Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 76 77 78 79
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then really truly bogus :-)
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once had this “brilliant idea”, where 2 TD's told me to go for it, and one told me I'd be smacked if I ever tried it (so I haven't):

If you make a skip-bid warning (maybe even if you don't) and you go to see your LHO with a bid card in his hand waiting to hit the table a nanosecond after yours does…

Place your bid table on the card FACE DOWN. Once your LHO bids, call the director. It's complete and irrefutable documentation of how out-of-tempo your LHO acted: He couldn't stop himself when you did that. One could argue he even bid out of turn.

It might be safer to always put your bid card face down and then turn it face-up when nobody bid out of tempo, if for no other reason than the same argument that has one always using the skip-bid card if they use it at all.
Aug. 22, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfect example. No, you can't drive through a red light to make a right turn in most states. You have to stop first. It is a red light, after all.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You certainly should call the director as any argument that they didn't let you state a line of play is bogus. The Director's reaction would be telling as to what your next step is.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry we're boring you.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, I overstated a little. There's actually one event I could play it in where they would not be (assuming I survived the RR phase).

I buy that there are some treatments that Aunt Alice at her local tournament or club game shouldn't be subjected to if she doesn't want to be, but the option to play “any non-destructive treatment” isn't something that should be limited to world class players only.

Anyone choosing to swim in the deep end of the pool should have access to all non-destructive methods – Say at the very least, permit them at regionally or higher rated events with no upper masterpoint restriction.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Google what he's talking about folks.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty sure this was it. I was led to believe this was included in the GCC b/c of the forcing Romex 1NT.

#7 under “Responses and Rebids”

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)


Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm saying that you have to be playing in a Superchart permissable event, of which there are only 3 on the Calendar.

I haven't checked it for certain, but I'm willing to bet that Fantoni and Nunes would likely be playing in those 3 events.

In other words, you can only play Fantunes in the ACBL events where where Fantoni and Nunes are competing – they will be there. There are only three of them. See now?

My entire point is that silly me, I'd really like to play the methods in other events too…at least without having to go to Europe…or even Chicago. I might, but I shouldn't have to hop a plane to play the methods.

We already get laughed at by the rest of the world for our restrictiveness over the Multi 2 opener. A NT opener that includes stiffs, and methods to discover the stiffs is harder to handle than multi? Really? But it's okay because we permit it under a convention chart that gets used in all of 3 events.

This is nonsensical.
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.
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
1 2 3 4 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 76 77 78 79
.

Bottom Home Top