Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 269 270 271 272
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh- I understand. Just explaining how we do things up here in uff da-land :)
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Ray - I don' t get it. First of all, I know that a number of the contracts and disclosures we have are mandated by the MN legislature; I'm just not sure about this one. And - we have a state that is very concerned about protecting citizens' rights. Thus my point is that if our legislature thought that this addendum was to protect Realtors and did little for buyers and sellers - or was likely to harm them - good odds it would be gone.

Of course I can't speak for others. But I know that I always explain the pros and cons of each - period. I've never even thought of it as something that might protect me!
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - I'm not sure a bid made 1-3 times a year counts as “occasionally.” And - as far as it being “allowed” - when a national director tells you “just bridge” - I believe him.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, let me give you another example. My partner and I prefer to play that 2NT over a minor is forcing; either 12-14 or 18-19. So - we are faced with what to do with a dreaded balanced 11.

Since we open good 14's 1NT, there is some argument for judging if it is a below average 11 count, and simply bid 1NT with them over a minor. With some hands, though, this doesn't seem right. So - perhaps a few times a year, we'll punt and bid a 3 card major - awaiting developments.

This happened once against less experienced players. They called the director, and the director said that we should alert. But - we likely have literally thousands of auctions when we bid a major over a minor and have 4+ for every one hand where we do not.

This seemed odd to me, so I inquired of a higher up director. “It's just bridge,” he told me. “You do not need to alert.”

THERE you have it.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I have a question for you, Ray. Most experienced players would open 1 holding: AJ10xxx, Axxxxx, x, none. My guess is most less experienced players would not.

So. Should all the experienced players have to alert their openings because sometimes they will have fewer than 11-12 HCP?
Oct. 21
Go
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Makes sense! With very few exceptions, I'm among the shortest bridge players ever! ;)
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I'm not 100% sure of the process both for the purchase agreements and the arbitration agreement. I do know with certainty that a number of the forms and the verbiage in them is a matter of MN statute.

In any case, I think that for most knowledgeable and ethical Realtors, we simply explain the differences between signing the arbitration agreement or declining. As the post I am going to share shows, there are pluses and minuses with both avenues.

I think that you are surmising incorrectly, however, that the purpose of it is to protect Realtors. I view it as an opportunity for parties to choose to have limited, both in cost and time, negotiations for those rare times when something goes awry.

That being said, I outline the positives and negatives of each choice - and - (as I do with pretty much everything!) let the principals themselves choose what they think is best!

https://my.mnrealtor.com/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=469a8ee1-c2ec-f850-04ce-2f9f76008a99&forceDialog=0
Oct. 21
Go
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, Richard. Many moons ago, I remember playing against a world class opponent in a major team event. I had a hand where I felt confident I could beat him at the 2 level. Yet, I also believed that if I competed once more, this aggressive competitor would also bid again.

I was correct - but - as you state: how do you program all this sort of data into a computer? There is also the issue of different people disagreeing as to what any given individual would, or would not, do at the table in various scenarios.
Oct. 21
Go
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit - thanks for the explanation. (Sorry Jim; this is more understandable to me than your post.) But it seems to me, if I comprehend it accurately, that you're basically dealing with human emotions, where your opponent might become fearful due to your action - then misjudge.

In theory, at least, AI won't have these emotions and/or fears … Am I correct?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty rarely, Ray. When I bid because I have a stiff or void in partner's minor, most of the time I am improving where we land. If I bid a suit and partner jump shifts, I've got more in THAT suit and can pass at the 2 level - with a semblance of a fit.

Even when partner rebids 2NT, sometimes you can scramble more tricks than you can with a trump holding of Kxx opposite none or x.

It's not a guarantee for success. But my experience is that, more often than not, bidding is more successful than passing.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you've ever had the joy of passing with no points and a stiff or void in partner's minor, then you find a bid with shortness there - even with no points.

Often, you can find yourself earning a plus instead of going down in your 3 or 4 card minor suit fit. Once in a while, that plus can even be a game…
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, it is my belief that one should not be forced into giving up this right. That being said, I see no difficulties in a private organization stating that anyone who becomes a member must agree to arbitration. And, in my own work (as a Realtor) we often see people agreeing to arbitrate issues that might arise after a purchase rather than litigate in court. They aren't forced to do so; they choose to do it.

No one has an inherent right to be an ACBL member. Thus, I don't see a problem with the League having as a condition of membership that one must agree to have various issues resolved by arbitration.

BTW - I just renewed my membership. I could not have done so unless I checked a box that said I agreed to arbitration.
Oct. 21
Go
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim - how do you bluff in chess?
Oct. 21
Go
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you hit on what I find to be one of the critical issues. How many hands have we seen where a declarer makes it because he immediately plays on his xx opposite Jxx holding in NT? Or, as you say, a player psychs a suit or a splinter, and then a contract comes home that otherwise likely would not have.

I plead guilty to knowing close to nothing about programming in such areas. But, it would seem to me in Go or Chess, there is no “psyching” like this; the board is clear and open for all to see.

Not in bridge.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is it wrong to not alert if you play support doubles and your partner doesn't double? If you are not playing support doubles and your partner passes, do you need to alert and say “partner may not have heart support?” If you say “no” - then - what's the difference?

I don't play support doubles; sometimes we raise on 3 and sometimes not.

Do I need to alert that the raise might be 3, since some people usually have 4 to raise?
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO, this is part of what makes the game so fascinating. You learn x, y & z when you are starting out … then a,b,c,d, e - and then more and more as you gain additional proficiency and insight.

Surely the game is so complex and so deep, it's impossible to teach people “everything” starting out…. (Or, should I say “everything” is an impossibility? One simply continues on and on….)
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most of my partners would say I haven't been able to learn bidding in 40 years….
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ronald, as this was the year I became a Life Master, needless to say I wasn't quite near “expert” category! But, I had been taught that an alert meant something was unusual. As a result, since I thought PENALTY was “normal” - that was the one thing I did NOT think it could be! But - that was the meaning of the bid.

In any case, seems that if we alert too much, then people almost have to ask every time someone does alert - no? And, doesn't such a practice create its own issues?

As an aside, the multitude of comments on this post make me long for STILL playing in person against people with “live” bridge - but - being able to play on digital devices. Seems like it would be so much easier to have lots of explanations loaded on your digital CC - and only needing to type now and then for further explanation. (Of course, I'm able to type pretty rapidly, so - perhaps I have a bias there, too…..)
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, yes I saw that. But - what if your opponents don't agree that it is against your own interest and in their interest?

In my example of many years ago, my guess would be that my opponent was not trying to do something to my detriment in alerting something that I would think had no reason to be alerted. So - though the opponent thought what she did was proper, I disagreed.

If the rules don't tell us who is right - who does?
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael - I wasn't speaking directly to this one aspect of the rules. I was wondering why people shouldn't take your view and apply it to all aspects of the laws. Who's to say then, who really is correct about what “feels right” and does not with the wide range of laws we currently have? And - I'm not sure I understand the bottom line. If a director is called because opponents believe they were harmed, yet I did what I thought was “right” at the table - then is there no penalty for me? No recourse for the opponents?

Really; I just don't understand how this would work.

But - for the specific issue of disclosure - I agree that opponents should know what a partnership knows. Yet, if many/most of us agree about this, then why can't we find a way to codify it into law?
Oct. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 269 270 271 272
.

Bottom Home Top