Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Melanie Manfield
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because this thread hasn't gone on long enough, I thought I would share a hand/situation that arose very recently – I would describe the game as the strongest club game of the week in my area. There are “A” and “B” and novice sections. I was playing in the Flight A, with a partner who has a bit less experience than many in the Flight A – he sometimes plays in the Flight B – and less experience than our opponents on this hand.

White against Red, my hand was:

A2
J92
732
AK865.

In first seat, my partner opened 1. RHO passed, and I chose to bid 1NT (forcing). LHO doubled, partner bid 2, RHO bid 2, and I bid 4.

After the opening lead, as I was putting my hand down as dummy, LHO raised his voice a little (not shouting), and, speaking very quickly, addressed my partner, asking what I had shown. I began to state that LHO could now see my hand, but he cut me off and continued to ask my partner the question. My partner, now seeing my hand, said something like: “I don't know why she bid it that way – she has a game-forcing hand.”

LHO now looked at my hand, and indicated in some manner that everything was okay. Play then proceeded.

Partner's hand:

S K4
H KQ10854
D KJ86
C 2
an hour ago
Melanie Manfield edited this comment an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It’s possible to have watched films from before one was born!
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for your explanation, Don.

It seems to me that the WBL is a lot like a country club or private club, in many ways.

Such a club often has an entrance fee so high that most persons would have to choose between saving to buy a home or joining a country club. In addition, one has to “know a lot of people” who belong already, because those who apply to become members can be rejected with no explanation.

The lack of transparency and accountability – including financial transparency – and apparent power to be blithely unconcerned about members' views, doesn't really seem in line with what one would expect of an open, nonprofit/NGO membership organization, which anyone who pays (pretty nominal) dues and follows the rules can join.

Unrecorded votes – having to guess at how WBF representatives voted – that is shocking, even for the WBF.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To paraphrase you, David, in this auction a direct raise from one to two is an attempt to go down in something before the opponents get a chance to go down in something.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I believe that the ACBL has made much progress, no one is trying to claim that it is perfect (to the best of my knowledge . . . ).

Another question that occurs to me (belatedly) has to do with the voting to elect WBF officers (subquestion – is it the ACBL or the USBF that votes on behalf of the U.S.?)

Who decides how the U.S. or North American delegates vote, for example, for President of the WBF? It seems that “we” voted for the status quo to continue, last time around.
Many believe that that was not a good decision.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand. The 2,000 Swiss francs is what was awarded to them towards their legal fees.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, Nick – are you saying that the 80/20 split for arbitration costs – of which the EBL has to pay the 80% –does not include the legal costs?
Okay, now I think I see – it says that the CAS Court Office will calculate the costs of the arbitration and notify the parties.

So, those arbitration costs are relatively insignificant as compared to the total legal costs.
Got it.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that the EBL has to pay 80% of total court costs, plus 2,000 Swiss Francs.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff – I'm not trying to be snarky – but why does North have to explain bidding over 3 Spades? After South bids again, North has a hand at the high end of a constructive raise, which clearly has improved after an opponent bid clubs. And, North's partner bid again freely (also perfectly reasonable, given a full opener and a known 9-card fit).

I certainly don't doubt your sincerity. But, have to admit, if I were North and East called the director, I might be not only puzzled but a bit miffed.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many people in the Washington, D.C. area play 1M/*/2C as a constructive raise (7 to 9) with 3 card support, and 1M/*/2D as a constructive raise (7 to 9) with 4 card support.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South opened in third seat. North made a judgement call. When South bid freely again, North used that information to make another judgement call. Just one person's opinion!
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a practical matter, I truly hope that word will be forthcoming very soon, one way or another, as to whether F and N will be permitted to play in Orlando in September or not.

With all of this mess that has been created, it seems to me that the least that could be done ASAP would be for the relevant organizations to make it very clear which events this pair will be permitted to play in, and when.

It would be a small step in the right direction.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Art,

I respectfully disagree that these discussions are merely whining, and that they are irrelevant. There are some decisions to be made.

For example, as a member of the USBF (which I respect highly), I received an email yesterday about a special experimental event at clubs that is happening early next month. It is called REACH – Regional At the Club House, and will take place February 3, and February 5-9. Here is the link to the list of participating clubs I was sent:

http://bridgefinesse.com/RAC/EligibleClubs.html

The email contained this sentence:

“The REACH (Regional at the Club House) is an experimental tournament, the profits from which are earmarked to help pay WBF dues.”

The timing is a tad unfortunate . . . .
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye Brogeland definitely has the Sheriff Will Kane role sewn up!
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Andy, for your very helpful comments.


Note: I now have read above apology, so also amended my comments.
Jan. 17
Melanie Manfield edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone told me that if the ACBL also sanctions the tournament (along with the WBF) that they could prevent them from attending.

This is one reason why I started a new topic – it is confusing to me to figure out how all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together, and who takes precedence in which circumstances.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that it was Don Mamula who posted in one of these threads: “Where do you draw the line?” It's an interesting question – and different if it actually affects a person. It would seems to me that it will affect top, world-class experts far more than others.

If one already has plans to play at a particular tournament, does one consult with partner and teammates (if a boycott is being considered)?

From what I know so far, it seems unlikely that the pair in question will be in Orlando.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Years ago, as a novice with a novice partner, we played a pair after the dinner break (in Swiss teams) who were really drunk and unpleasantly unfocused. When we did eventually call the director, he waved his hand at us and said: “Just play!”. Because I had called the director, one of our opponents said to the other: “She looks so sweet, but she's a little b****, isn't she?”

If you've already guessed that we lost the match, you guessed correctly!
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Brad,

What I was trying to say is, that, sometimes it is confusing (at least for me) to know what the WBF is going to do, in a particular situation. In fact, in another thread, it has been pointed out that they have not posted a full schedule for the world championships in September in Orlando, Florida yet (and people want to make their plans).

While there may be some folks who are clear about the import of “Article 17”, or other articles that have been posted on the thread about the recent CAS decision, I myself am still unclear about the order of precedence of decision makers, about the pair involved.

So, given the immense significance of this case, it would be helpful to know ASAP what exactly the standing of this pair is, and whether there is a chance that they will be showing up at tournaments in 2018.

I think you can see that it would be helpful to know as far in advance as possible, what the powers that be have decided.
Jan. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
.

Bottom Home Top