Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ... 70 71 72 73
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Claiming guilt under 3.20 is hardly backing away. Getting rid of the C word doesn't make me feel better. It makes me feel like someone's weaseling.

They don't find people guilty under 3.20 when they believe that they had their heart in the right place, but their brain had gone awol. This is what hurts.
Aug. 21, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's Romex's 1NT opener being 15+ and forcing. Same logic that permits that on the GCC lets us play an agreement like that for 1…Least that's my understanding. I'm coming at that third hand. I very well may be mistaken.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnn. Thank you so much!!

If I ever meet you in person, I'm buying you a drink a/o giving you a hug. Your choice.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record, I personally don't believe it (it being the method of finding off-shape NT openers) is allowed in mid-chart, simply because the agreement to open those shapes isn't permitted. You can do it, but not by agreement. Having those methods means you have an agreement.

If I thought it was legal under the mid-chart, I'd be playing it. Fantunes is a bit of an anomaly in it's weak NT opener in that it permits 5 card majors (nevermind the 4441 patterns). In matchpoint scoring, I find this painful. We miss 5-3 major fits quite often. 5-4 fits aren't even all that uncommon.

But I'm also somewhat dubious that the superchart permits it…or at very least dubious that it was intended to permit methods like this where the midchart does not do so. The sole basis that the superchart permits this agreement is because of the following wording in it:

“All of the ACBL MidChart plus any other non-destructive convention, treatment or method…(exceptions follow)”

I mean, right off the top, am I the only one who finds reading that galling? The implication here is that the huddled masses of mere-mortal bridge players *aren't* permitted to play “non-destructive conventions, treatments or methods”. Why the heck not?

If the superchart permits this agreement, that means you aren't allowed to play Fantunes unless you either Fantoni, Nunes, or are playing against Fantoni and/or Nunes.

Stupid me, I kind of thought the goal was for all of us to play the same game with the same rules.

Nope. The ACBL will permit you to play it in 3(count ‘em) NABC+ events a year (2 if you aren’t a Senior).

Now, I'd not mind this at all if the superchart was much more common, but essentially every Regionally rated Flight A event doesn't let you play this agreement. At what point does an agreement cease to be part of bridge? Forget merit of the agreement…If it's isn't permitted except in the rarest of cases, why is it that those cases are where National Championships are being vied for?

If this isn't “Bridge as we know it™”, why should winning a Superchart event make you a Grand Life Master after getting 10K points? Yes, it's prestigious, but shouldn't you be able to win one without your only-legal-in-3-events-a-year agreement?

What I am expecting this thread to reveal is that *if* the superchart permits it, The Monaco team needed to submit paperwork in advance, and I'd like to see that if for no other reason than I play Fantunes (to the extent I am allowed), and would like to see the entire agreement. And if they didn't, something else should be done.

If the ACBL is going to say I can't play it except under certain conditions, it's only natural that I would want them to enforce those rules on everyone, regardless of their stature.
Aug. 21, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Mid-chart bastardization of Fantunes I play, we *always* pre-alert the transfer responses to the 1 opener.

In GCC events, we just make the 2 opener 10-14 instead of 10-13. Then the 1 opener is always 15+ regardless of it's it's a natural hand or balanced. Then you don't have to pre-alert the transfers. What a difference a single hcp makes…>.<

I suppose we're just lucky that people wanted Romex on the GCC…
Aug. 21, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh I'm quite sure that on the superchart they can make the opening on this hand. Insert grumbling here about how “non-abusive” (so sayeth the superchart) treatments should be available to all.

It's the stayman responses that identify the stiff that I am wondering about. If I read it right, that needed to be submitted ahead of time.

I could have sworn there was data (an interview maybe?) that said they didn't play that agreement when in the US.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry –

Say your LHO is the dealer and opens with a double. Then wants to correct it with a 1 opener (No, not contrived. It happened to me).

You can't accept the Double. And now his partner is going to be barred from the rest of the auction.

He's now allowed to bid whatever he wants, with the knowledge p is barred considered Authorized.

There are lots of examples where the rules will quite pointedly turn a bridge hand into a pure guessing game. I think they'd need to be fixed first if that is what we're trying to abolish.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Google Talk for that matter.

Heck, how do you really know your opponents aren't in the same room? Or even if they are not the same person?
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both statements are true. I've wondered how much data analysis goes on BBO tournament data. In my experience, BBO tournament hands get incredibly good opening leads made with regularity.
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BBO is by no means cheatproof. I suspect BBO tournaments probably have a higher percentage of cheating going on than “meat space” tournaments.
Aug. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I won't name names, but I think a team I was on caused the MABC (D6/7) to change it's policy at regionals on cell-phone violations. At the time, it was a full board or 12 IMPS.

Our teammates' opps had a cell phone go off. We won the round by less than the cell phone penalty.

Seems that harshly penalizing people for things we hate is all well and good until it actually goes and makes a difference.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe when you are stripped of MP's they give you something else (I want to say they are called “rating points”) to make up for them so you don't become eligible for lower masterpoint restrictions.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the CDR, suing the ACBL itself can be cause for discipline-

3.10 Filing formal legal action against a Unit, District or the ACBL without first exhausting ACBL administrative or other internal remedies.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not about any regional being a “po-dunk”. It's about the underlying assumption that, “If youre going to do something like that on purpose, youre going to try do it without being found”.

Nothing about Mike's actions after the board was fouled are consistent with that. Hell, I suspect if he denied any knowledge of how it got fouled, none of us would be talking about it. But he said what he did immediately.

Heck, for all any of us (including Mike) know, Mike put the card back in the right place, and the board got fouled in some other way, but took responsibility for the foul because of what he did – clearly not trying to hide it.

These are not actions consistent with someone trying to escape notice.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did the measure to chop off a hand for a cell phone going off pass or fail?
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David's point makes me want to take it further.

True Story.

Full Time TD at a sectional seats some (late) opponents are our table in a 3 way. I ask “Team #XXX?”. Director says, “There is no team #XXX”.

I say, “You sure? There should be”.

“Positive”.

First hand comes up, my partner and I are the only ones bidding. We get to a 6NT that was cold for 7.

Before we play the second hand, the opps from team XXX show up and say, “This is our table.”

So the board had to be thrown out because of director error even after someone actively asked them to reconsider that very decision before it became critical. Should the director have been docked 20% of their pay for the tournament?
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Therefore, so much for the inevitable, “The committee had no choice” defense.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even namesakes can misspell your name though :-)
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well yeah, it's easier to act tough when dealing with nice people. The real scoundrels are also quite prepared to fight you until you give.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd respond, “Fixed” except that “1000 Pardons” isn't much better.
Aug. 18, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ... 70 71 72 73
.

Bottom Home Top