jkdood

I suggest being more sensitive to seniors with limited budgets and aging laptops that turn to online bridge more and more. If/when they say, in a situation where the desired touchpad selection is clear from the plays or calls, that they "intended to make a different call but misclicked", that they get the benefit of the doubt if done timely.

Exactly! And if you include the arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome, it's not always that easy. This does not seem to me to be remarkably different than the laws which talk about changes which "may be corrected only if done so without pause or thought, all in one breath" The mechanical PC touchpad equivalent in a situation where it is clear what the desired play is, should govern these "benefit of the doubt situations". Being a harsh nitpicker in these situations, which generally gives an unearned bonus to the so-called non-offensing side, is NOT GOOD for online bridge. But have it your way and see what the effects are.

You make a good point (or whine.) And I understand it. But to be honest, with some dexterity problems in an overall fast-paced clicking environment using touchpad... ...I usually immediately hover over the card I plan to click next. And on a few occasions when RHO has played an unexpected card fast, I click without meaning to. I do see the need to change plans, but the hand is faster than the eye so to speak, in an involuntary way. I agree that some would insist otherwise and punish me. And perhaps justifiably so. But it is indeed a misclick. And to allow an UNDO surely restores equity in a friendly way. The game is more about bidding and play skills, not being "too slow to realize RHO did something unexpected" and 2 seconds late let momentum make the wrong click. eh?

I suggest it could differentiate between game interest (invitational) and just competitive.

FWIW, I DO discuss this issue with all regular 2/1 GF pds... having found over decades that there IS NO universally AGREED STANDARD... ...now that that is settled, B) how about the 2/1GF question: after 1H - 2C or 2D... is there a standard for whether 2H shows 6, or how much extras (if any) 2S shows?

Thank you for serious explanations. Still wondering if a good-bad Lebensol-like 2N, toplay/compete in either minor, (relay to 3C suggested) has much more merit on frequency than a strong dbl-fit (may be shown other ways.) LHO may also have a x (of 3C or 3D), but won't be sure which minor you are headed for, so may simply bid 3s when theres trouble-a-double lurking.

I agree, 4NT is: a space-consuming bid to avoid with no sure agreement.

unusual...two lower unbid, like that hand ^_^ Methods here are seemingly relevant. 3C would presumably be natural non-forcing (since 2H is available,) and seems to have merit - although if 2N was good-bad or Leb and relayed to 3C, maybe even better.

So AKx KTx x KQJ876 or similar is a clear pass of 4H? (QTxxxx x xxxx xx would make a 4s call pretty nice, if a X was the choice.)

Just curious: what would 2N mean now?

I suppose this is the proper forum for my ignorance on the following topic: Like a poster replies on page 1 of this thread, I was taught that 2C is not a 100% GF, but that rebids 1 trick below game can be passed. Ex: 2C - 2D - 2N Ex: 2C - 2H (dbl neg) - 2S - 3S Ex: 2C - 2H (dbl neg) - 2S - 3D- 4D I though this was universally accepted at certain levels of the game until I was playing one day with a partner that liked Kokish replies. (Of course, the various response and rebid methods one employs - such as 2nd negative - may have a major impact on whether a subsequent bid is GF.) So the Kokish auction went: 2C - 2D(wk or waiting) - 2H(may be artificial) - 2S(forced relay) - 3H(natural)...? I passed with something like xxxx xx xxx xxxx Partner had a monster 25+ and made 5. It was the Reisinger, and several great experts were around to question. They seemed to agree 2C was generally forcing to 1 trick below game, but if playing Kokish, the auction becomes 100% GF. Kokish was actually in the room, was queried, and agreed. But was too busy to explain. Can anyone please explain why the Kokish flavor to the auction changes things this way? TY.

I personally have a good deal of sympathy for you, Mr. P, and others involved in these events and the aftermath, and try to keep an open mind and open discussion by playing "devil's advocate" at times. I am mostly troubled by what might seem at times to be misrepresentations - possibly self-serving - and/or inappropriate or unsatisfying reactions by authorities and others to the events and the aftermath. However, your recent post says (see quote) something in a thread that starts with Mr. Wolff saying: "...tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty... " Just wondering, did you miss that?

There was a semi-famous hand from NYC a few decades back, was also in 5D. I don't think this was it. It was at the Manhattan bridge club duplicate. There was some impropriety by the defenders, sorry I cannot remember, and declarer was allowed to demand the opening lead of any suit. I am not sure such a ruling exists any more. He asked for a diamond! Yes! It actually happened. I was defender at another table, and it was the days of travelers, and we all marveled on how one and only one declarer went down (2) in 5D, who found that lead and how? (It was actually a down 2 or make hand.) Well, it wasn't UI.

1. A player makes a brilliantly bizarre spectacularly successful perfecto of perfectos bid that defies conventional wisdom and even imagination. 2. Justin makes the case that the Top 20 experts consulted unanimously agree the bid is "impossible without UI". 3. Justin presses for a C&E proceeding with the officials, who routinely consult top players nowadays, and surely this reported finding that we read here and elsewhere, is made known to them. 4. The officials decide to not even convene an ethics panel to investigate further. What is wrong with this picture? Surely not: "...the experts were not so adamant when asked if they would express their opinions in front of the Ethical Oversight Committee..."

FWIW, if I were Mr. P; and I felt wrongly accused and innocent of wrongdoing enough to make a 9 AM call to Justin's hotel room offering to take a polygraph, I would insist on a C&E proceeding, or at least vehemently demand one. It can work in one's favor, as well as against. (And of course one can always appeal findings they do not agree with or like, alhough that seems to be a shadowy process at times.) Regarding the consulting of top players, which ACBL does in it's current infinite wisdom, seems like either they did or did not do due diligence, and taking Justin's account as accurate reporting, I vote no.

But shouldn't the ACBL officials Justin contacted have given enough weight to that reporting, such that at least a C&E to investigate be convened? (This does not seem to me to be such a difficult question.)

Others have stated and I also would prefer to have had a C&E committee handle the matter and issue a judgment. If it were that Mr. P was not to be drawn and quartered based upon the weight of evidence, that would very likely be less damaging to his reputation than the posted comments found here and elsewhere. The legal and practical consequences may be untidy, but then that goes with your ethical oversight world, and the ACBL should be up to that. The practical consequences of not going to C&E seem at the very least to be that the top players and perhaps the whole membership cannot have confidence in the ACBL's ethical leadership. Justin suggested he was vigorously pursuing this outlet. The authorities presumably consulted such players, and surely Justin's reported findings of what the top 20 Spingold experts said of course would have been made known to them. Yet, they chose NOT TO AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE this delicate matter with the very appropriate powers and tools at their disposal. Geesh!

Yes, there have been reasonable claims that certain minimal "expected values" in Pard's hand will make 6D a much more than extreme longshot contract. But I have not heard any mention of the possibility that partner has both red kings, which make 7D a very decent contract facing four card diamond length. If nothing else, it points to the extremely speculative nature of the 6D call, and it's huge success since there was NOT enough opposite to make any more than exactly 6. It was a perfecto of perfectos type of call, eh?

Just wondering... ...if a C&E or Ethical Oversight committee rules someone is guilty of ethical violations, do you feel the details and especially the members' names should be made public in all cases? ...a very slippery slope!

I had mixed feelings when it became a sort of "de facto standard" that TDs and perhaps other ruling authorities would begin making more judgement calls "in consult with appropriate top players", to lessen the abundance of appeals and committee deliberations. Nonetheless, whatever one may think of experts being able to gauge lesser player's actions or motivations, even the highly capable Mr. P - this seems to be our current accepted approach. Do we wish to question that with some healthy counterpoints? Maybe. But under current policies and procedures in place, it still begs the question why the authorities did not refer to C&E or similar, when this apparently overwhelming school of (UI) thought existed in the consult group. If it was an attempt to "sweep the incident under the rug" to avoid a bridge world embarrassment, it failed miserably.

Yeah, in criminal terms, HP wasn't even indicted in the second case; it was determined there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing. We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI." If we accept this, then it boggles the mind that the recorder, in concert maybe with the TD(s), somehow ignored or avoided this unanimous frame of thought, such that they judged that "there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing."! Who is minding the store???

And i found it odd that I wrote "D a r n" instaed of "damn" to be more policitcally correct, but it still looks like "dam" P.S. When all these poker pros take a long time to make a call and seem to be meditating, sure they may be reading body language, but I wonder if there's more "reading" being attempted? Phil comment?

I know some think this thread is "silly" (sorry) - but some of the posts and anecdotes are darn amusing! :P (at least in retrospect)

Well, who knows if ESP or anything of that nature really exists, BUT I think it couldn't hurt when playing against the better more insightful players, to either think about Hawaii beaches or say "I have the queen of trump" over and over to yourself when you don't! Of course once he sees what you are doing, you have to mix it up, :)

I know a good Flight A player that admitted with certain "good table feel" pards, they might repeat to themselves, silently, like a mantra: "lead a club, lead a club" or "don't bid" "don't bid" and very very often it worked like a charm. Their pard might innocently get the right vibes, not even trying to, and go right. I wonder if the "praying(preying?) mantra" :lol: person is the - uhh - bad UI-guy here?