Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Larry Lang
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The old, “My double means whatever I choose it to be.”

I have several ex-partners that played that way. And I have defended against 10 card fits at the 3 level, more times than I care to count.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does everyone agree? Favorable vulnerability at match points.

1 – (1) – pass – (2)
pass – (pass) – double

The double is penalty?
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ed,
It's used for it's your call.

http://www.acbl.org/bridgebulletinstandard/
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're right. Sad to say, 2S doubled is best spot. But they always pull, I'm not convinced North should double. If he does, he gets a top.
Probably South should double, but North will pull.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, I'm offended. I love Big Macs. They contribute to big muscles and a big waistline. (I have the latter). Sigh.

The problem I faced as South was thinking that North did not have a void. When I bid 1NT after their overcall (showing 8 to 10 in my mind) surely this was a situation where we hold half the points or more and we were to play the hand, or double them, or compete to the 3 level. If partner has a singleton, I can pass and we will get the opponents 200. As it turned out, we slipped in defense, and they only went down 100. Because partner has a void, we can make 3 or 4 hearts on a 5-2 fit.

Nigel claims that a double by me is not takeout. That seems reasonable. Unfortunately, about 80% of the people I play with feel otherwise, and perhaps that is their problem, not mine.

I will admit, I was influenced by the fact that West has been known to raise an overcall with 2 to an honor, and East has been known to occasionally overcall with a good 4 card suit. But surely you have such characters in your area as well.

I didn't have to have 5 spades. I could have had 4. I could have had 3, and it still might be right to double the opponents because they are vulnerable.

Doesn't partner have some obligation to let me know what he has so I can make a sensible decision? In this case, what will he do if I double? Will he leave it in? If he's going to always pull, why not do it sooner rather than later? Maybe Nigel is saying he can pass with a void, and then pull my penalty double. It wouldn't have been ideal this time, but maybe it is the best overall strategy.

And this comes back to the first question. What does a double by North show? Does it show extra when we are both competing?

And what is South supposed to do if he wants to take action, with 5 of their suit, with 4 of their suit, with 3 of their suit, with 2 of their suit, with 1 of their suit and so on?

In our club, some jokers will raise with 2 to an honor, but others will only raise to 2 with 5-card support. I almost think you have to ignore what the opponents are doing and have agreements about what your bids mean, rather than listening to the opponents.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran,
Can partner really figure out that you're void?
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might add that North stated later that he felt that a double by South would have been for takeout. This is irrelevant to the poll. Maybe it's time for North to learn otherwise. But in my neck of the woods, everyone seems to think (much to my sorrow) that all doubles below 2NT are for takeout. This is somewhat consistent with ACBL Bridge Bulletin Standard. Is it not?
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Smelling Blood” is not the same as “going for the jugular”. Leaving it in 1 Spade doubled is not something I considered, but maybe I should have. I certainly should have included it in the poll, but didn't think about it.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the comment Nigel.
Do I understand you correctly that North can double with a singleton but not a void? That seems reasonable to me.
I must admit, this whole doubling business has got me somewhat buffaloed.
June 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with David Yates. Welcome to the precipice – ACBL.

If the country is running anything like what I am seeing in Eastern Washington State, this is the year when a noticeable decline begins, and it will only accelerate. It's easier to see this trend where I live, in areas that are less populated.

Sorry ACBL, but you're delusional if you can't see what is happening.

We did have an inflow of retirees that played Bridge in college. But now we are getting into a period where most people who are retiring went to college in the 70s and later. That was when the computers began to show up and when Bridge began to dry up with young people.

And don't tell me to get out and recruit. We have. We had some young people interested, but without peers, they go away.
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. Even more ironic.
Before being ACBL CEO, Robert Hartman was General Manager of the Golden Gate Fields horse race track. Eventually the parent company declared bankruptcy, and Hartman left.
A very short time before the company declared bankruptcy, Hartman released a glowing report, on how well the track was doing.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My offer was to you – not Hodus.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll tell you what Mr. Corn. Don't gossip. Then I won't post it.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBLScore is cobbled together from 3 generations of compilers. Delphi, Turbo Pascal, and apparently another, which gives you an idea of how time has weathered the structural integrity of the system.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He did. I suspect he knows I'm a blabber mouth. We were talking about what I might be able to do to help the program go forward.

We did “talk out loud” about other things, which I have not shared, but nothing of importance. More like speculation about what ACBL might look like in the future.

Still, I would rather not pretend that I have some secret channel into what Hodus is thinking. As always, any decision could be reversed, and I did not say, “Hey. I think I'll publish your story on the Internet.” It was more like a wink and a smile kind of thing.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's right. This of course is not the kind of reaction that goes boom. It just turns into a very hot radioactive mess.

We have a 100 tanks or so, each about the size of a football stadium full of nuclear waste. 95 of them you could ignore, and probably get away with it. Although you would be best off keeping your distance for 300 years.

5 have some really nasty stuff, including plutonium. In order to turn the waste into glass, you have to take it out of the tank and pipe it over to the plant.

Because they don't know exactly what is in all the tanks, and because the mixtures are not homogeneous, there is the chance that a critical concentration would inadvertently be reached and it would go critical.

The chief design architect, Bechtel, chose to ignore the possibility (among 79 other design flaws). But some of the engineers said, “wait a minute”. One of them was fired and eventually got paid $3M in damages.

But it doesn't stop there. The story goes on. It took Hartman about a year or more to realize that something might be wrong with ACBLScore. I figure we have at least 20 more years before they face the music, and decommission the plant before it ever turns on.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But isn't that partly how we got here in the first place?

There are all these people on the Technology Committee, but they don't say a word because it is “not their place”.

There is no word on repercussions or lessons learned from the ACBLScore+ tragedy, because that is no one's place to comment either.

If someone is suspected of cheating, we need to get as many eyes looking as possible, but it's all hush-hush and confidential.

The ACBL budget is difficult to grab a hold of. And it's not anyone's place to comment.

I am a Unit Recorder. If someone is consistently misbehaving, how do I record this if it's all hush-hush?

Planning, slander, accusations that may not be true, police investigations, and all these things should be at least partly protected. But what about truth?

Sometimes leaders know things that are undeniably true, and yet feel they are entitled to protection from their peers.

I guess this is a hot button in my case, because I live in Richland Washington, next to Hanford, and we have had many whistle blowers who were fired and their careers destroyed for merely telling the truth.

We have a $20B plant under construction. Those in the know feel will eventually cost $100B, and do nothing useful. And, if the whistle blowers had been ignored, it could have caused a nuclear criticality.

No one wants the money to stop coming in. Most everyone knows what a travesty it is (compare $2M for ACBLScore+ with $100B) yet no one says much. It would be out of place.

I don't claim to have answers. No one wants to be a snitch. But our culture is too reticent to speak. It's called loyalty, maturity, respect for confidentiality. But sometimes it is just plain wrong.


March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,
This is off topic, but I agree it is a balancing act.

Just as an example, in which I can see both sides. Reagan used to get his staff together, let them argue with each other and then make a final decision once the discussion was done.
On one hand, I think the American Public would have benefited from hearing all the different arguments, and by knowing who said what.
On the other hand, next day the newspaper says, “Staff can't agree on anything.” And this weakens the Presidency and thus the freedom to discuss.

If the public was smart, an open forum would be beneficial. But they're not. They're often dumb (and you can quote me on that without my permission).

If in doubt, I go for “transparency”. I believe that such altruistic behavior weakens the person who practices it, but it improves the overall outcome. It's very unfair. If you can't stand to be booted out of office for being a good guy, maybe you shouldn't run.

But I think we basically agree. I talk big, but don't always follow my rhetoric.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he was aware that it was likely I would be sharing his opinions with others. In fact, he mentioned that it was okay to “get the word out” that they were making progress, which is exactly what I did.

I used to be a high school reporter. I realize that there are some comments that just aren't worth repeating. But I fall back on my original premise. ANYTHING you say that others will find important that is not malicious slander should be put forth for public consumption.

You are asking that people be loyal to you, rather than to those you serve. I think it should be the opposite.

I am willing to concede that your view is held by the majority of humanity, but I respectfully disagree.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not acting as the CIO PR man. I am relaying what I heard in a casual conversation which correlates well with notes posted by the technology committee.
I prefer it this way. It gives the membership an idea of what he is thinking right now (which was the main purpose of the post). In my view it is constructive. And if he changes his mind tomorrow, he has deniability, which seems important to him.

If I had any doubt about the accuracy, I would have run it by. But feeling that take is unquestionably correct, if I run it through him first, he might say something, and then I have lost (in my mind) my status as an independent person without political obligations.

By the way, if he had told me in all honesty that he had just chopped up Robert Hartman into little pieces and fed him to the web servers, I would be reporting that too – but probably to the police instead. If he said he WANTED TO chop up the person who developed Bridge Winners (he didn't say that) that would be confidential because no good would come from making the information public.
March 30, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top