Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Miller
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely there is no doubt B/Z cheated and simply left town ahead of the posse. As such, the ACBL considers it moot to go the extra step of proving collusive cheating. Is there some reason not to treat the cases the same? And, if there is such a reason, then the logic of the proposal requires the ACBL to follow through with explicit charges of cheating in the name of justice.
Oct. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is interesting to contemplate the effect on regional results, as those tournaments are where the vast majority of masterpoints are awarded. I don't think F/N or F/S played many (any?) regionals, but B/Z certainly made a living off of the regional tour for many years. I remembered losing to them in the top bracket finals in Gatlinburg a decade or so ago. I played against them the whole match and didn't remember the rest of the team, so I went back to the database to look up their teammates … Lynch, Passell, Meckstroth, and Rodwell. B/Z no longer show up on the ACBL lifetime masterpoints database (Great!), but they must have accumulated something like 10K points. That's a lot to reallocate and a wide swath of pros (and sponsors) will be affected. I would be surprised if no Crane top 500 race ended up with a different winner.

It's a tribute to the integrity of the pros on this committee who put forward this proposal knowing that they had inadvertently been contaminated by teammates who were, without their knowledge, cheating. Would we have beaten Lynch, Passell, Meckstroth, and Rodwell straight up? Probably not, but we never got the chance. So, I am going to add to my internal bridge resume winning a top bracket knockout in Gatlinburg, even if it does have an asterisk. That's not an easy thing to do.
Oct. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly an examination of the etymology of the word implies a broader denotation that I described. However, modern English, with its broad spectrum of source languages, often has several words with essentially the same denotation. In such a case, there often evolves a secondary connotation that carries most of the precise meaning. So, while the OP was technically correct, and may have not understood the different connotations if English was not his first language, I believe virtually every modern usage of the word eulogy is in the context of a deceased. As such, it is jarring when referring to Michael.
Oct. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I missed the news that the plane on which Michael and Debbie returned to California had crashed. Perhaps “tribute” or “paean” would be a better choice than “eulogy.”
Oct. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Craig said, not what Steve or Robert said. 3N is 3N.
Sept. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Welcome to the 1940's
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a flat 23 count with AQTxx of hearts and heard (P) P (4) ? Calmly took my 150 for average plus
Sept. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a mostly unhelpful document. “Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not.” Does that mean I need to alert Stayman, Michaels, negative doubles (yes, I realize negative doubles are not a bid)? If the opponents open 1 and I overcall 2, natural, does that need to be alerted?
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With Ghestem, I can imagine having to think through whether to invert unusual/unusual responses a la 1H - (2N) - ? Is there something else to consider that I am missing? Perhaps, to avoid confusion, it makes sense to invert all of the responses tied to the fourth suit.
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that's an important topic as well. Any links or advice on alert policy?
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you are doing rather than to get the right answer … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA
Sept. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dire Straits and Tom Petty, the soundtrack of my young adulthood.
Sept. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the hand Frances postulated, I would not expect to find a spade fit after partner failed to reopen with a double, and looking for a diamond fit is a very narrow target. On the example hand it may very well be right to defend 3CX anyway. It's possible that partner could have a hand where I would want to play 3N, but I consider that unlikely, so let's get our max plus defending.
Aug. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On 10), I think you need a little more clarifying language. While I agree with the auction you gave, you imply this double … (1H) P (2H) P (P) X is also penalty. In the latter case, I have a hand that was borderline on risk/reward for a takeout double, but now that they opponents have found a fit and have limited their hands, I want to compete.
Aug. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure why I'm not in game, regardless of methods, but now that I'm not I'm playing safe for a plus score. That means hooking the diamond and not taking the club hook in case both are off and hearts are 63. BTW, am I in 1N or 2N?
Aug. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't need pass double inversion at this low a level. OTOH, I think theoretically it makes sense for both partners' doubles to be takeout. This prevents you from guessing what to do if both partners are somewhat short (doubletons) but nobody has a suit of their own. It catches the penalties unless both partners are long, which points to the weakness … it is susceptible to psyches. However, I agree that a psych in this situation would be remarkable; I have never seen it.
Aug. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Incidentally, “butter in” sounds vaguely lewd. I'm wondering if I should flag it.
Aug. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2N
Aug. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, all the time I spend playing the piano is a waste? Were we to apply that universally then there would be no music in any of our lives, which I would consider to be a tragic loss. Or is the time I spend playing the piano only useful if I develop my musicianship to make others happy? Who is the arbiter of that? This is quite a totalitarian view towards how we live our lives.
Aug. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No
Aug. 14, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top