Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
1 2 3 4 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 95 96 97 98
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WHO huddled?
Dec. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point; raises substantive ethical question: if something can't be stopped, does that ipso facto make it okay?
Dec. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point, but we have had this discussion in the 1930s; outcome: the ‘Conventioneers’ won.
Dec. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The conditions of the popular Dutch online bridge facility ‘StepBridge’ state: ‘It is always allowed to consult one's own convention card’ (Dutch: ‘Het is altijd toegestaan de eigen systeemkaart te raadplegen’). This clearly deviates from the laws of ‘serious bridge’, but is kind of logical: at online bridge, one often plays just a few boards with a partner (StepBridge even has a facility called ‘QuickStep’ that automatically gets you a new partner every three boards). Many people state that they will play ‘your card’, but are probably unlikely to learn it by heart for just a handful of boards.
Dec. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For my question, I am thinking of a setting where no money nor anything else but online rating level is involved, just online bridge with a regular partner for practice and enjoyment. And think of conditions that explicitly state one can always consult their own convention card, but are silent on consulting anything more comprehensive.
Dec. 25, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment Dec. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge Daily Bulletins also has a Facebook Group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1502818420032489/
Dec. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a book on the 2011 world championships, section on systems of the contestants, it states that world champions Sjoert Brink & Bas Drijver are keen to ‘experiment, just dare, try, and abolish what does not work’. As one of two examples of failed experiments it mentions ‘0-4/1-3’ responses to ace asking: ‘that went wrong too often’. (Cleeff , Jan van en Eskes, Onno, Victorie in Veldhoven ‒ Nederland wereldkampioen bridge, ProBridge, 2011, ISBN 978-90-74929-00-4, page 19, in Dutch)

In the semifinal of the women pairs of the European Open Championships last Summer in Tromsø, three out of twelve pairs ended up in a grand slam missing three cashable aces on a board. That included my pair, I hate to say, and that was after π (03,14) responses to ace asking. So don't tell me that partner can always tell the difference.
Dec. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted Kickback, but now I play Robins Nest (4 for 65+/):
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/opening-3nt4c4d-robins-nest-convention/

I think you would have to play a lot of bridge to ever want to bid a natural 4 over 4.
Dec. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why didn’t we open 4 (or possibly something Namyats)?
Dec. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually did abstain because of the 4 bid.
Dec. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a 2 opener as weak (5–10 HCP) with exactly five hearts and three to five spades, known as ‘K2’ (after the mountain). When not playing that, I would open 1.
Dec. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, but abstention in the absence of facts is normal for me.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was Gabrielle banned for a post or comment that has now been deleted? Judging by what I have seen from her, she is not your typical forum troll, more a whistleblower type.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am just so happy to live in a country without anything like a General Convention Chart (GCC). The only methods disallowed, and then in most but not all competition, are Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC), both as defined. And unless specifically disallowed, methods are allowed. Same with the WBF and EBL. Sensible.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One more excellent reason for restricting the loaded term ‘cheating’ to the premeditated/collusive variety.
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Peg and would like to add that in cases of (alleged) use of unauthorized information, a director will conduct a poll among players, but a player can only assess whether, in their heart of hearts, they would always take the same action, or whether they think a poll would yield the same action, which may differ from the actual outcome of a poll. So, please, avoid the term ‘cheating’ (including ‘second-degree’) for whatever possibly questionable action is not premeditated or otherwise not the gravest possible offense.
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where I live, the Players Council's advice on cheating starts out with restricting the term ‘cheating’ (Dutch: ‘valsspelen’) to the gravest possible offenses only (what Steve above calls ‘first-degree cheating’), such as:
* ‘for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws’ (Laws 73B2);
* pre-arranging deals that are supposed to be ‘wholly random’ (Laws 6E4);
* intentionally obtaining information on hand records of deals yet to be played;
* intentionally and unlawfully changing officially recorded deal results.

In this respect, I fully agree with Steve’s article, except that I would avoid a term like ‘second-degree cheating’ for just anything that can be called ethically questionable. I think it would be best to use the loaded term ‘cheating’ sparingly.
Dec. 17, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My problem with an immediate pass is that is may not convey the nature of my hand.
Dec. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right. Third in hand, we open systemically under-strength with five+ cards, but only occasionally with four. In fact, the only time I did it, it kind of shocked my partner (result was good, though).
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I play, 2 includes a three-card limit raise even by an unpassed hand (plus various game forcing possibilities with or without clubs). For a passed hand, this leaves the three-card limit raise only, and thus leads naturally to the one-way Drury. With a four-card limit raise, we don't much mind getting to the three level.
Dec. 15, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 95 96 97 98
.

Bottom Home Top