less experienced player to a director's ruling, but rather because I feel that the experience of the opponents – having, let's say, broken tempo – is such that the BIT has not passed along UI that can possibly have affected the action by the receiver.
Dec. 8
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Still 3 (spinter in support of clubs), Patrick.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd inquire of East: What 23-24 HCP balanced hand can you hold that would cause you to raise diamonds at your third turn?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener's second bid would be 3, a splinter, and not 3.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Imagine if Glubok's partner had exclaimed, with some sense of incredulity, “What, you bid 7 NO trump! Well, I pass THAT!”

Had that occurred, and some players of expert Glubok's ilk, if unaware of the histrionics of his partner's exclamation, had led something other than a diamond, I doubt whether there would be much controversy about adjusting the score from down to making.

Well, Glubok's partner did not make my imagined exclamation. But then, he did not pass in tempo, either.

Accordingly, IMO, the ruling had to consider whether the hesitation communicated enough UI, even if clearly short of the UI that would be communicated by the exclamation, to adjust the score.

Whether Glubok's partner had something to think about it or not is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the UI that he communicated by hesitating could demonstrably have caused a Glubok-level expert to select a diamond lead when other LAs were available to him.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can understand some of the early calls being according to partnership agreement, so, whether those agreements are my favorite or not, I find them acceptable.

I don't see how 3 can be preferable to 3, however. What was West's plan? 3 might not lead toward 3NT when it is West that holds a spade stopper. And how can 3 be better than 3 if West is headed toward a minor suit?
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, can be a difference between asking for access to documents and asking for time of employees to answer questions about the documents that were accessed. OK to grant first while attaching restrictions to second.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indications – including Jay Whipple's plea to reserve a room at the host hotel – certainly suggest that whatever is at risk from having negotiated the Hawaii NABC is material to financial well-being of ACBL. Hence, a proper subject for BOD members to have access to investigate.


I share Steve's (implied) concern that BOD members might not be sensitive to distinguishing what documents are important for them to see and which ones are not. So, at a minimum, requests for access that are denied should be accompanied by transparent and specific reasons for the denial. Can't imagine a reason for not seeing employment contract of CEO.


Let's be attentive to some transparency from BOD to Membership, too. Not just transparency from Mgt to BOD. Anyone care to comment on the ACBL Score Plus explanation of, if I recall correctly, “it is not in the best interest of Members”. Geesh!
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Facts apparently in evidence include Grue making his comment, and Glubok's partner having broken tempo. Shouldn't the ruling then be all about whether there is a LA to the diamond lead and whether the diamond lead was made more attractive by the BIT (that is, demonstrably suggested the diamond lead) given all the facts in evidence?

I am not sure the committee's poll told pollees of the comment – did it? it should – and I am not sure the committee's poll told the pollees about the BIT – did it? it should not – but … if the pollees were told what they should have been told, and some of the pollees still led something other than a diamond, then scoring adjustment seems right to me.
Dec. 3
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 294 295 296 297
.

Bottom Home Top