Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stephen Drodge
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nat, are you only saying that because you think it might be you? :P
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon, is it possible you mean Javascript instead of Java?
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, there is no client-side Java on this site.
Oct. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, are you certain that passes are considered rebids?
Aug. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, perhaps I have misunderstood, but my reading of the BOD regulations implies that the wording of the announcement was not up to the committee's discretion, and that they must provide exactly the information that they did, no more, no less.

This strikes me as a poor policy, and as being the primary cause of this entire kerfuffle (other than people's penchant for drama).
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, they were simply following the http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER1F315.pdf">regulations: “In disciplinary cases which result in a finding of guilt, ACBL policy is to publish an individual's name, ACBL Player number, the penalty imposed and the CDR code section.”

Perhaps the ACBL policy should be changed, and they should be required to release the full details of ethics cases in which a guilty verdict is reached?
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just want to add that I'm personally inclined to believe your version of events, and if the forthcoming evidence bears out your side of the story, then I wish you the best of luck in your appeal. It would be a tragic miscarriage of justice if you were stripped of your hard-earned position on the all time masterpoint leaderboard due to a simple careless mistake.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, any chance that you'd be willing to request a copy of the documentation surrounding this case and then make it available to the public?
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems as though we're unlikely to receive any further information about the infraction from official sources.

http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER1F315.pdf">Chapter 1 Section F of the Codified Minutes (“the regulations of the ACBL Board of Directors organized by subject matter”) states: “In disciplinary cases which result in a finding of guilt, ACBL policy is to publish an individual's name, ACBL Player number, the penalty imposed and the CDR code section.” This precisely matches what was reported in the bulletin.

Furthermore, Chapter 1 Section F of the Codified Minutes also contains fairly specific regulations about who may access disciplinary records. Of particular note is:

“3.5 A person’s ACBL disciplinary record or material there from may be made available only to:

a. The person who is the subject of the record upon request.
b. A disciplinary hearing committee when that person has been found guilty of a charge and the committee is considering discipline to be imposed.
c. The ACBL President or CEO when the person is being considered for appointment to an ACBL position or ACBL employment.
d. An Officer of the Court upon presentation of a subpoena.”

So, barring a leak by ACBL staff or an Ethical Oversight Committee member, details of the proceedings are unlikely to become public record unless someone has grounds to sue.

Edit: Another possibility is that Mike Passell himself could request, and then make public, the documentation surrounding the case
Aug. 17, 2015
Stephen Drodge edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The penalty recommended for an E13 violation by the ACBL http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CDR-20151.pdf">Code of Disciplinary Regulations is “2 years Suspension to Expulsion” and “25% to 100% of Disciplined Player's total masterpoint holding.”

It would appear as though the committee judged Passell's violation to be “extremely slight” as per bullet point 1 in Part B of the CDR. Does anyone know if the Hearing Report Form will be made available to the public? I would be curious to know what the extenuating circumstances were.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need to give Google more of your personal information :)
Feb. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like this behavior would get you caught in an infinite loop on the polls that don't have a majority answer…
Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My two cents: Communicate effectively. Most bridge players do not make a careful distinction between “weak” and “preemptive,” and you (unfortunately) can't force them to.

N.B. ACBL law dictates that your opponent does not have to ask the “right question” in order to learn all relevant information about your calls.
Sept. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But not your skills as a director!
Sept. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Back to normal. Sorry about that everyone!
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
April 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we'd probably prefer to play in 6 rather than 6N on the hands you've suggested (so that we still have play after a club lead)

Edit: Counting is hard, kindly ignore this comment.
April 18, 2013
Stephen Drodge edited this comment April 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another issue with using expected number of tricks as a matchpoints measure is that it fails to account for the frequency-dominates-magnitude nature of the scoring.

A simple thought experiment will demonstrate the problem. Suppose we are to compare two leads A vs. B. Suppose that lead A results in 1 additional trick on 20% of the deals. Now suppose that lead B results in 3 additional tricks on 10% of the deals. (The leads are tied for the remaining 70%). Lead B has an expectation of .1 additional tricks, but lead A is vastly superior matchpoint strategy.
April 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't legally psych conventional suit bids below the level of 2N.
May 4, 2012
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top