Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Becker
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two sided comment:
Many years ago I thought you regularly misbehaved and the table.
What happened that changed you into the nice person you are today?

Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Along with Ronnie Rubin, Matt Granovetter and myself, Matt Ginsberg authored “The Ultimate Club.” Young Matt actually wrote it all! (because the others could not agree on format, presentation, etc.) Published in 1981, the book laid out our relay system (created by Dave Cliff) in accurate, boring detail. The book sold out its 3,000 copy printing in about five years. Matt went on to a brilliant career in mathematics, computing and education…
https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Matthew+L.+Ginsberg
Oct. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If, for example, Boye claimed, the director would rule 7N making (I think).
If a novice claimed, the director would rule down one.
I don't know the skill level of the claimer.
Looks like there may be different rules for different people.
And perhaps rightfully so.
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not saying they cheated.

Boye or Larry Cohen would say something like, "One hand like this, they are lucky; if there are many more like this, they cheat. That's why I recorded the hand (the Director went to them and told them so).

I thought a low club is suspicious. I have yet to find a top player who would lead a low club.

I have recorded fewer than 5 hands in my 58 year bridge life. That they confessed somewhat supports my judgement.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2015 Spingold R32. No screens. You Vul.

P-1H-P-2H
2N*-P-5C-P
P-P

*minors

Your hand (you raised to 2H):
Qxx
109xx
Jxx
Axx

What would you lead?
….
….
I asked my Boca bridge game – 8 NABC champs. Five led a spade, two a heart, one the club ace.

After discussion, we all agreed a spade was clear:
Declarer has a heart stack (could not enter the bidding over one heart). The club ace and another works only when declarer has a singleton diamond and needs two diamond ruffs to make the hand. If I lead a low club, I won't get back in time to play ace and another to do any good. A spade may set up a spade trick for us, and hopefully we could find another trick somewhere.

After two full minutes, with “S” squirming and looking around the room, “P” led……..a low club.

“S” held:
KJxx
Kxxxx
Qxx
K

Dummy was 3-0-5-5. A spade or a low club beats it.

I recorded the hand with the director.

My team lost the match by 5 IMPs.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's been a mystery to me, and I've been asked many times.

B. Jay, my dad, did not invent Becker over NT. (2C = both m's, 2D = both M's, other suit calls natural, I think)
Neither did I or brother Steve or uncle Simon, cousins Bobby and Murray, or wife Judy (all LMs and 3 of them NABC champs).

Neither did R. Jay, (not a relative).

Maybe Phil from Cleveland?!!
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Prior to the “start” of the event, the WBF Executive Council can change the CoCs at any time for any reason!

http://www.worldbridge.org/conditions-of-contest.aspx

WBF General CoCs page 29:

38. Changes to the Conditions of Contest. The WBF Executive Council, or the Championship Committee by its delegation, reserves the authority to modify or supplement these Conditions of Contest and the Supplemental Conditions of Contest, at any time after its publication and before the beginning of the Championships. After the start of the Championships only on the initiative of the Head Tournament Director may changes be proposed to the Championship Committee, which will then decide whether or not to implement such amendments.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well presented.

How the catchers caught the cheaters is a terrific story. If it were made into a movie, it would resemble “All the President's Men,” where Woodward and Bernstein help take down Nixon.

Thrilling! I am so happy for bridge!
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion has made me go to my notes and the “book.” We actually could show any 7600 after a 1 club opening.

Some combination of bids would get responder to bid 2H or higher. The combination of bids below 2H identified the number of AKQ points we had. ( a dot “.” = a relay bid):

7006 2H.3C.5D
7060 2H.3D.5H
7600 2H.6H
0706 2S.3C.5D
0760 2S.3D.5H
6700 2S.3S.5N
0076 3C.6C
0670 3C.3H.5S
6070 3C.3S..5N
0067 2H.2N.3D.5H
0607 2H.2N.3H.5S
6007 2H.2N.3S..5N

The book said with specifically 0076 3C.6C fall off chair.

“Fall off chair” was the only joke in our book on the Ultimate club. Otherwise VERY dry reading.
Sept. 22, 2015
Mike Becker edited this comment Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnna: I will come clean too.

Ron and I, playing the Ultimate Club, had a relay response for any distribution other than 7-6-0-0. We discussed how to handle it: Show 6-6 and then fall off our chair! It's in our book! Fortunately for us, we never had a 7-6-0-0. :)
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not an attorney. Just another victim. From years of watching Law and Order reruns:

“Allocution: a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty, prior to being sentencing. It is part of the criminal procedure in some common law jurisdictions…In plea bargains, an allocution may be required of the defendant; the defendant explicitly admits specifically and in detail to what he or she did and for what reason, in exchange for a reduced sentence. In principle, it removes any doubt as to the exact nature of the defendant's guilt in the matter…”

This should be the procedure for any pair pleading guilty of cheating. If their allocution is not truthful and complete, it may not be accepted by the “court.”
Sept. 19, 2015
Mike Becker edited this comment Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have asked to see their system notes, accompanying them to their rooms if not printed but in a doc but on their tablet or computer. Players of this level ALWAYS have a copy of their notes with them. Providing system notes should be a matter of routine by now.
My notes with my last five partners do not cover this situation.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is in the best interests of bridge that the Sport Accord be a successful event, and continue to be held. The organizers asked us to send our best team. We are sending the best team we could.

But the Open team we are sending lacks the quality (say, based on ACBL SPs or WBF rankings), of previous teams sent to this event by our country or other countries. If each country sent teams of this quality, the event could disappear.

If I were the organizer, I would not invite the U.S. to send a team next time, or provisionally invite a U.S. team, subject to an evaluation of the talent of the players. It could be that the organizers change their rules on how teams are invited.

Perhaps the USBF BoD might have informed the organizers before the vote was taken, of the four pairs on the Open ballot and asked for them for input as to what to do. On the other hand, we are sending an excellent Women's team and if the Open Team was not invited, the worthy Women's team would not be invited either. That does not seem right. Being out of USBF politics, I have no idea what, if anything transpired. And it is likely that little could have been done by the organizers or the USBF so late in the process.
Sept. 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If a new suit by partner over my 2S would be forcing (debatable) then the cue bid suggests 3+ card support and a “good” invitation or better.

However, 3H could be bid on some hands where strain is the issue. Like Kx, Axxx, Axx(x), Axx(x), where the cue-bidder hopes that partner will be able to bid 3N or 4 of his 4-card minor. What would you bid over 2H-P-P-2S, P- with this hand? So jumping to 4S is out. Once partner goes back to 3S (rather than XX or some other call), he suggests more strongly that he has 3-card support.

Following with 4C is indicated (whether over 3H-X or after partner's 3S, in case partner wants to play 5C (or even 6C). I would NEVER stop in 3S (and I'm a known conservative).

I think passing 3H X'd is optional. It gains when partner can bid 4S and the opponents know nothing about my hand. It loses when partner takes a long time to bid 3S. So if I were the 2S bidder, I would write my screenmate, AFTER the tray has passed, that I am not passing 3S, protecting myself. My screenmate will learn little from my note.
Aug. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. In (potentially) match determining or event determining situations, there should ALWAYS be a committee of 5 people rather than 3. The chance of getting a ruling wrong is substantially reduced when a committee is larger than 3. That said, sometimes getting another 2 committee members is difficult.



2. In a situation where a procedural penalty is assessed
…Should consideration be given to whether one side OR the other achieved a good score or bad one, or made an error or a brilliant play, or achieved a lucky result or an unlucky result, or won IMPs by playing a hand wrong while playing a hand right would have lost IMPs? I am not sure.

My “guess” is that procedural penalties should be given regardless of the nature of the result. But my guess is also that committees may not ALWAYS follow that practice. Perhaps the amount of a procedural penalty (if any) should take into account the situations above. Maybe someone more familiar with the laws can explain.



July 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The primary task of the Hall of Fame Committee is to get those people who merit being in the Hall of Fame admitted, and to keep those people who don't belong in the Hall of Fame out, using a democratic process. This involves establishing fair rules and procedures regarding who votes and who is on the ballot and presenting accurate information to the electors.

Having helped design the current rules in 2002, and having audited a meeting in St. Louis, I can report that the Committee is aware of the huge backlog of deserving experts who have not been elected, and is doing the best they can to resolve it. They have an incredible amount of data and several good ideas. It will take several years.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have led a trump. What if dummy has K, KJ9, KQxxxx, Kxx and declarer has Axxxx, AQxxxxxx, void, void? Only a trump lead beats 7 .

If partner has spades locked up it is hard to imagine where a loser in Cohler's hand can go, unless north has 11 red cards. I, too, feel for John H and the whole team. Winning this way is ugly.
July 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OOPs – I just saw Peter's comment, and Peter is a;ways right, so again, forget about everything I wrote!
July 21, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More on seeding the GNT KO stage: If you are team 8, you will play, theoretically, the best team left. The Spector team (possibly the best team in the field), finished in the bottom 8 last tear and I believe the team that placed 8th in the Swiss Qualifying was forced to play them. So it is better to place any other number than 8th, even last, than to place 8th. But actually, last year, the team that placed 8th in the Swiss played Spector, beat them, and went on to win the event, so forget about everything I just wrote!
July 21, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the GNT Qualifying, I think the top 4 choose from the bottom 8 (teams that finished 9-16), and then the teams that finished 5th thru 8th, choose from the remaining 4 teams. So team 8 plays whatever team is left.
July 21, 2011
.

Bottom Home Top