Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, suppose a judge dismisses a case without prejudice. Are you seriously suggesting that one must either imagine the judge acted without “authority” or that the dismissal was “definitive”?

Surely the definition of “definitive” that you are using is not the one that applies in a legal setting.
Sept. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All this began as a discussion about disclosure, yes? But disclosure of the nuances of a natural bid often occurs in response to opponents' questions rather than on the convention card. For example, when I play Precision, with aggressive 1st and 2nd seat actions, I don't open light in 3rd seat any more often, nor more light, than the average bear. But it matters more when I do. Why? Because those light openings are a lot more different from my typical 3rd seat openings (QUITE SOUND) than from the average bear's typical 3rd seat openings. There's no good way to indicate this on the (ACBL) convention card: if I checked “very light 3rd hand” people would complain when they kept misplaying hands–because I pass some 13 counts in 3rd seat.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what evidence has been presented of what disclosures were made in the events in which those hands occurred?
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can only control what I write, not what happens between your ears when you read it. The idea that “making someone feel unwelcome” would with any likelihood involve “hitting them in the face” is completely foreign to manners in my country–and, I would have thought, in all other countries as well. But perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding and matters are in fact different in Australia?
Sept. 12, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In what world is refusing to play against someone not “making them feel unwelcome”????
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd rather not stir the pot any more.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the penalty had been 32 IMPs and the boards rendered unplayable had simply been canceled (even without a 3 IMP/board penalty) the result WOULD have been different.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why having lodged a protest is an excuse for refusing to play. Presumably if the authorities find the protest to be legitimate, there would be further sanctions for the other side having continued to play that pair. Since it takes time to evaluate this sort of accusation, one can't reasonable expect it to have been evaluated instantly, or even in the space of 3 hours. If one isn't willing to continue to play under those circumstances, one should just go home.
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
?
Sept. 12, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shouldn't the IMP penalty have been 32 IMPs PLUS 3 IMPs per board for the six boards rendered unplayable, with no boards being substituted?
Sept. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What the ^&*^* do you mean “score”? These are polls, not Master Solvers Club.
Sept. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think most bridge players can see a name printed on their seat. ;)
Sept. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. If the Director assumes the opponents are that stupid, he is likely to create further problems. :)
Sept. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that if the vast majority of players elect not to receive the Bulletin, then you might want to start raising prices for those still receiving it…but that would come years later. This way you find out how many people actually don't want or expect it, instead of just guessing.
Sept. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would make all junior memberships $5, potentially including a hardcopy Bulletin, and I would give ALL members an option not to receive the Bulletin by mail as a way to save both the environment and ACBL costs. I bet this will result in juniors getting the Bulletin by mail who actually want that AND in fewer Bulletins being printed in total than are printed today (and thus less total cost to the ACBL).

I would suggest the ACBL should make very clear its commitment to keep all back issues of the Bulletin, starting with whatever is available today, available online forever to members.

(FWIW, I am not a junior.)
Sept. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Dictator” needn't imply bad intent. The Romans started using the word because “rex” would not have been PC. Now “dictator” is not PC, either. :)
Sept. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And here I thought cheating in the mixed events was only allowed between sessions…
Sept. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,
I don't know that you can conclude that East used UI to his advantage based on the facts as stated. After all, East is *obliged* to use UI if it helps him remember his partnership agreement *for the purpose of describing that agreement correctly to his opponents*. He just can't use it when he makes his own calls and plays. Perhaps a fine distinction, but a very important one.
Sept. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, David, now I am trying to remove from my mind's eye the image of ACBL regulators being used by really old people.
Sept. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll take a stab at A, but first a cautionary note: For most players who use it, “all strengths” means you don't bid unusual 2NT (or Michaels 2 or 2 for much the same reasons) on weak hands–you're forcing matters to the three-level, and your suits are outranked. There is very little room for inviting, and partner needs to be able to assume you have the goods on offense–you want him to raise, right? You really don't want them declaring knowing your shape but partner not knowing which of your suits to lead. If you are weak, your suits can't both be good. Either preempt in the one that is good, or pass. The only time I'll use any of these two-suited bids on a non-opening hand is if I am bidding 2 or 2 (and even then I'd rather bid 1 or 2 with AQJ10x xxxxx xx x) or I have at least 11 cards.

Anyhow, this is why “all strengths” is playable…the range is somewhat narrower than it sounds.

As for A: I thought it was pretty mainstream to use 3 and 3 as invitations rather than pure preempts opposite 2 or 2 Michaels. Of course, if you have a preempt, you might also bid this because when partner accepts it's often based on extra distribution anyway. If you have an invite with equal length, you raise the cue bid. (You could also bit this way with a moose without equal length.) 2NT is invitational, too, but it's also natural.
Aug. 28, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top