Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 ... 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 75 76 77 78
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My first reaction would be to ask the TD what made him think the light opening was fielded. Does this pair have a history of this stuff going on?

Insisting on getting the answer to *that* question seems to address the “question of principle” sufficient to get your deposit back, because wrt to “fielding a psyche”, honestly… dems fighting words.
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is one of the few ATB's I feel sympathy for both sides. Nobody did anything truly horrible.

That being said, East showed his values. West was the Captain, and if anyone was in position to go forward it had to be him. He knew where the good trumps were. East did not. That's almost always the person who needs to push. So I went with “Mostly West”. “All West” might even be accurate, but it feels harsh.
March 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny. The wording on that one changed after your comment.

The criticisms herein seem to be used as a way to improve the document, or at least bury its flaws. Bear in mind if you want to offer commentary.
March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd say something, but I'd like to visit New Zealand some day and be able to play bridge there.
March 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But is declarer's partner allowed to call the director after the opening lead is placed faced down, but before it is exposed because of something nobody else is aware of yet?
March 4, 2016
Joe Hertz edited this comment March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as he didn't draw attention to it during the hand, it's golden. The big mistake most people make is thinking director can never be summoned by dummy. If any of the other 3 players notices the irregularity, he can call.

I want to say Chris taught me that, in fact.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So why is it that lawyers are not allowed at present? I can't imagine any reason to not allow the accused to bring an advisor, and even try to work out a deal ahead of time.

I can see lots of arguments about representation in the committee room itself, but they kind of depend on the answer to above question.

March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the little clubs should be dictated to what they must allow.

The big clubs aren't restricted either. In my area, Multi is legal in most of the clubs and the Unit Games.

The real question is “what do you do when the two crowds mix”?

Specifically, in an open stratified event at a sectional? Or a regional? Or regionally rated at a national?

I'm of the opinion that any regionally or higher rated open stratified game should permit off shape NT openers and Multi. Like I've been saying, if you want to play in the deep end of the pool, you can't claim you need a flotation device.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the US, I believe the offenders will get no better than an Avg-, non-offenders no worse than an Avg+, but the board is played.

The case I saw involving Multi, the director continued on by saying, “Please provide the written defense to multi”. They didn't even have that and got assessed a PP.

That good enough?
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is simply no way, short of all sorts of forms of ESP, to know for a fact if the action you wanted to take is 100% in the face of UI that suggested it, or even know if the action you wanted to take is suggested by the UI. You can take a educated guess but that's it.

If you err on the side of caution and do the thing the LA told you not to, and was wrong about it being suggested, you get no redress. If you do the thing the LA suggested because you thought it was 100% and were completely wrong about it, you risk a PP.

I think we should all aspire to how Kit does it, but I doubt it would work for us as well as it does for him. You need his good “rules-sense” for it to work well.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In ACBL Land, I've been asked by directors to file player memos on hands like this when the opps opened 2. The only way the opener gets to open 2 is if he really didn't understand how likely it was for partner to have a constructive response and no game opposite it.

Say for example that responder had this:

xx
AJxxx
x
Jxxxx


He'd probably respond 2!

Don't get me wrong – it's a nice hand, but it needs more than “almost no help” from partner. You're certainly not afraid of being passed out if you open at the one level.

If the OP did it at my table, I'd expect the director to let him do it because he thought it was more likely to make game than that but also to explain why he shouldn't and how it could backfire on him in the future procedurally.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not enough. There is a reference hand somewhere on the acbl website where the minimum is displayed.

Far as the rules go, you aren't even allowed to psyche a 2 opener. Another way to evaluate it is “Do you have 8.5 quick tricks?” and in this case, you do not.

But even if you could open it 2, I wouldn't. You're taking up room you don't have to. So you open 1. I guarantee you that it won't be passed out. Either your partner or the opps won't let you play there. Someone will bid
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sadly, I didnt create the meme series, although I highly approve of every single one of these using Ed Hochuli. They even got “Begs The Question” right.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Links to casebooks on it maybe?


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11703084_10152809891871504_87455822389807959_n.jpg?oh=50ccb5f4e14f03390b12f5169d4feb64&oe=574AD179">
Feb. 29, 2016
Joe Hertz edited this comment Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Noble Shore is on BW I believe. He's the inventor of it. I'm only finding references to it on BW. I'll send him a PM.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is where I decide to learn The Midnight Special – it's a system designed as a protest against the GCC. It's entirely GCC legal, but every opener below 5 is alertable. The author encourages you to play it in Zip KO's (i.e. midnight) and give very detailed explanations.

The GCC restrictions really are ridiculous. You can't play The Phantom Club under the GCC (where you pretend someone else already opened 1. 1 is like a Dbl of 1, and everything else is an “overcall”. This is not a hard system for the opps to handle.
Feb. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would definitely applaud anyone who'd pick #3. Sadly, I don't know if I could do it.

I don't want option #4 to be a tap out. The question is almost rhetorical. It's acknowledging the UI, and even the director can't be perfect there. I just want my attempt to do the right thing to be plainly obvious to god, everyone, and the committee. If the thing I want to do and am convinced I am on good ground to do other people might disagree with, I want someone to know I when I said so so it doesn't sound self-serving later if I turned out to be right.

Also I'd want the director to ask if anyone had a problem when they saw the dummy, and if they felt the final contract was reasonable…and if not (i.e. 6), would they lead differently against that contract. Then we know we've gotten the data we need before everyone knows what worked out and what didn't.

Basically, I don't want the problem this creates to resemble a humpty dumpty re-assembly.
Feb. 28, 2016
Joe Hertz edited this comment Feb. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oooh. Option #4, which I think I will now do in the future-

North calls the director in the face of South's 5 bid, shows the director his hand and asks him point blank, “Do I have an ethical obligation to make any particular call here?”

Would he get redress later if the director incorrectly tells him that he must bid 6? If he lets him pass, ahd the opps are cool at that point, the hand gets scored up without adjustment even if there is a director call later (no two bites at the apple)…

But if the opps yell for the director after getting the correct explanation (or even after the opening lead and the dummy coming down) only then to see that it actually makes 6, do N/S get to bid AND make that slam the opps insisted that North had to bid?
Feb. 28, 2016
Joe Hertz edited this comment Feb. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case, yes, tempo isn't a concern. Often it is.

I'm wondering what we expect of North here:


Option #1: To figure out if a course of action was suggested, and if he wants to do it anyway, is it 100% (i.e. none of his peers would consider doing anything else without the UI), and to take all the time he needs to be sure about that.

Option #2 To ignore the UI as best he can and do what he thinks is called for (i.e. playing bridge), and let the chips fall where they may afterward if he turns out to be wrong.

Option #3: To make the known to be flawed but ethical call, even if he personally doesnt think he would make it, but does it only because there is UI and he thinks others will, and knowing he won't get redress if he turns out to be right about the flaw of the action but wrong about active ethics requiring that he make that action.

Some of these answers are better than others, but none would warrant a PP in my opinion.
Feb. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a potentially no-win situation for him - we have 20-20 hindsight and cannot expect him to have it.

For all North knows, the situation might NOT require him to bid 6, but if he does and go down at it, he can't exactly say, “I only bid the slam because I thought I was ethically bound to do so – I want it rolled back to 5”. I don't think there's a way he could salvage the situation in calling the director to explain that dilemma before his bid, even if it did occur to him.

His best option is to bid what he would normally bid, as best he can gauge it, and when they accuse him of taking advantage of the UI is to explain this other case he was worried about, and that it is not reasonable to expect him to figure out all of his ethical obligations accurately and in tempo. He did what he could in the time he had.
Feb. 28, 2016
Joe Hertz edited this comment Feb. 28, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 75 76 77 78
.

Bottom Home Top