Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Xu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pretty sure the limit is 8-players.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still don't know how to find the “Popular People” section. Can someone please inform me?
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>A young woman has received a friends request from someone entirely unknown to her. She most properly rejected that request.


I agree.


>I started digging into why that request had been made. I established that the sender of the request thought that she would want to be in touch. That didn't seem rational and it also didn't seem rational that the sender of the request would overlook my son Dan who plays bridge and send a request to Sophie who does not.


I agree with this too, but bear in mind that you don't know the life and history of this TD. While it may seem irrational to you, perhaps if you had lived the life of the TD, it would become rational.



>It seemed to me that the sender had ulterior motives


This is also what it seems to me.



>and given that I questioned the sender's motives and did not receive a coherent response, I reached my own conclusions. And I think throughout that process I have been rational and fair.



If I'm to be the judge, your INFERENCES are rational and fair.


I am not against your inferences. Rather, I'm trying to drive home the point that life is full of exceptions, and that you making it seem that your inferences IS the truth and not just a strongly supported hypothesis is not a rational nor fair conclusion.


If you had stated that there is a reasonable possibility that the friend request was innocent, then I would have had no issue with your article.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I apologize in advance if I get too frustrated and say unnecessarily mean and rude things.


> “Well that's where we differ Tom, my old friend, I do believe that sexism is a problem in bridge and therefore I believe this thread is appropriate for Bridgewinners. Who would want their daughter hit on by an elderly TD because they turned out to a bridge competition? Precisely no-one. So I think it is in the interests of bridge to root out sexism.”


How is sexism displayed here? The definition of sexism is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex.” Explain to me how a TD sending a FB friend request to a girl makes the TD sexist, because I just don't get it.




> “Or in fact he is a total douche-bag clocking into a young and pretty woman because he wanted more images of her.”


Is this not a sexist statement? I'm assuming that you are making the assumption that because he is a male, this automatically makes the reason for any form of contact between him and your daughter a carnal reason.

This is literally stereotyping the TD because of his gender. Would you also find a problem if a 70 year old female also sends your daughter a friend request? I think not.



Secondly, you made a pretty bold presumption that a FB friend request = wanting images. You keep on repeating this as if it's a fact, when in reality, you have provided no basis for why you would make this assumption. I believe you made this assumption on the sexist notion that the reason behind all actions made by a male is for sexual pursuits.



> “Sophie did not sign up for having to fend off a mad old bloke - she is my daughter and would not expect to have to do that.”



Not only do I believe you are sexist, but I also think you MIGHT be ageist. Why do you keep on referring to his age? You even called him a “old bugger.” It feels like his age is of importance to you, which leads me to believe that you are stereotyping old people as leary and promiscuous.




> “I absolutely know why he has done that and I asked him why myself and heard the answer. He's just looking for pretty girls.”


Why do you say “absolutely”? You do NOT absolutely know what his intentions were. You have nothing concrete, so please stop passing off your assumptions as facts. If what your other comments like

“His answer was completely ridiculous suggesting that my daughter might want to have something to do with him.”

are true, he did not tell you he was just looking for pretty girls. You inferred that, therefore you can not say “absolutely”.





All in all, I think you owe the TD an apology. I understand that you are protective of your daughter and I respect that, but I can not condone how you keep on claiming your inferences as facts.


And no, I'm not saying that I think your assumptions are unreasonable. Personally, I think what you are claiming is quite possibly accurate. But I believe strongly in innocent until proven guilty, and the things that you say suggest to me that you believe in guilty until proven innocent.



To summarize, my problem with you right now is how you seem to refuse to believe that there are other explanations for the TD actions other than what you said. You are entitled to think that your interpretation is most likely to be true; however, I believe you cannot be 100% sure in your interpretation.

And I believe you fail to consider other possibilities because of sexist and ageist presumptions you have right now.

Of course, it would be hypocritical if I claim that what I assumed about you is the only explanation as to why you failed to consider other possibilities, so I'm not going to claim that.


But if my assumption about you is indeed true, I challenge you to recognize and address your un-based notions.



I am open to changing my opinions, so feel free to respond to me. I'll owe you an apology for claiming that you might be a sexist and ageist if you effectively refute my claims.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
mr sinclair speaks the truth!
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment isn't really relevant to your question, but I just had to make the joke. How often is it that the King of Bridge has a very stereotypical “king” first name? Congratulations BTW.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HALLO MR. KING OF BRIDGE, KING LOUIS THE MMXIX!
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“If you are thinking about the hand with a view to decide what to play to trick one then I would call this ‘thinking about what to play’ rather than thinking about the hand generally. Instead, I am talking about a situation where you have an automatic play or a singleton but want to take some time to think about the hand generally.

In that situation why not make the play immediately face-up and then wait to quit the trick until you have taken time to think about the hand? This avoids the need to make a problematic comment.”


Doesn't playing immediately and then waiting to quit the trick actually conveys UI? It tells your partner that you have an automatic play.


I don't see the need to make any comment in my proposed procedure. In my proposed procedure, the defender uses the T1 time to think about the entire hand. Therefore, declarer is not entitled to assume anything specific about RHO thoughts, namely declarer is at risk about inferring RHO cards in the led suit.


>The problem with your scenario is that a defender might have decided what to play, say “I'm just thinking about the hand”, but then on further thought change his mind about the play. Then he has made a remark which declarer could be misled by (as declarer may assume he had an automatic play but was thinking about the hand.“


Sorry, I don't understand what you said. Maybe it has to do with me not understanding the need of making any comment.


>”We can avoid ALL this by the procedure I describe in the final paragraph of my previous comment. So my question to you is, why not adopt this?"

My answer to you is what I said about how playing immediately actually conveys UI.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The struggles of thoughtful people :(
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Well, for one, there is no way to know to that third hand is telling the truth and actually thinking about the whole hand rather than the play.”


Isn't that the point? If nobody can assume whether he was thinking of the whole hand or thinking about what to play, there is no UI being transmitted.

It's like why it is acceptable to think for a long time then open 1H. No one can assume what you were thinking about so no UI is transmitted to partner.


>The proper procedure is to play face up once you have decided on your play. If you then want to take some time to think about the hand as a whole, simply do not quit the trick until you have done so."


A lot of the times, it is necessary to think about the hand as a whole to determine what to play. Surely no one would argue that telling defenders they must play rather blindly to the first trick is proper procedure.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, I just don't see why declarer having to wait 5-10 seconds is a proper deportment though.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“2. At trick one as declarer: Take a mandatory break of 10-15 seconds to give your RHO a better chance to play in tempo.”

I don't understand this. My thought is that RHO should always take his time to digest think about the entire hand. This doesn't convey any UI to his partner as his partner would not know exactly what he was thinking about.

As the defender, I always take my time to think about the entire hand before I either flip my card over (if I was the leader) or play my card (if I was the partner of the opening leader), even if my card is a stiff. Whether declarer waits for 10-15 seconds is moot point to me.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RY: I just turned 16 a few days ago :)


FS:

> “My opposition is not to Michael Rosenberg. If I have an opposition, it would be to Michael Rosenberg being called ”Greatest G.O.A.T.“


You're treating my article like it's a science article, when in reality, this article was written in a light-hearted mindset and should be taken in a more light-hearted manner.


> ”Let me ask you a question: if you put together a list of the greatest bridge players of all time, where will Michael Rosenberg be ranked? Be honest."


It seems to me this question is irrelevant, as I never claimed he was the greatest bridge player of all time, so I don't see why you ask this, so please clarify.

But I'll still answer your question.

I don't know. And that is my honest answer. But my guess is not top 1, as statistically, that is highly improbable.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should say instead then: “The GOAT for me, and most likely for a lot of other mentees in the USBFJ Training Program”
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you're not saying that the redundancy took away from my rhetoric, and instead, are assuming that I am claiming Michael Rosenberg was the greatest BRIDGE PLAYER and thus have a problem with that claim:


I never claimed he is the greatest bridge player (on a side note: how do you even know who was the greatest bridge player ever? That question is rhetorical, btw). I made sure to specify: “greatest PERSON in the bridge community.”


I can see how claiming he was the greatest bridge player takes away a lot of credibilities because that claim is objective and obviously very untenable, but claiming he was the greatest person is purely subjective so I just don't see how that takes away any credibility.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When “Coaching Junior Bridge” hits the shelf, you bet I'll be forking my dough over.


I'm looking forward to listening to your podcast on the way over to Las Vegas.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I wasn't bothering to take the whole hand into consideration, just the club suit vacantly.


You are out of entries to enjoy the 5th club.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for this beautiful article.


On page 5, you said “Declarer must be careful to start the clubs by leading low towards the QJ, catering to either defender having all four missing clubs.”

I definitely agree you would want to make a safety play here, but it seems to me that the correct safety play is running the Q as you have the almighty 8. This allows you to score an overtrick as well as guarantee your contract.

Missing the C8 then means that you should play low to the Q.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Back when Adam Grossack was my partnership coach, he told me this (I hope I don't misquote him, but from what I can remember) : “Preempts work best when the opponent's hands are not limited.” Basically, here, when an opponent has already shown a lot of his hand, a preempt loses a lot of value. So I think 3M should be 6+ card, invitational (16-18)
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
kevy is savvy
June 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top