Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Melanie Manfield
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78 79 80 81
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At what point is a player who thinks he may not have given a correct explanation, allowed to look at his convention card?
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that there are interesting aspects to this incident, but I don't think whether or not 3 was or wasn't alerted is one of them.

Any experienced player in an NABC event (I'm assuming that this hand occurred in an NABC event) could easily guess or ask the meaning of 3.

I'm much more interested in hearing about what world-class experts say should be done/bid in this situation.

My guess is that (after forgetting that I wasn't playing Kokish)I probably would bid 3NT, then (because 3NT is forcing in this pair's actual, agreed-upon system) end up playing 4 or 5. But, I really don't know.

My gut instinct is that there should have been a score adjustment. But, in the absence of an expert panel of players to hear an appeal, and in the absence (IMO) of a really thorough discussion of the core issues here – who knows?
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was nice meeting you in Memphis, Eric!

I hope that all of this negativism won't keep you from posting again (although I wouldn't blame you if it does).
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually when Huub B bid 2H, he thought that he was playing Kokish. Otherwise, why would he have bid 2 with that hand?

I don’t see how that information could reasonably be omitted when consulting a panel of any kind, whether players or directors.

As an advanced but not world-class expert player, my main interest is in figuring out what the right thing to do is in this kind of situation.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 19% to 22%.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Marty Harris –

What would you bid over 3 in this situation?
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this kind of situation, if I had bid 4 over 3, I might have passed 4, expecting a bad result.

Usually I feel as if I am obliged to try to bend over backwards to not take advantage, and err on the side of likely getting a bad result in these sorts of situations.

Am I wrong? Would appreciate expert advice.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was thinking that I would probably bid 3NT in this situation.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I try to avoid making comments aimed at one individual that are not positive.

However – I don't know Bahar Gidwani. But these comments about it being “highly suspicious” that a “successful entrepreneur” would take this job, have been repeated several times by the same person.

If you have something specific to say about the man, why not say it?
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, one question is – did North continue to bid exactly as he would have if he and his partner were, indeed, playing Kokish. Which of course is difficult to do when an “impossible” 3 response has been made.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm wondering whether other membership organizations ((501©(4)?) in the United States are structured in such a way that members are left in the dark about huge decisions (such as firing a CEO after 10 months when he has a 3-year contract, and the legal decisions and financial repercussions that have followed).

We still don't know the actual reason Mr. Gidwani was fired. Do we?
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite past history, despite today's date, my hopes were raised for a split second . . . .
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the kind of matter that used to be handled very effectively by an appeals committee made up of expert players.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director's lack of awareness at a critical juncture that written defenses needed to be provided (for the opening bid on Board 28), as described by Mr. Stamatov, was unfortunate.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The approach used in England referred to by David Burn to deal with cases like this (throwing out the board and awarding 3 IMPs to the non-offenders) seems sensible. However, that is not currently the rule in the ACBL.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be interesting to hear comments from anyone who would bid 3, since several experts have chosen that bid. Of course, it's a choice whether to post comments or not.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right now in the BW poll, 10% of respondents, including several experts, voted that they would bid 3S (many more say they would bid 3NT).

I agree that I would not bid 3S after the huddle (personally, I wouldn't bid it before the huddle either given that I think that bid doesn't make sense if you assume that partner remembers the system).
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would much prefer to see full disclosure and thus no need to consider the possibility of a decision about whether or not to seek redress.

There do seem to be some different views on different sides of the Atlantic on this (that is a generalization, I know).

Given the history, it is probably a good idea to pre-alert anything which may be unfamiliar to opponents at a North American tournament.

And again, I am not saying that a bidding accident occurred because of a lack of awareness of a convention being used, or an opportunity to discuss (at least briefly) how to defend against it. I don't think we have enough information about what occurred.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of comments have referred to the Vanderbilt's being a high-level competition as a reason why players shouldn't have to pre-alert their methods or provide suggested defenses.

Anyone (pretty much) is allowed to enter the Vanderbilt. Of course, not just “anyone” is likely to win! The idea is not that secret bidding systems or agreements are an accepted part of player strategy. I'm sure that the accepted framework is that players have a right to know about opponents' agreements and methods and to prepare in advance to handle them.

This is just a general comment and not intended to be an opinion on whether or not the initial result on Board 26 should have been appealed (and I really don't have enough information to have an opinion on that).
March 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78 79 80 81
.

Bottom Home Top