Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wolf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the question intended with the problem is…what is the standard treatment of responders new suit after the support double? Is it
KXXX
x
xx
Kxxxxx or help suit game try, or general game force?

you sit down with an expert partner, agree to play support doubles,and of course the first time you play this auction comes up
Jan. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oh, Marshall, that U of Arizona education has served you well!
too bad we spent so much time educating ourselves in bridge and poker instead of something useful.
Jan. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drew,
Abraham Lincoln once said “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it”
Jan. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you mean voluntarily, i dont know. Several of the CDR recommendations for discipline include forfeiture of masterpoints,ranks, or mckinney and Ace of Clubs recognition
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, thanks foe the clarification….
If a lawsuit were to be filed, a motion to dismiss would be granted based on the binding arbitration agreement. Administrative suspension is then in order. So, as a practical matter, i would be correct that the filing of a lawsuit would, in and of itself, result in suspension. I understand that there could be reasons (dont know what) where such a motion could be denied, but any lawyer recommending such a law suit would never have a chance to settle it and waive 4.3.4…and THAT would be malpractice.
Why does the ACBL have the binding Arbitration clause if it isnt a much more attractive option than defending a lawsuit? Isnt it because there is no motion practice, discovery rules, jury trial, appeals courts which can cause every little motion decision to go up on appeal, typical trial court delays…i could go on and on…yes there is expense involved in paying the arbitration panel
(which by agreement can be only 1 person), but typically it wouldnt rival a protracted litigation, and would never be subject to an appeal by the losing side.
So, having said all that, i still think fear of a lawsuit is a cop out.
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fear of a lawsuit is a cop out. Members of the ACBL must agree to the binding arbitration agreement, which you can read on the ACBL website.
I believe the filing of a lawsuit against the ACBL is in and of itself cause for suspension
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our club, one of the largest in ACBL land by table count, is member owned. We have a Grievance and Ethics Committee, and a procedure for making complaints (must be in writing, then investigated and determined by the committee). They then either resolve the complaint between the parties privately, or recommend a sanction to the Board of Directors, who is the only body that can actually impose the sanction.
When i chaired the GE committee a few years ago, the Board voted against our recommendations 60% of the time, This caused me to believe that they really didnt need our committee, since they would do whatever they wanted anyway, usually for political type reasons. Still, it seems like a good system, and is provided for in our by-laws.
Regarding law suits etc, i very much recommend that every club, in their membership agreement, provide a mandatory arbitration clause for any disputes. Before we had that, we were sued by a member which actually threw us into bankruptcy for a time. The litigation was brought against each member of the Board and a few others to boot, was long and protracted, and thought the Plaintiff lost, the real losers were the members. We've come back from it, but it wont happen again.
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
very very easy..for real..
take I-75 north to I-4 east, exit to 192 (Disney World) follow signs to Disney World entrance, and you'll see the signs for the hotels, you really cant miss it.
Or, you can take Alligator Alley over here to Ft Lauderdale and come with us :)
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lior, thank you for the link…i have just finished reading the case. I believe the reasoning of the Court in Deeb, that i cited above, is essentially the same as in Hardin. That is, that chance is inherent in the game of poker, unlike bowling, billiards,golf,because the result can be determined by the turn of a card, whereas in a game of skill the outcome is determined by skills, though there may be imperfections in the conditions like weather, a dent in the bowling alley, or a gust of wind at golf.
As all players in a duplicate bridge game are facing the same task under the same conditions, such tasks and conditions known to all,i feel strongly the court would come to a different conclusion if considering duplicate bridge. Again, the “game of chance” versus “game of skill” is really a misnomer….all games have chance or they wouldnt be games…..skill predomination, at the end of the day, is what measures legality or illegality. I would love to argue the case to any Court of law.

John M, as a prosecutor, i wonder if you had the same issues there that we have here in Florida, where the prosecutors generally want nothing to do with these gambling cases, they are sorely lacking in experience and knowledge of the subject matter, and are looking to get them resolved in any way possible before trial. I have bullied so may prosecutors into silly little plea deals or outright dismissals, threatening to go to trial if they dont accept. And of course law enforcement has no idea how to properly investigate and prepare a case for prosecution. Also, gambling prosecutions here are usually very politically motivated, by either the Indians, pari-mutuals, or Florida lottery. I suspect such may be at the root of the UNC problem, lets hope it can be resolved quickly and favorably…otherwise the Dec action would surely be the way to go.
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ In the last analysis, we must decide the nature of the result which is unpredictable by the player. Certainly the outcome of any game at all dependent upon the exercise of human skill is essentially unpredictable. If this were not so, match games like golf and trap shooting would really be dreary, monotonous affairs.” Deeb V. Stoutamire, 53 So.2d,873.(1951)
The Florida Supreme Court said it best, and this quote has been used extensively in the line of Florida cases ever since when exceptions to Florida's general ban on gambling have been involved.
Like John Mayne, my law practice niche for the past 15 years has been representation of the Florida arcade and bingo industry. I have litigated the issue of whether certain devices were legal under our previous arcade amusement law because they had an “application of skill”, and have written proposed legislation both at the state and local levels which tried to incorporate logical analysis of the chance/skill dichotomy.
I have looked at N. Carolina's laws regarding gambling devices, and they generally prohibit any device where chance predominates.
The point is….it is not an issue of game of chance or game of skill, because for anything to be a “game”, unpredictability of result must be involved, otherwise it wouldnt be a “game”.
As such, i am hard pressed to believe that any court of law would interpret duplicate bridge to be an illegal activity, because the unpredictability of result is not based on chance inherent in the game itself.
Having read the previous comments, it looks as if it is something that can be worked out behind the scenes, which certainly is the best way to go at this point. However, if it is not successful, assuming NC law provides for it, as it is in almost every state, what we call a Declaratory Judgement action, asking a court to resolve an issue in interpretation of law or contract between 2 parties, would be available.
If i can volunteer in providing any assistance by sharing our extensive research done on these issues over the years, or be involved in any way which would be helpful, it would be my pleasure.
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
both defenders threw all their hearts, and rho followed to 3 clubs.
so you know the hearts were 5-5,rho had 3 diamonds, and had followed to 3 clubs. on the last 3 diamonds and 2 hearts lho had played 2 hearts and 3 spades. We can discount lho having started with 5 spades since if he had Kx left we're always down. therefore he had to be 4-4 in the blacks
Oct. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
too bad Neil Silverman is in India playing in a tournament…he would just call me an idiot for bidding a grand in a club game and leave it at that!
Oct. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
good stuff, Steve…thank you
(and everyone else, too!)
Oct. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
eric, good analysis on the dbl squeeze, but it is just sooo hard to not put in the jack when it can be your 13th trick…not entirely clear that the jack wont win, if lho started with Kxxx,Q109xx,void,Jxxx, he has a choice of very unattractive leads
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my bad, lho led 10 of H, not J, dummy was
10x
AKJ
AQXX
AK9x

j of H was covered by Q, of course, so you had spade pitches on AK of H and K of clubs.
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael K, u r correct, i lived with it for about 1/2 second, but havent been able to live down going down.
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i showed out on the opening lead of hearts (was 5-0-6-2)
on the spade lead from dummy rho followed low…no jack of spades seen yet.
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
just to clarify, there was no adverse bidding, rho did not pitch any spades (but the layout was obvious to everyone), and there were no kibitzers.:) Lho had started with 109xxx of H,jxxx of clubs, void in diamonds…i dont think he would have overcalled even with the K of spades. That left rho with KQxxx of hearts,xxx of diamonds,xxx of clubs and (?)x of spades. The auction was at the 2 level when it got to him, vul, so doubtful he would overcall either. to that point your hand had opened 1d and pard made inverted raise to 2d.
Your hand was 6/5 in diamonds and spades, and the auction was precision based so you had enough to reverse in the context of a limited opening bid.So over 2s, pard jumped to 6n (i dont like it but have to live with it) so i corrected to 7D
Oct. 18, 2016
Mike Wolf edited this comment Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lets say you bid 1h,lho bids 2h,pass by pard,rho bids 3c
would 3d now be a sort of “delayed Michaels”?
Aug. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
flight A is 56….would have been in the finals last year if it had been 55
July 17, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top