Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Matthias Berghaus
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And your point is..?
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Back to bridge: the impression is that the former leadership of the DBV jumped on this settlement and swept the dirt under the carpet.”

Which dirt would that be?

Nedju, you use a technique that is known as proof by assertion. That is not good enough.

“this whole structure and frame of mind is unchanged and very much intact.!”

This supposes that there actually _was_ a structure. This is conspiracy theory at it`s best. Or do you have proof that you managed to hide for all those years?? And accusing the new administration of “continuing” things that are not proven for the old one is not worthy of a response.

So your argument is: the DBV was not involved in whatever settlement (if any) there was, and that leads to: “So this settlement is very bad news for the presence and the future of honest bridge in Germany.” Come again? They were not part of it (whatever it may be), so this is bad news.

Let me paraphase that: You have no data, but are pessimistic about everything and everyone.

What you wrote above is free of facts, except the fact that people suspected the Doctors, but they still found teams to play on. If this is so reprehensible, why have you played for a club that won championships with the Doctors? No, you didn`t play on those teams, but if you portrait people who let them play on their teams as the scum of the Earth, why did you play for (and with, some players were still there) those people? Why did Sabine and Roy play with P/S? To promote cheating in German Bridge? I don`t buy that, and I don`t think many others do. There is proof of what they do when their teammates are found cheating. In an ideal world all relevant facts are known all the time. In case you didn`t notice: that is a fictional world…
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Such discipline is appropriate and merited, and there is no basis whatsoever for mitigation. The damage done to the game of bridge by these parties is incalculable.”

I second that.
Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nedju,

have you ever heard about details in case of a settlement out of court?
No? Might I suggest that this is because the _idea_ of those settlements is _not_ to divulge said details?

No, you have no more right to learn those details than I have, and I have played against the Doctors and against P/S, too. You may have lost more than I, but at least you were never relegated to the second division after playing against said pairs. I was. It hurts. A lot. Can I do anything? Of course not. And, if it is any help to you, there is something which hurts even more. Directing championships, and not detecting what they did. Believe me. I found out while playing against them. And what could I do? Not a d*****d thing. I had no proof. I still don`t have it. But what others discovered explains a lot, and I understand it better now.

If the deal was not to divulge some details about cheatings, _and it stops now_, that is fine with me. I have a set of priorities, and knowing what they did comes a loooong way after having them stopped. I am curious, too, I would like to learn some things, but if this is what it takes to have them cease doing what they did, that is good enough for me.
Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here - and in other (German) media _ I saw criticism of officials for being faster than other gremia, and for being slower. Which sends us, IMO, to the root of the matter. You can not, _ever_, do something which pleases all if the number of people to be pleased exceeds one, and one is difficult, sometimes, because there are people you can`t please, ever.
Here, we have a forum for people with different backgrounds, opinions, whatever, and guess what, they don´t always agree, but most thin that their point of view is the only one.

This, gentlefolk, does not work.

Authority has to come with responsibility, and vice versa. If someone does not like the decision of those with authority, there is something to do about this, it is called “elections”.

There is another thing _not_ to do about it, and this is to heap abuse on people like Brad, Steve and others, who acted to clean up Bridge, and *oh horror* stayed true to the things they agreed to. To paraphrase: they kept their word. If anyone wants to fault them for that, go ahead, I won`t.
Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, and is somebody going to play with one of them again, ever?
I considered Alex my friend, and in a world removed from Bridge I still do, but for the life of me I can`t imagine playing with him in any event of some importance, or prize money
Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To get to the roots of this we have, IMO, to find the answer to the question: does a bid that promises _at least_ n cards in a given suit, with no number of cards greater than n in that suit excluded (except maybe 13 in the case of the suit…), show either length or shortage in the suit for n smaller than 3? (In other words: if I guarantee at least n cards, with a high probability of several more by inference, as I did not open in some other suit, do I show length, even if the minimum length is under 3, or do I show shortage or length, if the minimum number is sufficintly small?) If the answer were yes, then I think all NT openers were under suspicion of being HUM, as surely no system I know of needs at least 3 cards in every suit to open 1NT, whatever the range. So I would show shortage or length in _any_ suit with one bid, even if singletons were excluded. Somehow I don`t think that this would follow from our original text….
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

after the actual bidding it is practically guaranteed that the club holding will take tricks in any denomination with a trump suit, and unlikely in NT if opss do not give them to us….
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you are of course technically right. The wording is abominable. But what is meant (but not expressed…) is a system like Suspensor oder TRS, were 1M promised 0-2 or 6+ in the suit openend. No, they did not express that, I agree….
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reminds me of a story I heard which I like, whether it`s true or not. Some noted authority on the rules of golf wanted to play a round at a small club somewhere. No problem, he was told, but we are not very religious about some rules here. Fine with me, he replied. Sometimes later he hit a bunker. He started to take his ball and place it on the green. Hey, what are you doing?? You can`t do that! Ahh, he said, so you follow this rule, at least. Pray, what other rules do you follow?

So, if everybody “got a life” and followed whatever rule he wanted or not, or make up rules on the fly, what name would you give that game? Throwing rectangular cardboard pieces on green baize? Not Bridge, at any rate, because Bridge is played by certain rules, and if you do not follow those rules you do not play Bridge. Come to think of it, I don`t really want to know the name of your game, I am not going to play it anyway….
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Say again? With the suit we opened locked up, and the other suits promised by the hand _behind_ me, we won`t get doubled? Not the way to bet, IMO. Clubs may even play well if pard is short, as RHO will be endplayed a couple of times while he has to ruff his partner`s winners…
Aug. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Second
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Yu If the TD never ruled on amything (which may well be the case) he got it wrong, big time. Of course the TD needs to ivestigate why he/she was alledgely called, to be sent away. There is no smoke without a fire, ever. This is not-doing-the job-you-were-hired-for…
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What has any comittee have to do with this? It`s a TD case, and if the TD called to the scene of the crime didn`t ask the right questions, he/she fouled up big time. This is strictly a PP case, and no AC has a say in this, except when the cause for PPs happened in the AC sesson. Oh, I would listen to the AC, and maybe do what they suggest, more often than not, but interpreting the laws and disciplinary action are TD territory. So if, sa a TD, I flunked Disciplinary actions 101, sure I would listen to them, if they are right. Still, if the case eveolved as described, tghe TD should have done something e.g. ask some questions, then get out some big hammer…
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And your point is?? Cheating is OK if no one is the wiser? Neil and the teams involved did OK. You flunked, own up.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably they know exactly was 4N - 5N means. Problem is, for them it may mean something else…. Where I play, no one would show 2KC and a void this way, ever. Everyone and his dog would show 2/5 KC, queen of trumps, lowest side king, not the second-lowest king. And if you were to ask, they might even get the reply “you mean to say you don`t know what 4N - 5N means?”…

I think the OP put a very good question, and Michael Rosenberg said just about everything there is to say about the subject, with some good suggestions by others, too.
Aug. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is it that “partner 99% has at least 4 hearts on this auction” (quote from OP)? There is only a 1% chance that S has 3?? Come on… After the prelude a heart is right out…
July 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To clarify something else: we are talking about situations where the IB was not accompanied by comments what it was the IBler missed. L16 does not apply to the IB per se, but if something like “I didn`t see you opened” or whatever is uttered, now _here_ L16 applies for sure. Only if the IBler does the “Old Stoneface” routine successfully his partner has no restrictions. To have him guess, successful or not, it has to be a real guess, not something helped along by partner`s antics…
July 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me get this straight: A “book” ruling was appealed, with no case whatsoever. Now after the AC upheld the ruling (which they could not overturn in any case, it being an interpretation of the law, and the TD has the final say on that, L93B3), not only did they fail to keep the money, or hand out an AWMPP or whatever it is they do where this happened (I can find some sympathy if the appellants were relatively inexperienced, the situation is not exactly happening every few minutes, so the AC may have been correct not to implement any penalty), afterwards they talked about changing the ruling, which would be absolutely illegal. Ho hum….
The TD got that right, there can be no doubt about that, the OP even quoted the relevant part of the law. Next case.
July 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe, but not this one
July 24, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top