Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, in English an unmodified judgmental statement is understood to be the opinion of the writer. Now, if the writer means the opinion to be attributed to someone else THEN he needs to say so explicitly.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al, the regulations merely specify you say “transfer” instead of “alert” in certain situation. They most emphatically do NOT suggest that you repeat the word “transfer” if asked to explain the bid; indeed that would most most useless.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, that's certainly true when someone writes down a *valid* proof of a theorem, but even then there is the question of the language in which the proof is valid. For example, do statements in the proof quantify only over individuals and not over relations? Unless the proof is written by a logician, there may well be quantification over relations (which makes the proof invalid in first-order logic)–which might or might not be able to be reduced to quantification over individuals, but the author and the readers may not much care.

For example, starting with the field axioms, the statement “F is a field of characteristic zero” can't be expressed in first-order logic, but is quite clear in the language of everyday mathematics, and is used in the statement (and the proof) of many theorems. Sure, you could restate much of the content of such theorems into first-order logic by axiomatizing fields of characteristic zero separately but (a) that requires an infinite number of axioms, and (b) most mathematicians wouldn't do so in practice.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I have a complicated auction and end up declaring, my partner and I leave our bidding cards on the table until the opening lead is faced, and no opponents ever complain about it. ;)

They also tend not to mind if they have a complicated auction and we ask “leave them out”.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any event, as a practical matter, if the RA is going to tell them they have agreements they don't actually have, it at least needs to tell them when they no longer have the agreements they don't actually have, so they know when it's safe to remove them from their card.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they never changed their methods, which never involved having an agreement to open light in 3rd seat. As a result of a couple of psychs, they were forced to add something to their card that was not part of their agreed methods. If the regulator authorities force them to do that, why shouldn't they use it to their best advantage?
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The regulating authorities would also need to worry about the opposite problem: Suppose a partnership opens light a couple of times in 3rd seat, so then they add it to their card because they are told they “have to”, but they never do it again. And now opponents may be playing suboptimal methods against their (completely normal) third seat openers.
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, so you mean out-of-turn light third-seat openers?

(Sorry, it's been a while since I played in a club game, so I guess I should ask if that's still what they're like.)
Sept. 13, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 13, 2016
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
.

Bottom Home Top