Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Platnick
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play the Jack on the 2nd round, I think partner will work it out.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Constance,

A good explanation by Kit as always, but in this case his judgment is wrong.
Sept. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geoff Hampson was obviously joking.
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan,

If one had to be qualified in order to offer an opinion, the Internet (and the real world) would be a very quiet place.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan,

Obviously people posting here are not judge nor jury, just bridge players expressing their opinions. You seem willing to state your opinion on everything except this question, “Do you think FS cheated?” So, do you think they cheated? If you don't want to answer, that is ok, but please stop tap-dancing around the question. If you don't want to look at the video evidence, that is also ok. Maybe you want to hang on to a little bit of doubt.

When the Israelli team withdrew and didn't play in Indonesia, I agreed with you 100% and felt the other side was just being obtuse. Now the shoe is on the other foot (which I guess feels like wearing an obtuse shoe). So for your comfort, I suggest you look at the video evidence, switch shoes, and decide if you think they cheated or not. Not as judge or jury, but as a bridge player.
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Good advice, Kevin … although, in the case of Mike Passell, not enough facts have been disclosed to yet conclude that the core issue was the failure to have called a director.”

Jeff,

We obviously don't know what the core issues were on which the committee based its decision. But equally obvious is that if Mike called the director as soon as he saw a card on the floor, this would have been a non-issue.
Aug. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

I am guessing that you feel under seeded.
Aug. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if we are going to try to restructure the Masterpoint system for greater parity, it needs to be a Comprehensive Strategy rather than a quick fix aimed at appeasing a small population.”

I completely agree with this. Maybe the best way is to emulate the model used when my son played soccer in the AYSO: Don't keep score and give everyone a trophy (25 master points?) at the end.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sathya,

You wrote earlier, “So I doubled, hoping partner would figure out by looking at his hand that it was a penalty double, not a T/O double. Unfortunately partner was not on the same page, so he pulled it to 3♠. The committee did not allow my double of 3♣, so it did not matter whether people think my pulling 3♠ to 3nt was good, bad or ugly”


Just because your partner pulled the double to 3♠ does not mean that he was not on the same page. He could have judged that pulling your penalty double was better than passing - maybe a weak hand with 7 spades. Also, I feel it does matter what people think of your 3NT call. If I were on the committee, I might assume that partner's earlier questions had subconsciously led you to play him for values (partner played you for a T/O double) rather than a weak, distributional hand (partner played you for a penalty Dbl.)

You also wrote, “In any case this is hardly the first or the worst howler that Appeals Committees keep producing.”

I agree with the committee's decision. Had you not bid 3NT, but passed 3♠, I would consider it a more difficult decision. Either way, I would never consider this a bad ruling.
July 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan,

If each suit were a different color, you could no longer play CRASH.

July 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Most ways of asking something involve a question, not a statement, let alone an insulting one.”

Josh,

I'm guessing you've never been married.

June 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If JD doesn't look at this poll, change my answer to B.
May 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The entire Fireman team played great and deserved their hard earned victory. I would like to also to thank the directors, hospitality staff, and of course Jan for all their hard work. The USBF does a great job organizing and running the trials every year.
May 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The JDs have spoken
May 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sam,

In legal drafting, “or” is ambiguous - it can be inclusive (A or B or both) or exclusive (A or B, but not both). In general, “or” is used in the inclusive sense, but context is important.

The full list you provided also includes:

7. OPENING TWO HEART OR TWO SPADE BID showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor.

It is absurd to interpret this to mean that you can open 2H to show 6H/4m, but if you do so, then you can't open 2S to show 6S/4m.

So it is obvious (at least to me), that the constructors of the convention chart are using “or” in the inclusive sense. If you know any well-respected attorney, ask her opinion.

April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit,

If I were voting for the ACBL “Hall of Bridge Expertise”, then I would vote for those who I felt were the best players. However, for the ACBL Hall of Fame, I vote for those, who in my opinion, have achieved the most fame through their bridge accomplishments.

So I agree with you about usng my personal judgment. But I judge based on their bridge accomplishments, not on my perception of their level of expertise.
March 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robb,

You said, “As much as I admire these women, and as much as I think they might have had great success in open competition, given the records I would have a hard time placing any of them in the top 3.”


I think this is the problem. The top 3 what? I am a voter for the HOF and when I saw this year's list of candidates (I was allowed to choose up to 4), what criteria should I use? As a voter, my job is not to use my personal judgment about which 4 I think are the best players. I receive a bio of each player and a matrix of their 1st/2nd place finishes in NABC and WBF events. I do use my judgment in deciding how much weight to give the various events listed. Do I think winning a Mixed Pairs or Women's KO is equal to winning the Spingold? Of course not. However, given the number of World Championships Lynn Deas, Beth Palmer, and Judi Radin have won, I have no problem placing all 3 in my top 4.

As several others have said already on this thread, this year's ballot had many deserving candidates. having only one candidate selected for induction from this great list seems to indicate that the voting procedures need to be fixed.








March 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The chess hall of fame is probably a better comparison. I believe chess has open & women's events just like bridge. A quick look at the chess HOF website shows quite a few women.
Feb. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

I agree 100%. It is an embarrassment that Lynn Deas, Beth Palmer, and Judi Radin are not in the HOF.
Feb. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

While I generally agree with you, Rosenberg's point is that if you bid 4D on your example hand, you don't need to play pass as forcing. Partner will bid 5S with the hand given. If his hand were different you will double 5H whether you play FP or not. So the swing is created by whether or not you bid 4D, not playing FP.
July 11, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top