Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 393 394 395 396
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoa, Scott!
22 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, I'm very ignorant about how all this works.

So - question. What if your district said, “Fine to have the tournament here, but you are going to have to get some people in place to do the work. We don't have enough volunteers to cover it all.”

It's always seemed to me that IF a place was wonderful for NABC's, have more tournaments there - but - make sure that there is additional help for locals. It would seem to me that a great venue would draw more people, and in theory, then, more revenue…. to get some paid workers.

No?
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, you know I agree with you that I think there are superior ways to handle appeals other than our current system. But - I must address some of your other points, as I disagree and want to explain why I do.

First, of course we can think when we need to think! Sometimes, opponents won't care as it is difficult to determine what the thinker is contemplating.

In cases like this, though, the opponents did think it mattered, ergo the appeal. Yet there is no guarantee that a good result will be delivered to the appealing side, even under current rules.

If all polled had agreed that the diamond lead was the only obvious lead, even given the hesitation, then that result would have stood. Had 5 of 6 stated that, I surmise that the result would have stood. When those polled vote such it does show that they think all or almost all would take this action, then it is judged that there IS not a logical alternative.

I suppose one could describe it as “no lose” as there is, per se, no “punishment” for the appealing side. (There were punishments if appeals were judged frivolous when we had committee hearings.)

Yet that being said, there is no guarantee of success from an appeal in this situation.

So, my bottom line; yes, flaws, yes better systems (in my opinion and yours) - but not always do votes demonstrate that there are logical alternatives.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even David's comments about Flash? Come on, Scott - BE HONEST!
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amy, one need not actually use the word “unethical” to be otherwise insinuating that they might be just this.

Here is a post of yours:

“Sarah, I might feel embarrassed to call the director if I was in a ”bonkers grand“ as you say, but would do it anyway IF AND ONLY IF I believed that I had been damaged by unauthorized information. However, I would feel embarrassed to call the director on this specific hand and more embarrassed to appeal a ruling against me on this specific hand because the actions of the opponents played no part in that bad result.”

Why would you be embarrassed if you'd done nothing wrong?
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In fact, I am willing to bet that with sufficient corporal punishment, I could get even “Flash” to bid and play hands in under 3 minutes. And still very well.”

Challenge!

Otherwise, I'm with Paul. You nailed it, David!
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael - do you think that the pair in the Spingold was ashamed when they chalked up 1430 for making 6NT when George J was on lead with AKQJxx? (And managed to lead one of his top honors?)
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, if you've read all my (way too many) comments, then I'm sure you know that I strongly prefer committees to polling by directors. But - it seems that for the purposes of THIS discussion about THIS particular hand, it really is moot.

Unless and until the law gets changed, this IS the law. This WAS the law when this hand occurred.

Perhaps a different post for discussion of which is superior? I could rant there for a while! But ongoing discussion on THIS topic doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amy; try giving it to the panel, along with a statement that your partner has thought for some length of time. I'm afraid you'd likely be proved wrong.

Kit, Michael R. and Justin are 3 frequent panelists (or Directors) for Master Solvers. Already each have stated that they would not have led a diamond if partner had a BIT.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I've played with screens many times and am familiar with how to alert when they are used.

What I did not know is why one is supposed to alert when one makes an artificial bid, the next hand alerts and then the next player redoubles. I thought (in error, I suppose) that this was common for almost most players with a moderate amount of experience.

I wouldn't have thought to alert with OR without screens.

And now I'm wondering what else may be lurking out there that I am supposed to alert … and yet I'm ignorant about it!
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, Kit - yes, I actually appreciate playing with screens and realize some of the benefits of what they provide for alerting.

Honestly, though - I would not have realized that this should be alerted. And it makes me wonder if there are a host of other treatments that should be alerted that I would not know to alert!

Honestly - how does one know?
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm very sorry, Shirley, but you could not be more wrong.

I AM very good friends with Joe. Yet, if I thought he had done something wrong of any sort, I would never state otherwise. Perhaps some people are not able to do this; I am.

I am defending what occurred because I support following the laws. I have said - repeatedly, both for this controversy and others - that even if you do not like the laws and think they are wrong, if they ARE the current laws they must be followed. You can work toward getting them changed. You cannot state that they ought to be ignored because you think they are poor.

I realize that you and a number of others hold the view that you do. I'm sure you are well aware that other players (people both far superior players than I am and, I imagine, more learned about the laws) think that how it was handled was appropriate. I do not think that these players think as they do because of emotional connections to anyone.

And frankly, to defend myself, I have been in positions where I needed to contribute to a ruling regarding people who are, let's say, not my favorites. Whether I like them a lot or a little or not at all has no bearing on my ruling. The facts of the case and the laws are what matter.

(As an aside, I also have convinced teammates of mine to not protest a ruling when I felt our side was in the wrong. Like you said, I do not want to win when the law is not on our side. Yet I also very well appreciate that reasonable people can have views that do not coincide. It would be nice if everyone could appreciate that last fact.)
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think double gives you the most flexibility.

If partner passes, this may be our best option and double is the only way to achieve it.

If partner bids 3NT, we may be in the right spot and don't have to watch our opponents run off 7 tricks when we have a far better spot somewhere else - which COULD happen if WE bid 3NT ourselves.

Double is likely the only way to get to a cold 5 - or 6 - club contract.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ay yi yi yi yi, Jack!
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might add, Amy, that it helps to have lots of posts when you are a World Class typist! :D

Ralph Katz says I can type faster than he can talk. He may be correct ….
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amy, “Master Solvers” doesn't put in auctions with moderate or easy answers. The purpose is to see the reasoning behind hands that are very difficult and how experts arrive at a final decision.

I do need to “get a life!” But posting on Bridgewinners is a marvelous way to avoid difficult LIFE issues that I need to address … I guess I need to start attending “Avoiding Difficult Life Stuff Anon” …… :(
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack - I'm a bit confused here, as I have NO experience in how this all works.

I assume from what you write that the BOD does NOT contact a local area when they make arrangements for an NABC?!? This seems astounding to me!

How can they sign a deal without knowing if those who would be running much of the tournament in that city are willing to DO the running?!

Is it common for the BOD to not consult first prior to signing? Or was this an unusual (perhaps) “error” on the part of the BOD?
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Au contraire, Patrick. It means plenty.

It means that a lot of bridge is not “obvious” to all of us. It means that the game is so complex and confounding, that to at least one expert (and I'm sure to many others), what they may ultimately decide at one moment is the best choice is not the same at another time.

Master Solver problems are generally very VERY tough. Sometimes when I read them, I think, “This is just impossibly difficult!”

LOTS of bridge is this way. So, it is not at all surprising that we might change our mind about what is the best answer because every single answer is so flawed.

That being said, we do not get the chance while bidding to say “I ain't taking a call or making a play. It's just too hard.”

We pick something and that is that.

OF COURSE sometimes there are choices that are fairly clear cut. The point of the polling process and/or a committee hearing is to try to determine whether a choice IS one of the less clear cut ones - or not.

And yes; it does all mean something.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aviv, I respectfully disagree.

Honestly, I have seen people FLY to one regional when they could instead DRIVE to another. Why do they do this? Because they believe for various reasons that the more distant regional will be superior to the nearby one.

Also. There are some people who play far more frequently than others. So, often they fly somewhere. Clearly, if there are only 2 regionals that week, they have only 2 selections. The more regionals there are, they can STILL make only one choice for themselves. So virtually by definition, the more regionals there are, the odds are greater that YOUR regional will not get one of these “we go to at least 3 regionals a month” teams/pairs.

Also, another factor. Some people have limited funds to attend tournaments. Even if a tournament is fairly close, they will not attend every one that is close due to cost.

So, if an area has 3 regionals a year versus 4 or more, and someone can only afford 3, that person may attend all 3 but not al 4 - making one tournament obviously have fewer participants (in theory).

Stating that more regionals makes no difference in attendance assumes that people will show up for as many as there are. Not so.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James. Players have won events because someone revoked, or lead out of turn, or pulled the wrong bid card out of the box without realizing it, etc., etc., etc.

Mistakes are part of the game. Your comment above seems to indicate that players “wouldn't want to win” when they have made an error. Yet players win ALL THE TIME on hands where they have made an error - and yet their opponents don't figure out what that error was…. (OR have UI which thus denies them the opportunity to make the winning choice….)
11 hours ago
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 393 394 395 396
.

Bottom Home Top