Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brett Kunin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray: California is not the only jurisdiction so ruling. In NJ, we (unfortunately) scheduled a Disciplinary Hearing against one of our members in 2016, and suit was filed in the NJ Chancery division, which, inter alia, requested a Temporary Restraining Order(“TRO”) prohibiting our Unit from proceeding with the hearing. Luckily, our Unit has an excellent insurance policy (the ACBL's carrier was virtually useless), and our carrier “stepped up”, and we were able to engage one of the best Director and Officers liability defense firms in the State. The Court not only denied the TRO, but ultimately dismissed 4 of the 5 counts on the merits, and held that the remaining count could only be maintained at Arbitration, under the ACBL's arbitration clause. If you wish to investigate the Court's well-reasoned decisions on the Order and Dismissal, you may send me a private e-mail, and I will provide you with details so that you can find the Court's decision. (I do not want the name of the person, who was ultimately disciplined,and who lost appeals to District 3 and the ACBL, mentioned in this forum.)
As an aside, NJ has a statute encouraging Arbitration, as an alternative forum.
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cliff: perhaps. But the 9-h should be specifically A9x, NOT
A987. Oren's comment above is cogent, depending on partnership agreement.
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Lynn. If 2c is stayman, partner should strain to bid 2s over 2h. Absent such a call, x is penalty, and 2n is t/o.
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len: sounds like the story of my life, as well…..LOL
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming x if a major, I had to vote “other”, since such a double at the 3 level would be responsive, and deny 4-card support for the unbid major. I think you need more specificity for your poll.
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len: I think the answer has a great deal to do with Disciplined calls. I know some of my partners would bid 3s over 3c, but I think this is a huge overbid with an 8-loser 13 count – I agree with Steve Moese and Kit that the correct bid is pass. (With today's aggressive overcalling and raises,
many are afraid they will lose their “fit” if they don't call. The problem remains that those partners who play with such people never know when his/her partner has a good hand or a bad one.) On the flip side, if you know that you have a partner who would strain to bid with a fit (and hopefully, would take other action with a good hand), then perhaps west should pass.
I sympathize with West – if East has his bid, he does
need to reevaluate his hand based upon a double fit.
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could not vote in your poll, since one cannot contemplate a response until it is known how high you play a negative double.
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could not vote in your poll. If you had “a good partner”, how could you fail to have any discussion as to how to proceed after a reverse? This is a primary point when going over systems with a person with whom you have not played.
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Chuck, that an initial 2 spade bid, particularly with short hearts, is best.
However, I could not vote in your poll, since I would have taken pains over 2c to “get out” of this auction by whatever means your system permits (i.e., probably 2d)
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did not vote in the poll, as I also would have doubled the 2h transfer bid.
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your partner – partner can never picture a 7-5 hand if you don't. (PS - heart suit is so bad that it is not a hand to bid twice, showing both majors)
Oct. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why with a 14+ hand, partner would not upgrade to a strong NT. I abstained, because logically, a good 14 should NOT open a weak NT, or you lose the advantage of the bid and system.
Oct. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, Barry, but an added caveat – the 3nt'er should NEVER have two aces, and mostly quacks.
Oct. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have also replied to the new CEO. I forwarded a copy of my comments to Richard Popper. I was pleasantly surprised that my comments were thoroughly read, and I received a response directly from Bahar.
I agree with Steve that upgrading technology should be the highest priority – we are “stuck” in the 20th century.
I thought there was a lack of focus on Youth Bridge – the time to generate interest is at an early age, and our Unit (140, central NJ) focuses on programs in 9 elementary and middle schools. By the time our young people become juniors in high schools, it is too late to interest them in a game that will take years to become even marginally competent.
I also advised that the focus on STaC's was misbased – no one in our Unit would support paying more for silver points at the clubs. Instead, a way should be found to support Unit sectionals, not coopt them.
If anyone is interested in my comments and Bihar's reply,
please forward a private e-mail to me, with your personal e-mail address (with the caveat, that my focus was one who was replying to the comment as President of Unit 140).
Oct. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't pretend to understand your system, but if your bottom range is 10 hcp, this 5.5 loser hand is WAY TOO GOOD for that call.
Oct. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: This poll cannot be answered objectively, unless
we know how high you agree to play negative doubles. I therefore abstained.
Oct. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with bidding 2d is that you should have
longer d's than c's, and hence a bad description of your hand; if partner bids 2s, 3d could be on a 1/0-5-4-3-1. In addition, if partner now bids 2d as FSF, 3d promises exactly 0-5-4-4, so there is no misdescription.
Oct. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len: This hand is a problem for those who insist on playing one major-2any as an unconditional G/F. Anyway, with a 7-loser hand, and spade tolerance, bidding less than 3h over 2c is just way too conservative.
With my best partnerships, we play one major-2 bananas -2any-3 bananas as a bid that is NOT forcing to game, which is how we would have bid the hand- in the instant case, partner has no problem raising to game.
Oct. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no reason NOT to play it in the balance chair, particularly at mp's. At mp's, since partner needs to balance with significantly less than in direct seat, I raise the level for a constructive bid from 8-9 to good 9-11.
Oct. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: Unless your ByLaws (and/or Policies) prohibit it, there is absolutely no reason why a Unit cannot subsidize ALL 0-20 games at all clubs, if it wishes to do so. As President of Unit 140 (central NJ), there is nothing in our
ByLaws and Policies that would prohibit us from so doing.
There are several clubs with 0-20 “teaching” games in our units, and effective 1/1, they now can be awarded mp's.

In our unit, we do not subsidize any club games, but we have elected to focus on Youth Bridge – we have after school programs in 7 elementary and middle schools, and have a Youth Bridge event at each of our sectionals. Despite our District's small size, we sent 23 “kids” to the Toronto NABC (21 from our unit), which was heavily subsidized by the District, our Unit, and private donations.
Sept. 30, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top