Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,

Totally in agreement with you both as a bridge player as a programmer.

My tablet bid-box will introduce a random 1-3 delay for the next player after any bid, and another longer random delay after a skip bid is made (all assuming the director wants that to be the case).

Software implements the rules, not the other way around. I've argued this many times with people. I'm militant enough that I feel that places like, the DMV for example, shouldn't have to turn people away simply because the computers are down. They are tools to do the job. Not necessities. If that's not true, the system is designed poorly.

That being said, I wonder if the ACBL would ever go back and fix the faulty masterpoint awards that got made when it was discovered during the ACBLScore+ job that ACBLScore (the original) didn't award masterpoints per spec. I'm sure Nic Hammond can describe that in more detail.

Probably the most bizarre case I've seen is that I had a business partner that had his DSL line ripped out because they shipped him a router than never made it to the address. So they shipped another when he called about it. Router One shows up. Eventually the other does too. He refuses the 2nd shipment since he got his already. Easy way to return it, right?

Wrongo.

This results in a call from the Telco that his DSL will be cut off tomorrow. Seems they, as a matter of procedure, cut you off if you refuse the shipment of the router. They decided that the only possible reason that could happen is you are refusing the service. Oops.

And the telco (or at least the person there that knew it was happening) was powerless to stop this. A tech would be dispatched to the CO to rip out his cross-connect. The person calling could explain this to him but could not stop the technician. “Go to the C-O. Put a note in the cage saying to call you first”. SOMETHING!" Nobody at the telco seemed to understand why this was possibly a problem.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've hesitated lots of times on bbo because of a wonky mouse or lagging internet connection. Electronic Bridge does not address the issue. It just changes it.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My only regret is that I can only like Chris Miller's comment a single time.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I gotta admit, without the caveat that 2 was considered natural, and thus making the double takeout (presumably of spades) I thought the auction began normally.

South's nebulous bid gets responded to by north with 2, not because that's what north has but because it might be what south has…and entirely possible that NEITHER has.

East doubles that 2 bid. So without any agreement at all, he's gotta have spades right?

But 2 is a considered a natural call (!?!?!?!) and so the default meaning of the double changes. Alrighty then.

All of a sudden how the ACBL handles this convention doesn't seem quite so horrific by comparison.
Sept. 16
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<sarcasm>
Y'know, all of this could have been avoided if N/S were required to provide E/W with a written defense to the Multi-2 opening.
</sarcasm>
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also for other the 5.0 voters, I'm curious if the Helen Sobel “Queen discovery play” acceptable.

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that when faced with a double finesse where she had to choose which opp held the queen, she'd lead a card and then hike up her skirt. The male opp that did not hold the queen would look at her legs. The one with the queen would stare intently at his cards.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a 4.9. It's totally fine to exploit the opponents mannerisms. I'd even say that there should be an active campaign to correct the players who think it is not kosher.

That being said, the players who think they are owed honest tells from their opponents are a scourge. People are allowed to play every card in the same tempo and have a just-as-practiced “dis-interested but not too interested” demeanor so as to give away nothing about who holds the queen. I want nothing to do with anyone who thinks this is an attempt to deceive, even as I'm sure they'd vote for 5.0 too.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it was a simply signoff, why did he bother with the transfer first? Might be worth knowing what options he had. What sort of Stayman do we play?

If partner wanted my input towards a grand, why not 5NT? Even if I sign off in 6 of something, he can correct.

Given my rule on undiscussed bids like this is, “You have to be okay with whatever idea partner comes up for you having”, it follows that there would be no wrong choice…except in this case I'm positive that there is one.

I choose “Does not exist” but if you put a gun to my head, it's inviting 7 with a fit.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed Ed, but in this case, it appears to be a misexplanation. I'm not aware of any claim by South that he forgot. Just that he was on a different page and then never does anything to prevent the MI from damaging the opps.

So once we get to the point that you need to determine the measure of the damage the MI caused, what's the right poll phrasing then? Just the actual agreement, or how it got disclosed as well?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a variation on a Craigslist scam where they offer to overpay you for whatever it is you are selling to “cover the shipping”. Ship it and pay them whatever excess they gave you. Sounds downright trusting.

The problem is that the check won't ever clear. The scam relies on the perception that it cleared because US Law requires your bank to give you access to the funds before that may actually happen. So well after you sent your item (and the “change”) to the buyer, the check bounces (it takes a while because it's written on non-existent account at a bank in another country), and then you get debited the amount of the check you deposited.

In this case, the scam is all about the “change”.
Sept. 13
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I honestly see it both ways.

Yes, all they are entitled to know is about the actual agreement, not the mixup. I'm usually quite militant about that in threads like this.

But the mixup must be disclosed before the opening lead, and at that point the mixup itself would be AI for the opps.

So while they aren't entitled to anything besides the agreement per se, correct procedure dictates that, in this case, they would get more than that as authorized information for their side. And it would I think most definitely make a difference on the decision to switch to a spade. So how could we not give the pollees the same AI that these opps should have had? Otherwise they aren't making the same value judgement.
Sept. 13
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My favorite one was where partner lead an ace against a suit contract and I play the 3. The opps were visiting French internationals that I cannot imagine didn't know what they were doing.

Declarer: “What are your signals?”
Partner: “Upside-down”
Declarer: “So what does that 3 mean?”

Partner, being on the ball, “If he has the 2, it's discouraging. If he does not have the 2, it is encouraging”

Declarer: “You aren't answering my question”.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/renege

The origin of the word comes from the latin verb for “To Deny”, as opposed to the Spanish/Latin/Portuguese word for the color black which is where the N word's lineage originates.

Verdict: It's archaic but not a related word.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For as long as it takes them to get fed up with the status quo…
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 is not an option once South “knows” North has at least 5 spades. He's using UI to pull 4 to 5 so he can't have that be one of the weighted scores.

But say it was. Then I've got a question about procedure.

The correct explanation that E/W would be entitled to is “NO AGREEMENT” and I couldn't see giving them the spade shift unless a poll indicates they would have found it.

So what't the correct information to give the polled people?

A) 2 was “No Agreement”

OR

B) “North said 2 was Michaels. South at the end of the auction (like he was supposed to!) says there was actually no agreement”

B makes it much more likely for the spade shift to be found and the mixup would be AI for the opps to use. So we would actually tell that to the people being polled, right?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I blame most of the players who instead of asking “What is your agreement” phrase it (poorly at best) like, “How do you take that?”. We have an entire generation of new players who think they HAVE to know what their partner is thinking.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well yeah, the purple Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century book pushes Hardy Raises et al on the reader (and I admit that for a while, I found them fascinating. I wish there was a way to include a mixed raise into them). The Green book though (Standard Bidding for the 21st Century) I think is epic, while the only part of the Purple book that I think is required is the section on inverted minors but you can find that elsewhere.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Positive. I was the declarer. I was reacting to seeing the dummy. It was a gesture instead of a pro-forma, “Thank you partner, that's lovely”.

No way I'd ever make such a reaction or comment on defense. If someone does, the director should be called immediately, not after play was over like it was here.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same opinion. I thought it was well presented but and a good introductory text to the subject, but while reading through it, I had many “How do you handle this?!” moments that I found it was silent on.

One student of mine had said he did not like it, and I suggested my go-to 2/1 book, Max Hardy's “Standard Bidding for the 21st Century”.

It's dry, but it's much more thorough.
Sept. 9
.

Bottom Home Top