Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With much longer hearts I don't think they should have corrected to 4S. Having done that I don't think 5H shows longer hearts.
July 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Say the auction goes
1H (P) 1S (P)
2N (P) 3N (very slow pass)
A beginner who has never heard of a Lightner double can lead a doubleton spade honor if they want to. An expert can't. Not because the rules aren't the same, but what the BIT suggests is different. To the beginner, the hesitation just suggests that his partner forgot whose turn it was, or is trying to remember what a 2NT rebid means, or what he is having for dinner tonight; to the expert it suggests he was considering a double for a spade lead.

Same rules, different ruling.
July 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Read Rui's post above. Which part do you disagree with?

Do you think Rui is “someone competent”? I think he is experienced in this field and doesn't find it so clear cut.

As one of the few posters on this thread who could be considered for inclusion in the poll on what the UI suggested, I would say “nothing but confusion” and I am fairly confident that would be the majority answer.

Ethics are important to me and on many occasions with no director call I have made bids that I was pretty sure were losing because I thought I possessed UI that suggested another bid. Once I went to the director after the game to suggest rolling back a successful bid I had made when I realized while reviewing the board that I had UI that favored the action I took. I would completely comfortable making that bid if I wanted to. I would appeal if the director rolled it back. I understand than many more experienced players believe slow always shows extras, I just don't agree in this situation.
July 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I believe the pair likely didn't get much inference from the huddle, I can easily imagine this going either way. What seems really awful is the failure to explain the ruling. A teaching moment was squandered and instead a pair felt really abused.

I don't think there is anything wrong with calling the director and appealing, even if I agree with the original ruling. I don't believe that newer players competing in serious events deserve any different treatment and absolutely need to be subject to the same rules. My reason for agreeing with the original ruling is solely that I don't think the UI suggested any specific action in that partnership (and absent knowing the tone/feel of the huddle).
July 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the sigh has that flavor yes, but sometimes it's the “I wish I knew if 4C was an invite but I don't so I have to bid 5C” sigh. It is very hard without having been at the table, and as I said it is definitely possible to convey weakness or strength with mannerisms/tone during the pause; if that happened then I would roll it back. However many here seem to think any pause shows extras; I very much doubt it did for that pair, where it is hard to say what shows what at all.
July 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being closer than most here to that level, I agree strongly.

The huddle could have been to consider:
- 3N vs 5C
- 3M vs 5C - will pard know it is forcing?
- 4C vs 5C - will pard take 4C as invitational?
- pass vs 5C - just one player left maybe pard has preempted high enough
- 4C vs 5C - how high to preempt
- 4C vs 5C - should I invite or just bid game

Many of those possibilities suggest passing.

I am still struggling to know when I can think without transmitting limiting UI and when I can't. To me this auction clearly indicates bidding confusion at a level where making inferences from a huddle (assuming the feel of it was neutral and it was only a delay) are impossible.

It is possible for players at this level to transmit UI by tone or other. For example I played with a flight C pickup partner at the club after a schedule mixup and had an auction that went:
1S by me
Long pause by partner, moving hand back and forth between pass and 2S, touching both, eventually bidding 2S while rolling eyes and mumbling “what have I done”

Absent tone, these players just can't make inferences from huddles like this, nor can they bid quickly in cases many readers here would consider clearcut.
July 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

I like your “my brain was getting rated” phrase. Do you feel that way at bridge? I do, but I wonder if over time that feeling fades, or if being far ahead of your competitors mitigates that feeling?

(Yesterday's last match I give my brain a D- at best!)
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that men shouldn't be lumped together and blamed as a group.

I am Jewish and have never experienced anti semitism at bridge. If others think it's a problem we can discuss it. Same for Rusophobia.

Just because any slight could be perceived as group bias doesn't mean that some are not actually because of group bias. I believe sexism is a problem in bridge that we should discuss and address.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Louis,

I don't know why; my point was just that given that observation I suspect that there will be less women hired absent women's events so for that practical reason I favor keeping the women's events.

I think this issue is complex and unclear.

Ed,

I do think there might be a small increase in women getting hired fot open events but not enough to offset the lack of women's events. Of course this is a guess.

Is it a good thing that one mostly needs to be hired to play at that level? I think if equal funding were available for teams determined by objective trials it would be better in many ways. But again practically speaking I think the opportunity for a lot of bridge players to play professionally is good and the current funding model provides that. I find “good” hard to judge in this case.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It appears to be the case that women have some extra challenges being hired on teams for open events.

Given that, it seems like eliminating women's events would likely endanger the professional careers of some female players.

While intellectually having women's events seems silly to me, if practically speaking it would reduce the opportunities for women to play bridge professionally I think we should keep the events.

Since men appear to have no problem getting hired fot open events I don't think we need separate men's events.

It is possible that elimination of the women's events would lead to more female sponsors in the open events and more women being hired on those teams. However I think this is unlikely; anecdotally I see female sponsors hiring mostly male teams for open events.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “female” is relevant to the topic of improving the environment for females in the junior program but it might better have been phrased “female top player” rather than “top female player” if Adam meant “a female who is a top player” rather than “a top player among females”.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At a nightclub I might remark on which women are attractive. At a bridge tournament I will remark on which player appear skillful.

If a strong player happens to be the only black player or the only gay player in the room should that be how they are identified?

“Who did Bob play with?”
“Fred.”
“Fred's black. With really dark skin.”
or
“Fred's gay.”

Just doesn't seem that important.

Arguably this is worse because when attractiveness is the immediate response to her playing with a well-regarded partner it can create an inference that the attractiveness is the reason for the partnership not present in.the “black” or “gay” case.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were directing and the rules permitted I would give the opponent a procedural penalty of three boards and make whatever referral is appropriate for a possible suspension.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Today one of my opponents commented on the physical attractiveness of a talented female player. I simply added that she was also a very good bridge player. Maybe next time my opponent will choose a different compliment.

Without this thread I might have let it pass. If all of us speak up a little more I think it will have an impact over time.
July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan,

We all give up a little bit of freedom so that society functions better. When I need to urinate while playing bridge it might be more convenient for me to unzip and just pee at the side of the table (hey, it's pairs, if I am EW I won't be there very long), I actually get up and use the restroom. If I don't the authorities will disciple me. This is a reasonable rule.

Just like bridge players should not have to watch their fellow players urinate and smell it afterwards, I think:
- bridge players should not have their hands touched inappropriately
- bridge players should not be ogled or treated as sex objects
- bridge directors should not make themselves more available to men than women
- bridge players should be respected for their ability at the table regardless of their gender

I hope that in 20 or 50 years these behaviour will seem nearly as unacceptable as urinating at the table.

I am not sure that the ACBL or WBF can be very effective in driving this right now - I think the solution is us. We have to make it clear that these behaviors are not ok and lead by example.

It seems that at every turn you attack efforts to raise these issues. I don't know if you are contrarian by nature and just like to argue or if you want to live in a world where freedom trumps the assertions I made above.

I want to live in a world where we all restrain our actions a bit for the benefit of the group. I want to live in a world where a restaurant can't have a separate seating area for whites. And I want to live in a world where women can play bridge without being harassed and objectified.

Perhaps you should start a bridge organization with maximum freedom. The liberty bridge league could dispense with a zero tolerance policy and allow any type of conversation among competitors they want. Ogling women and commenting on them could be allowed. You could have a “girls of the LBL” calendar and website. Anyone concerned with the oppression of white men might like your league.

I think you will recruit very few to your league but I would love to see it occur. You and those who agree with you, however many there may be, can have your liberty. We can have a culture that continues to slowly and painfully, in our eyes, improve.

(Fixed autocorrect typo)
July 1, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment July 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article has definitely caused more than its share of moments when I want to stab someone in the face (funny, because I don't normally have many of those). Thankfully I was able to resist the urge; even if some of my posts I wrote as an alternative are taken down at least I will avoid the jail time associated with the stabbing.
June 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geeske,

“Like”ing your post didn't quite feel right but thanks for sharing.

It is unfortunate that in addition to the normal rudeness at the bridge table that men endure as well you also have to deal with those situations.
June 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I know that the way I play many hands offends and disgusts me and any reasonable bridge player!

In all seriousness we are offending and alienating quite a few (female) bridge players and I hope we will try hard to stop.
June 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Ray.

While most of the workplace laws won't apply in a bridge environment, it does seem like many feel a significant or pervasive environment of hostility. My point is that if a statement contributes to that (and would for a reasonable person in the same position), it is part of the problem and we need to stop making it if we want people to be comfortable.

This is how, as a non lawyer, I was trained to avoid harassment in the workplace (both as an individual and a manager). I think if we applied similar thinking to the bridge environment we would make it more comfortable for many at the cost of having to edit ourselves sometimes. I think this would be a good tradeoff, others may disagree.

I guess my notion of “objective” is narrower than how the law sees it, but in any case I do strongly believe we can have useful dialog about what will offend reasonable people.
June 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the line is blurry around official figures. In libel law there is a distinction made. In community governance it will be up to the site admins who I think generally show good judgement (even of they do remove my post). My point was not to attack Don as a person, but to make the point that those in positions of authority must be able to lead on issues that are difficult and subjective and I thought he was frighteningly far from that. Perhaps unfair to hold him to that standard since he is no longer President.
June 26, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top