Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John O'Connor
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where do you get the idea that the TD accused me of cheating? Did you read my original post? I wrote that RHO accused me of cheating.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dan:
“Just a guess here that when OP talked to the TD he added something like, ”I could tell exactly what (s)he had!“ It's not illegal to notice, but you can't watch how opponents sort cards or where they pull from.”

I object in the strongest possible terms to your putting words into my mouth - especially when you then use it to make an oblique suggestion to the fact that I may have done something wrong.

I mentioned to the TD that my RHO had been putting cards into the holder with gaps between the suits. I had no need to say more, I trusted the director to deal with the matter.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The last time that I passed with a hand like this, opps ended up in 3NT which made when partner made his normal lead.
At the end of the play he looked at me and said:
“You wanted me to lead a Diamond. But how can I do that if you do not bid them?”
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 tables seems to work out best because you spend the session playing as two teams of four and that makes the bridge make more sense. At least to me. Three tables does not seems to be too many people though sometimes we struggle to get through 24 boards with the extra time take to discuss the play at three tables.
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do we have a 2 opening bid in our systems? Surely it is to save the embarrassment of opening one of a suit with a big hand and hearing pass pass pass when game or even a slam is on.
If you open this hand 1, how likely is it to be passed out? On a hand with such extreme distribution, that will just not happen. Somebody must have a 5 card heart suit and somebody probably has 5 spades. If partner does not have enough to bid then one of the opponents will have enough to overcall.
I'd open 1 and be prepared to rebid 5 or 6 .
Dec. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, just as blind people make better use of their other senses, people with poor face-recognition will often do the same.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having good eyesight does not make you good at recognizing faces.
You can have fighter pilot vision, able to spot and ID an incoming MIG when it is just a dot on the horizon to most people and still be unable to find your wing-man in a crowded bar.
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt that Frances is failing to see the resemblance. Far more likely, she is able to see the differences that most people cannot.
That is a much more useful ability than seeing the resemblances because if you take that latter skill to the extreme, you end up with what is known as face-blindness.
That way, you turn up at a bridge tournament and attempt to register. Then they go and ask if your partner is here yet and you are all “how would I know?”
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hamish and I have discussed that, since we both do this, we should practice synchronised clicking when we are partners but we have not yet made it happen. :)
Once, playing against a couple of 18 year olds who asked if I was counting like that, I said that when I was their age, I would just zip my thumb over the cards so fast that I could not count individual clicks but that I knew what thirteen sounded like as a burst of clicks. They looked really impressed so I never told them that I was kidding.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Ray, I wanted a general poll as I am interested in the discussion about the UI issues as well as the question as to what you might bid.
Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Matchpoints, partner does not have enough HCP to make a penalty double. We have played about once every two months for the last year and normally finish in the top few places - prize money - in tournaments.
Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wanted to add a second page but could not see how to do so. Hence, my follow up regarding the UI comes as a comment.
A few minutes earlier, I had been unable to not hear a key comment from the upstream table as they post-mortemed the hand.
“Whoever bids, loses.”
Clearly that suggests a pass on my part.
I did what I considered to be the right thing. I called the TD and explained the situation. (In such a way that the rest of the table was aware that I had heard something but knew not what it was.)
I did this before the auction had started.
The TD directed that we should bid and play the hand and said that he would review matters after.
I passed and 2C making was big but the TD decided that since my pass was directed by the UI, this result should not stand and the table was awarded 60% all round and the player at the other table was admonished.
I am not seeking to argue with that result. 2 making would have seen us finishing 2nd while a 60% award had us 3rd but I am more interested in doing the right thing.
I feel that I would have passed the 2 without the UI but I heard the comment so I know that I cannot claim to be the person who did not hear it. I also feel that I did the most important right thing by calling the TD and explaining the situation. Should I have bid 2 as a logical alternative even though that would have amounted to shooting myself in the foot and dropping to 4th overall?
I do not know. Hence the request for advice.
Oct. 28, 2018
John O'Connor edited this comment Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many press releases did the EBU send out about that?
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another item in the bbc about bridge at the asian games:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/45328519
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but none of that is relevant to bridge. The issue is that a court process in France is likely to overturn the decision of a French sport promoter to bar a competitor and that would overturn the current practice whereby national, regional and global bridge authorities have barred bridge competitors by disinviting them from competition.
July 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The appeal is to the court of arbitration of the French Olympic Committee. The bbc could have been clearer in their report.
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Go Akarana go!!!!
July 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>>I take it the hands are suited by machine-dealing

No. I play at the same club as Alan and the hands do not come out of the dealing machine suited.
June 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely one of the advantages of electronic play is that is eliminates many possible ways of cheating.

I would be very dismayed by an electronic system that allowed players to revoke.

The reason is simple. Under the current laws, in certain very particular circumstances, an intentional revoke can be a risk free way for a player to attempt to gain advantage.

For example, you are defending a suit contract, sitting over dummy and declarer is trying to establish dummy's long suit. This might be the trump suit after a transfer auction or it might be a side suit. You have one card left in this suit when declarer calls for a card from dummy, you believe that partner also has at least one more card in the suit and you revoke.

Declarer cannot know about the revoke at this stage but will be forced to draw another round of trumps or to ruff an additional trick in the side suit using up his own trumps and dummy's entries as well as getting one fewer discard on the side suit.

You play out the hand, concealing the revoke and at the end of play, you quickly fold and shuffle your hand without revealing your last card.

So what is the outcome? Perhaps your ruse had no effect and you won no further tricks. Or perhaps your side won an extra trick because declarer drew an unnecessary extra round of trumps that he could not afford, Or perhaps declarer could not take all of the discards that he needed on dummy's side suit.

What if the revoke is noticed by a declarer who actually takes care to count to 13? The director is called and equity is restored - at no additional penalty to the revoker.

So there you have it. An intentional revoke that can never lose and may from time to time win a trick if you get away with it.

Of course, you cannot prove that the revoke was intentional but when one person does it to you twice in exactly these circumstances then what do you suspect?

That is why an electronic play system must not allow revokes.
April 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Announce a short delay and take the boards back. The TD and his helpers then scan the boards looking for half a dozen deals on which knowledge of the position of just one important card makes a big difference. For example, if it matters that West has the King of Spades then swap West's King for a small spade from he East hand.
The event can then be played as normal and woe betide any players who relied on that King still being in the West hand. You still have hand records available with the addition of a note of the changes.
Feb. 25, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top