Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Why? What problems does this solve?

It solves the meta-problem. It makes the remaining problems solvable.

If you want to argue that this is the worst solution except for all of the others, I'm not sure anyone would dispute the assessment.

The first step must be a realistic one that goes into the correct direction. This fits the bill. The worst complaint I see being made is that this isn't enough of the right direction…Or maybe a lateral deck-rearrangement.

Even if those complaints are bang-on accurate, then this change would do nothing except establish a baseline for what “not enough” looks like for the next time. The operative point is that this is *something* and not *nothing*.

If the worst case scenario is one of ineffectiveness, then it hurts not at all to try it, then go have the argument about why it failed after it happens to do so.
Nov. 19, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Got any blind people around who play bridge or want to do so?

Manufactured braille decks costs $5.00 apiece last time Looked (over 10 years ago) and for an NABC+ event I'd expect those to be required. For clubs though, “home-made” via a slate and stylus are acceptable and most blind people can mark them themselves with the help of a sighted-person. Just the decks themselves can become a bit of an expense.

Even an old set of 36 decks is useful. It won't see much use. Just if the blind person wants to play so any life they have left is likely to be appreciated.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what the TD should tell the player, but this is my instinct as well. The player has a duty to protect himself and even if he gets no answer from the TD, the attempt to do so is important, for if he doesn't then it is an open question as to if he was hoping for a double shot.

If the player in question thinks it is a good question as to which option could be right, but later it would turn out that his peers think that one answer was clearly the superior, he is screwed if she chooses poorly. Asking is insurance against that situation.

Being on the inside of his own brain, he cannot tell if that is possible or even likely. The problem is subjective this way.

If this is not the best answer, my answer is then a question, “How can he protect himself to whatever degree?” He's got a serious dilemma not of his own making and he doesn't want to cough off the ball here.
Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love what the opp did, but I hate it as well.

I mean, it's brilliant. He did keep you from leading a diamond.

OTOH, that looks like a forcing bid and his partner fielded that it was to play. They ought to explain on-the-record how it is they got so lucky.

Recorder-form it, and if you have it happen again vs these opps, you ask if 6 is forcing before you pass. Then you have the recorder compare the before and after's. Eventually this can cross the line of becoming an implicit agreement. Draw where that line is on the ground in front of them.
Nov. 12, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for off, but I think it's misleading about how I feel.

With a reverse, any reverse, your P has to bid at the 3 level to take the cheap preference back to your first bid suit. In fact, that's the definition of a reverse in my book: Bidding your suit in such a fashion that partner has to raise the number of tricks youre agreeing to take in order to take a cheap preference.

So it follows that opener has to be okay with partner going to the three level with a minimum for whatever his first bid promised, right?

For a “normal” reverse like 1-1-2, responder could have balanced 6 hcp hand with 4 spades. So opener needs to be okay at him retreating to 3 with that minimum. So opener obviously need extras to put him in that position and have the partnership be okay. This is why the “reverses show extras” concept exists.

The above principle (opener must have a hand that is okay at the three level opposite partner barely having his bid) still holds even in a 2/1 auction like 1-2-2. It's just that 2 promised a lot more than the 1 bid above did so opener needs less extra value to be okay.

How much less? In 2/1GF, the amount happens to be “none extra”. The 2/1 bid was already game forcing opposite a minimum opener.

In StdAmerican, where the 2 bid is only 10+ (and promising a rebid) you do need better than a bare minimum to be okay at the three level opposite a minimum response. It's not the amount of the “normal” reverse, but it's something approaching a sound opener. So I would recommend that opener not reverse with his rebid after 2 over 1 std american response if he has, for example, an 11 point hand with 5-4 shape – unless you're willing to systemically play at the three level with 21 points and a 5-2 trump fit.

The underlying point here is that reversing makes your partner raise the bidding level to make the cheapest retreating preference back to your first bid suit. For whatever minimum his first bid promised you, you have to have the hand that's able to deliver the rest of what you need to survive at that level.

How much that promises is entirely up to you, but it must be enough to be okay with that happening.
Nov. 12, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 12, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the auction at the other table? The “blame” might belong to your teammates.
Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I don't think the “Does it promise 5 or only 4?” dirty harryesque question isn't about if it's better, but rather, which is standard for the locale it's being employed in.

A gadget or agreement, even one based on a mathematically sound principle, is a bad thing to assume a pickup partner plays if it's not standard for the area. You need the other systemic bids around it. If it promises 5, how do you show 4? If it promises 4, how do you show 5?

“Bad” might just mean “incompatible” in this context. I may be “better” to recognize that incompatible might just mean “Not from around here” rather than “objectively wrong”.
Nov. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Jim said.

The votes for DD's come from the unit boards with each weighted by population of the unit. The elections for RR's, according to the motion, would be made the same way.

A RR candidate that was the DD from the more highly populated district in the region would seem to have an advantage in a contested election vs the DD from the less populated district in the region, and I'm sure the DDs from the less populated districts in their proposed region would be aware of that..

They seem to have tried to minimize this to the extent possible. The three least populated districts are being combined into one. And the two districts that would dwarf any other one in their region are being assigned regions all to themselves.

That being said, I'm not exactly hating this motion. Yeah people are raging about how it initially goes in the wrong direction in order to eventually get going in the right direction, and that's a completely fair criticism, but I'd submit that if that step wasn't necessary, we wouldn't currently be in the position of thinking the board was too big/bloated/etc.

The need to do it that way might even be the very proof that the board-shrink maneuver has to be done. If the BoD was always succeeding (with success measured as “doing the right things for the right reasons in a reasonably quick timeframe”), either there would be no need to cut board positions or the lame-duck provisions would not be required to get it passed.

And it could be much worse. Imagine if the US House had to vote on a plan to cut the size of its own membership? What sort of compromises would it take to get that passed? Take all the time you want. Here there's hope.
Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure political expedience played a role in how the districts were combined in the proposal as well. If you create a region by combining a large district with relatively smaller one(s) – which you have to do in some cases assuming that you want the regions to be similar in terms of population size – then it would follow that the DDs from the smaller are the least likely to get to continue on in their roles.

And while it's completely unfair to assume only self-interest will be motivating those voting, it's still something that should be accounted for as a “what-if”. If you know you can handle a worst-case scenario, you can handle anything because anything else is, at most, a subset of the worst-case.

Thus it would serve the measure's chance of success to make sure that NumRegions > NumDistricts / 2.

So typically no more than 2 districts should be combined to form any single region and that at least one district - the largest one - should become its own region.

Also, for each 3rd or additional district combined to form a region, another region would have to be created out of a single district.

And sure enough, that's what is being proposed: One region made from three districts and two regions each made from one district.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's constructed in such a way to make it palatable (passable?). There's an inherent conflict-of-interest with any measure like this.

I don't think you can realistically hope for someone to volunteer to eliminate their position when they like their job. Some people are going to lose their seats eventually, so it seems logical to make “eventually” part of the selling point of the measure.
Nov. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also of note – 193-60: NABC Child Care

Childcare will no longer be codified as a service that shall be provided.
Nov. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flat board, right?
Nov. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, let me be clear here.

Note my wording above.

I asked if it occurred to them that they might want to ask to speak to the director away from the table.

If they had thought something like, “Hey…I want that double back. I want it to be a pass now that I have the correct explanation. Can I say that? No, I can't – It would transmit UI. Okay he's going to be asking me to step away from the table right? No?!? WTF. How can I ethically stop this? Grrrrr…who is this idiot?” then I'm totally with you.

If, conversely, they did not think along the lines of “Hey, I don't want to be doubling now that I know this” at that very moment, then I'm going to go and say that the director's failure to inquire was not connected to the poor result they got, and that blame for this particular director's error as the proximate cause of the damage is unwarranted. These aren't newbies. They would know if they still wanted to double at that moment. Did they or didn't they?

Yeah, if the director's error actually prevented them from trying to mitigate the damage, it should be fixed.

But what I'm reading here is that N/S believe that they had no such obligation to do that under any circumstances at all. They feel they are entitled to have the double removed simply because they doubled due to MI. Indeed, once that got pointed out to them, they stated that they didn't say anything because they didn't think they had been damaged “yet”. Schrodinger's cat was still alive in their minds.

It makes me wonder what the purpose of informing them of the MI before the opening lead served. It's to prevent or mitigate any damage from the MI. This was now N/S chance to do so and yes, the director failed to give it to them.

And if turned out that they wanted it at that moment and never got it, I'd be totally with you. But they only wanted it after seeing the result. They said as much.

If that's not expecting that a second bite at the apple is going to be coming their way, what is?

I wanted to hear one of them say that if they had been asked before the opening lead, then they would have asked for the double to be removed. Then, and only then would the failure of the director to ask them matter. The argument to the director at the time likely would have been, “Why didn't you ask us if we wanted to keep the double!?! I wanted it to be a pass but I couldn't say anything!”

If turns out that it was said and that I missed it in my reading of this thread, I'll change my position.

If I wasn't said earlier in this thread, but then it gets said and some point after this one…? Then it's going to seem like an awfully self-serving statement.
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to vote for not one.
Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes ui would be a concern. The director should take you away from the table to ask you this question for this reason. Are you saying you would have told him you would not have doubled there had he done so?

If so, then yes, you get to take back your double. It sure didn't sound like this was your position though. If partner is on lead, it didn't occur to you to ask to speak to the director away from the table? (not trying to blame the victim here. Just if you're aware of the UI problem blurting it out would cause, I'd think you'd also be aware that the point still needed to be made asap)

The director being very lame at his job though is so stipulated
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director can still adjust the score to remove the double. If you said you wouldn't have doubled at the time you found this out, you'd have that possibility.

Director should have asked you this away from the table before the hand was played. Failing to do that is a hideous blunder of his.
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It totally matters. South doubled for a reason.

If it turned out that the reason you wanted to double was incorrect, then you need to tell the director at the moment you found that out.

If you do not do so, then it is logical to assume that this incorrect explanation was not the reason you decided to double and so it stays.

You were damaged before the contract made. You just didn't *know* you had been damaged yet. And when presented with an opportunity to mitigate the possible damage, you declined. You don't get the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. They don't get forced to play doubled if they go down/undoubled if they make it. Good luck resurrecting Schrodinger's cat.

Your points about the director's ruling are correct. He should have corrected the opponents about the unsolicited announcement. You should have been offered the opportunity to remove your double at the time the MI was corrected. It's a bad ruling, even it coincidentally gets you to the same result that a good ruling would have.
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, that about does it for any UI issues then.

So now to the MI:

I want to know when South called the director about his double being made on MI. I can totally believe he isn't doubling for t/o with a flat hand and 4 spades but he does not get to claim the course of action after the result is discovered. His chance to have the double pulled is right after the correct explanation is offered.
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Misread comment replied to
Nov. 2, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike –

I will totally buy that this case is close to being on the borderline and we probably should have some reference hands to show as to where the psychs begin and the deviations end.

But just because the resulting hands in those differing categories might be similar doesn't make the underlying rules hard to understand.

How I would teach this to Flight C people is:

1) Small deviations in your agreements are legal but if you do it too much they may become part of your agreement. So if you deviate at all, be aware of that potential.

Because:

2) Some agreements are actually *illegal* to have. And since deviations can become part of your agreement, you, by regulation, can't ever deviate into such territory.

Ex: If expanding your agreement to include a hand you just opened 1NT would be illegal, you can't open it that way ever. If it could be made part of your agreement by doing it every so often, then you can't do it at all.

3) If bidding your hand that way was so clear that it never could be desirable for that to be part of such an agreement, then you can do it because that's a psych. That's not expanding/deviating/using judgement. The difference between them is that you can't have the realistic hope that if your partner actually plays you for your agreed hand-type, he will go right. If there's no way anyone would have such hope by taking such an action, knock yourself out.
Nov. 2, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top