Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phyllis Cheek
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was 2NT-3NT
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was so exciting to watch Curtis and Zia play together for the first time. Congratulations to both of them!
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats Joe! What a wonderful accomplishment!
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that. I'm proposing that when someone exposes an ace, it's as IF they led out of order. I thought I was being clear about that
Dec. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which bolsters my idea that the rules need to be more objective. Nobody says a win was“stolen”, if they win due to a lead out of order
Dec. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our President invites the winner of the world series, Super Bowl, and Olympians to the white house, but I've written scores of emails just asking for a letter when team USA wins a world championship. If we can't get people to treat bridge with respect, kids lose interest quickly
Dec. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My opinion is that once there's a known ace in south, e-w escape their mess, and I'm allowed to think it was obvious that W was void in diamonds. Many rules punish innocent mistakes. I just believe it's better to make objective, as opposed to subjective decisions when rules are involved
Dec. 15, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't miss it. I thought the bidding made what joe said redundant,
Dec. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had some of the funniest, yet raunchiest conversations with Russ. We rarely agreed on anything, but laughed about everything. You will be missed my friend
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I LOVE bridge , watch Vugraph like a crazy person, but can't play, so my wish is that every room had someone explaining all the alerts. When I've done Vugraph, I've sometimes had no kibbitzers, and the alerts are often not explained, because they're common (but, not to me and other rank novices)
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I look at it this way…South's hesitation is essentially the same as if he'd played out of order. This particular situation makes it hard to swallow, but many, many times people make bad leads to allow a flawed contract to make. Why does the partner of the (player out of order) get any chance to win any appeal? If it's 100%, that a hesitation can only be to double, and double means Ace… The rule should be EXACTLY the same as a lead out of order. There's no“fairness”involved. You lead out of order by showing your ace. How is it any different than if he ACTUALLY showed his ace, before his partner led???? Please someone explain what im missing. Isn't the object of the rules to make any decisions objective, as opposed to subjective? Otherwise we have these ridiculous 1000+ comments.
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that the only question should have been "did the hesitation show an ace. If so, then defenders are sol. However, that's not the standard, and Ibelieve that with the original polling being legitimate, 7NT down 2. How they justified taking another poll stretches credulity
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What changed between Bobby not bidding RKC over 4c, and then bidding it after hearing that joe did not have the AD. HOW

in all heavens name, can that info inspire Bobby to now bid RKC, unless, in case they didn't have all of them, br needed to know that it was the diamond Ace they are off. Then, to further this, Bobby jumped to 7S, It's only logical that knowing which ace Joe was missing (if he were, missing one matters.. therefore Bobby must have a diamond void, and planned to bid it when Joe bid Blackwood. That's why he could bid it after finding out Joe had no diamond ace. I bet you Bobby wanted joe to bid Blackwood, but knowing that he didn't hand the AD, obviated that need. How else do u explain why Bobby didn't bid RKC over 4c, but did over 4dx. It's so clear to me. Somebody needs to explain why Bobby didn't bid RKC, until he knew that joe didn't have the ace. Furthermore, Joe it's 100% that Joe didn't think about Bobby's bidding until after he bid 7Nt, then he just was being honest, out loud, about how he may have made a mistake. Joe says things out loud, that most people wouldn't. I venture to say, that in the 7 years, I watched he and Curtis play together, he bid, and laughed at Curts'bidding until he thought about it for a minute, and realized that he missed something It's not anything but a mistake, and anyone who knows joe, knows what he said was just his ratting himself out for not having looked deeply enough into bobby's bidding. He definitely hoped he was wrong, but I don't think his comment tells you anything bobby's bidding didn't. It was just Joe being open about his maybe mistake. I can assure you, when he said that he 100% did not have the ace and im sure Brian knew that as well
Dec. 5, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with David Grainger, and believe Bobby's bidding. By not bidding 5NT after Blackwood, he 100% needed only to know how many aces Joe had, knowing 100% that joe did not have the AD. The only way this bidding makes sense is taken as a whole with not bidding RKC, over 4c, then over 4d x, getting no redouble from joe makes it 100% that Bobby has a void, when he bid 7S, instead of bidding 5N first, so he doesn't care about Kings or trying for 7nt. Joe sometimes bids so quickly he bids before his partners bidding can be something he didn't count on I've heard Joe act then when he thinabout the bidding, realized he missed something. Here, the fact that he didn't have the AD, and Bobby didn't ask for kings, clued him into the possibility that Bobby had a void I'm certain he was hoping that the AD was the 13th trick, and he hadn't messed up. Joe NEVER EVER would say that without actually thinking it could be true. Joe is honorable through and through, but he bids quickly, and ALWAYS takes the hit if he should have realized what was going on. He's a kind and generous person, and he and Bobby personify what is good about bridge. Having said that, I believe that no matter that joe made a bad bid, it's not once a hesitation is made suggesting an ace. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to live with rules no matter how innocent the mistake. Just ask Joe and Curtis, who lost a match when Curtis led an ace , out of turn, that would have cashed no matter what. He was forced to play the ace on their trumps. Rules need to be imposed even when you can show that you would have made that lead anyway, because 1 in 4 chance is just too much. Sometimes the absoluteness of the rules hurts people, but mostly it stops people from being able to cajole a panel of people into believing why what they did was right. It means that if the hesitation suggested an ace it no longer matters if a group of people can agree upon which ace it is. Why should the non offenders have to get the worst of it… it's baffling to me, why someone can benefit from their mistakes, please start making rules that are fair to everyone not based upon whether you can convince a group of people that knowing that there's an inherent unfairness in allowing someone to plead their case.
Dec. 5, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I read that Joe's comment was irrelevant, per the pollees, therefore their answer was not based on his comment, so why ask others? I don't see anywhere where they said that they shouldn't have been told about it. That seems a stretch How in the world can you say that the comment was irrelevant according to the people you polled, and then make it a reason for taking another poll?. That makes no sense at all Just as an aside, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the first ruling. I just don't see how you can take a poll, decide that NOBODY thought the comment made a wit of a difference, then take another poll based on the fact that the pollees didn't use the comment when deciding what to lead. Can anyone say catch-22
Dec. 5, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My opinion is that the wrong question was asked. The only relevant question is does the hesitation suggest an Ace. If yes, that's enough to rule against the hesitator. Why get into what Ace does he have? isn't just knowing that he has an ace way too much information for the leader to have? I say this, because if I had hesitated, my partner could NEVER assume that I was thinking of doubling to show an A. Until today, I had no idea that was the case. but, too bad. I should have known that x of 7N has an A. that would stop hesitations , or incur penalties
Dec. 5, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm only confused about 1 thing, and if someone already answered, I'm sorry to ask again. I thought that the appeals committee was only allowed to change the ruling if there was a mistake of law. From my reading of the original pollees, 3 led a diamond, and said that the hesitation definitely said to lead a diamond. The other 3 said they wouldn't lead a diamond, and the hesitation did nothing for 2 of them, and the third person said it solidified his reasoning for not leading a diamond. Isn't that the crux? Did the BIT change what a person would lead?? Looking at the 3 who already lead a Diamond, who now said the hesitation made it clear to lead a D,is misleading. People like to be super smart, and saying that, reinforces their decision. You can only look at the people who didn't lead a Diamond, and not 1 changed their mind from the hesitation. so 3 of 3 said they wouldn't change, due to the BIT. Why did the committee ask other people what they thought? Which law did they misapply? I've been around Curtis' director decisions, and even people who voted against his action, who changed their minds after they finished playing, and thought more about it, were NEVER asked, nor was anyone ever asked again, even after he asked them to poll more people. I should add that there was established misinformation, so the standard for redress was said to be only if the nonoffending party's actions wild or capricious. However, the original pollees were only asked if they would have made the same bid. So, when brought to committee, and said that the appropriate question should have been was the non offender's bid so bizarre, as to warrant negating the mistaken information, the committee said that they don't poll again, the fact that nobody bid the same thing was inferentially enough to make that ruling. It seems completely bizarre that they can sometimes poll again, and sometimes not. It's no wonder that people are angry about the process. It seems to matter who is on the committee at the time of the appeal
Dec. 5, 2018
Phyllis Cheek edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this same year, Team USA played in the Sport Accord World Mind Games. They played against FS from Israel, and FN from Monaco. They got to the finals, only to lose to Israel. This cost them a gold medal, and cash. It seems simple to remedy, since only 4 teams played in this event. Team USA should be given the gold medal. They'll never be able to be compensated financially, but at least they should receive the gold medal
Nov. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was an expert and it was a 3 card ending
Oct. 9, 2018
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top