Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that clients are more forward looking. Money spent on cheating pros is bad money that's gone. Spending money on bounties and court cases is just good money chasing bad money. Time spent on court cases is just bad publicity (same reason so few people sue for slander out of those who could). Realistically, clients may need to adjust to a new economy with just as much demand (clients) but less supply (top-level pros who don't cheat, possibly much reduced from top-level pros who don't cheat plus those who do). Prices will likely go up. Securing good teammates in this brave new world is where the time will go.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup, this is the Don we know. (Sorry, Don….)
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you don't have to have seen a lynching first-hand to know that what has happened on BW has resembled a judgment of peers much more than it has resembled a lynching.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I normally try to stay on topic, but as you say, this whole thread was off-topic for the site, so I figured no harm, no foul.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's no sound basis in the Laws for sending partner away from the table so that you can explain your own bid. If the Director elects to do this, that's one thing, but you shouldn't do it on your own initiative–call the Director and ask to be allowed to do it.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, while I am passing here, if I were sitting opposite, I would bid 3NT, but I would not describe my style here at these colors as “aggressive”. I am taking that description literally here.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will pass, assuming that systemically South may have been passing with values so that this will put North under a lot of pressure. I would prefer to know what NS play here, though, and it seems I would have been entitled to that information, so why didn't I ask?
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why does partner know I have at most five hearts?
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The terminology is wrong. “Post-accept” implies the same thing as “super-accept”, i.e., bidding beyond responder's suit. If you are using the in-between bid to show a dislike of responder's suit, and responder's suit to show you like it, the proper term is “pre-reject”.

You should also explain that you are talking about the siuation where responder's 2 bid shows s and his 2NT bid shows s. There are folks who 2NT and 3 as the minor-suit transfer bids to whom you post will otherwise be unintelligible.

Finally, there are those who use pre-accept over 2 (because they think it's better in game- and slam-auctions) and pre-reject over 2NT (so they can also bid 2NT when holding both minors, planning to pass openers rebid). That should be an option in your poll.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if it's only 50-50 that partner will be on the same wavelength, I'll try 4. I wouldn't have agreed to play non-leaping Michaels, but I did. In fact, if I don't bid 4 here, partner will likely be annoyed with me for forgetting about one of his toys…
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Non-fiction” doesn't mean “true”. The Almagest is still non-fiction even though we know now the universe is not geocentric.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since RHO didn't raise, they are much more likely to play in spades than hearts, so partner's lead shouldn't be a big concern here.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So is “ethnic finesse” (a) bigotted; (b) a comment on the Cultural Revolution's opposition to bridge; © retrospectively a comment on the amount of finesse shown in island-building in the South China Sea; or (d) all of the above?
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I recall correctly, the Sadducees, who were bitter opponents of the Pharisees, controlled the temple, so it seems highly unlikely the moneychangers were Pharisees.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Genesis 19 would surely be another example.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, it's Law 21B (in combination with Law 22B defining the end of the auction period). Also, it's the final pass by the non-offending side that can be replaced, even if it was the next-to-last pass of the auction (in which case the cancelled final pass by the offending side is AI to the non-offending side and UI for the offending side).
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but the strange thing is that if your explanations wake up partner to any of his explanations having been in correct, he is to call the director immediately to correct his previous explanations (but the information is still UI).

Where it gets interesting is if partner had NOT needed to correct any previous statement (e.g., suppose the alert rule were that no meanings of 1NT were alertable, and the opponents did not ask). Then you announce partner's 2 bid as a transfer, which wakes up partner. Now they ask partner about your 1NT bid, and his correct answer is literally “natural, 15-18”. He must still bid his hand as if your 1NT bid showed the two unbid suits, but he is only required to tell the opponents your actual agreements, not the fact that he is continuing to bid according to some other system. The opponents are only entitled to your system. They may in many cases also be able to deduce that the wheels came off, but they aren't actually entitled to that _per se_.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because spades aren't breaking, that's why…
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I believe it is actually the “United Mexican States”, though I suppose that is close enough to still cause confusion.

Those who wonder why the United States is so often simply called “America” might try reading Sebastian De Grazia's _A Country with No Name_.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your hand matches your partner's incorrect explanation because you deliberately psyched, you should still give the correct explanation. When it becomes apparent that you psyched, the fact of the psych may yield additional inferences about your hand.

On the other hand, if your hand matches your partner's incorrect explanation because you misbid, this is a situation most people are unlikely ever to face. What would have made you remember?
Nov. 8, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top