Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabine Auken
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North American players are not used to “having” to register in advance. In ACBL events they can just show up at game time and buy an entry. I wonder whether that may have anything to do with the current numbers. I am hoping it does.

At the time of this writing I see 100 US players registered out of a total of 384 players in the Open and 171 US players out of a total of 385 players total in the Mixed competition. @Jan do you happen to have any comparison numbers to Philadelphia? If yes, is that about the same percentage of US vs. non US players. Also what was the situation like roughly 2 weeks before the start of the Philadelphia championships. Did a lot of teams register during the last 2 weeks?

And before I forget it, thank you so much @Jan for all your efforts to provide transparency and @Al for being an invaluable link to WBF.
Sept. 5, 2018
Sabine Auken edited this comment Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So long ago I hadn't even noticed it and came late to the discussion now. :)
Aug. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Booked. I never let politics get into the way of playing bridge with and against my friends from all over the world. If nothing else now is the time to support our Turkish bridge friends.
Aug. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have received a couple of private emails that made me feel I should try to clarify and explain the intent of my OP better.

1) As stated in the OP I do not have any issues with the poll conducted by the TD and the resulting ruling.

2) An incomplete description of methods was given. How do I know the description was incomplete? On the other side of the screen the explanation was: 1 can be bid with 3 cards when we have a longer minor and don't want partner to pass out 2/. Bravo for that excellent explanation! I have no way of knowing the reasons for the less complete explanation. Maybe a cow flew by. It wasn't my intended subject of discussion in this thread.

3) My issue was the Chief TD shrugging his shoulders when I inquired what would happen, if there were repeated incomplete explanations in the same situation. Repeatedly neglecting one's obligation for full disclosure in the same situation to me is being unethical. Before this incident I had been under the impression that the spirit in the bridge community is for administrators, players and tournament directors to work together to get rid of both cheating and unethical behavior. I was shocked to learn otherwise and was hoping the discussion in this thread would center on ways to achieve this goal.
June 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“but nothing I could see in the disclosure helped me to understand why 1♠ was the system bid with this hand.”

Our South player (who received perfect information on his side of the screen) could shed some light on this question. He was told that a 2-of-a-minor rebid would be NF whereas 1 was forcing. So in cases where opener does not want partner to pass 2 of a minor 1 can be bid on a 3-card suit.

BTW David, do you like German Riesling? :)
June 22, 2018
Sabine Auken edited this comment June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question was: “Did 1 show 5 cards?” The answer was: “It could be 4 cards.” The responder held only 3 spade cards in his hand and his cc stated that this was systemically possible. So I consider the answer unethical. But I have no way of knowing, whether the responder was aware of the ramifications of his answer and/or whether he answered this way intentionally to mislead the opponent. Actually I have no reason to believe that is what happened. Instead I believe it was an unintentionally unethical answer maybe born out of laziness or out of carelessness, possibly thinking it wouldn't make any difference.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy, it may not matter to you, but there are some Harvard people that disagree with you. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Ethical+Blind+Spots_4db0de5b-5177-457d-be51-7f0d5d9f3f12.pdf
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ai-Tai Lo it is perfectly possible to act unethically unintentionally and without one's own awareness. I do not think intent should have anything to do with whether a PP is given or not. A PP should be given, when a player doesn't follow the rules. Give enough PPs and chances are players will be less careless and more interested in knowing the rules in the future. If the current laws do not allow this, they should be changed in my opinion.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL Barry. Always go all the way, never stop! ;)
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Andy Bowles “Do these descriptions relate to the same conversation, or to two different conversations on different days?”

Two different conversations on two different days. The “usually at least 4 spades” explanation was given to me in the second conversation the following day, when I was trying to dig deeper into why no penalty had been assigned.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We seem to be repeating the same arguments. In the OP I represented the facts as confirmed by the TD called to the table. The “usually 4 spades” explanation was brought up one day later and it was NOT confirmed by the TD that had been called to the table. I specifically asked him about it and he assured me it was not brought up, when he was called to the table.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe it to be an accurate description of what happened at the table as described by both my teammate and the TD who was called to the table.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Cliff Gillis
1) I confirmed my teammate's version of the explanation given with the TD who was called to the table.
2) The Chief TD who told me the “usually 4 cards” version the following day was never actually at the table.
3) I have not accused declarer of having been intentionally misleading. Instead I expressed dissatisfaction with the Chief TD's unwillingness to penalize lack of full disclosure and/or to make an effort to prevent it from happening again.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vassili, first of all thank you very much for contributing to the discussion here. I for one truly appreciate it.

When I asked the Chief TD, why no PP or DP had been given, he did explain to me that your explanation had been “usually at least 4 spades”. I had to admit that the word usually does make a difference and implies that sometimes it may be different. However, my teammate's recollection of what had been said was different.

To understand as well as I could what had happened, I consulted one more time with the TD that had been called to the table. He confirmed that my teammate had stated, that he had asked whether 1 showed a 5-card suit and the response had been that it could be a 4-card suit. He also confirmed that declarer, which would have been you, did not object to this statement. Could you please shed some light on this? Thank you.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last time I looked I was a woman. And I am actually proud of it. You have done nothing wrong Shiang Chen. Thank you for the compliment! Regarding your appeals committee question, please see comments downthread on the review process.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have personally confirmed with the TD that was called to the table that he was called by my teammate stating he had asked before the opening lead whether the 1 bid promised a 5-card suit and the response had been that it could be a 4-card suit.According to the TD declarer did not object to this statement.

I do not know what exactly was posed to the pollees. As stated in the OP I do not have an issue with this part of the ruling.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yo have a really good point, Roland. However, in this case the partnership did have the systemic agreement, that 1 can be bid with a 3-card holding and the agreement was noted on the convention card. So it was not a case of “just bridge”.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Kit. Your line of reasoning is immaculate!
June 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Luc. Very nice write-up. Always nice to read what has happened at other tables on hands one has played oneself.

On board 1 you have the vulnerability wrong (possibly because you switched around NS and EW). So your side was not vulnerable, whereas the other side was. That makes the inference that East rates to be (4-3-3-3) slightly less valid. I think 2S is a very reasonable bid given that partner may be MIN with 5 spades. Whether 4D should be NAT or a CUE is a good partnership discussion.

On board 3 I feel the singleton makes it likely that partner may stop hearts more than once. So I would tend to aim for a lead that doesn't risk giving too much away. A spade seems the way to go. I am still debating with myself whether I would lead a low spade or an honor at the table, probably low.
Feb. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The homepage of the Spanish Bridge Federation classifies the Barcelona tournament as a national event http://aebridge.com/aebdynamic/resultadosNacionales.asp. I saved a screenshot just in case that entry somehow gets miraculously altered at a later stage.
Feb. 4, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top