sharon j Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Is it ok to insert a link for an article called "Is It Forcing?" I'm interested in others opinions about the article, but not sure it would be OK to show the link. (legal issues?) Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 In general, there's no law against linking. And most sites don't mind links to them, since it brings them more traffic. BBO doesn't like you linking to competitors, but we don't mind links to bridge discussion and information sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I guess I can see the objections from two sides. BBO reasonably might not like the link to the competitor, and for that matter the competitor might not like BBOers gabbing on the BBO forum about something they put up for their members. Still, no one owns an auction so it might well be reasonable to simply bring up the auction(s), possibly acknowledging that your interest was stimulated by a discussion on another (unspecified but easy to find) forum. So bbo folks would be responding to a bbo question and to comments from other BBOers. I see this as similar to BBOers discussing, say, a hand in a tourney BBO did not run. Not exactly the same thing, but maybe close enough? Is this reasonable, bar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharon j Posted December 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 The site appears to be for a live bridge club. The subject of the article is forcing bids. There are a number of examples. The article has a copyright notation at the end. The copyright notation is what concerns me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 The site appears to be for a live bridge club. The subject of the article is forcing bids. There are a number of examples. The article has a copyright notation at the end. The copyright notation is what concerns me. The bigger concern is that the website belongs to Pattaya bridge club... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Copyright is about the right to make and distribute copies. It isn't called linkright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 It seems unlikely that there would be a legal problem. For one thing, I can't see that there would be any financial damage to the club. However I applaud your discretion. If the article is signed, perhaps a brief note to the author asking if he had any objection to you bringing it up for bbo discussion would be good. Or a note to the club if the article is unsigned. My thinking here is that while I doubt there are legal problems, a guy who whipped up something for friends and club members, putting it online for ease of access to that audience, might be concerned about his perhaps rather casual presentation being thoroughly gone over on an international forum. Or he might be pleased. If he put it up on the net, it's fair game. Sort of, only sort of. So a quick note may be in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharon j Posted December 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Good advice. I will ask the author if he objects to my giving out a link to the article. I believe it would be helpful to many bridge players on bbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharon j Posted December 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Is it forcing? I found this article helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 It's a dangerous article in that is clearly written by someone who thinks they know a lot more than they do: Example 4. OK as long as you do not read the accompanying paragraph. Examples 5 and 6 are stated as fact but are a minority and contradictory (although not necessarily incorrect) treatment. Example 12. Correct, but please do not read the explanation. Examples 16 and 17 are frightening - a change of suit by opener apparently shows 12-14 - seriously? Yet a jump shows 19 (example 19). Pity the player who is dealt something in between. Examples 24-25. Correct as to the non-forcing thing, but I fear adrift in a leaky boat. Example 26. States as a fact something that a majority of experts would disagree with. Example 33. Oh dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 It's a dangerous article in that is clearly written by someone who thinks they know a lot more than they do: Example 4. OK as long as you do not read the accompanying paragraph. Examples 5 and 6 are stated as fact but are a minority and contradictory treatment. Example 12. Correct, but please do not read the explanation. Examples 16 and 17 are frightening - a change of suit by opener apparently shows 12-14 - seriously? Yet a jump shows 19 (example 19). Pity the player who is dealt something in between. Examples 24-25. Correct as to the non-forcing thing, but I fear adrift in a leaky boat. Example 26. States as a fact something that a majority of experts would disagree with. Example 33. Oh dear. Regional standards may vary a bit here. Examples 5 and 6 are very standard everywhere I have played. Example 26 seems pretty standard to me also (I'll add a poll because I'm curious). Some of the explanations you complain about also seem okay to me. However, I agree that the "12-14" range for 16,17 is off and that 33 is very non mainstream (most play this as an invite where I live). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Added: The two posts directly above this appeared while I was writing my response. I view them as stronger statements of my suggestion that you check it out with pard before you assume that these suggestions match his approach. I have no great objections to his way of playing, and having clear agreements will definitely be useful. This could be useful as discussion with a partner. While most of the auctions are what I think of as standard, there ae a couple of caveats. a. Quite often 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♣ is played as both forcing and artificial. Back in Goren's time, it was non-forcing and natural. But Goren is dead, literally and figuratively. b. The auction 1♦-2NT may or may not be forcing. Playing a 2/1 system it is pretty much necessary to play it as non-forcing unless you have some gadget. But in Goren (again, he is dead) it was played as balanced and forcing. Some non 2/1 players still play it as forcing. Here is the thinking. If 2NT is non-forcing then, when responder holds 13-15, s/he must bid 3NT (because s/he does not want to be passed in 2NT). Often this is fine. But sometimes opener has a shapely hand. Maybe strong and shapely, maybe modest and shapely. When responder bids 3NT, only in the most clear cut case will s/he pull. If 2NT were available as a balanced 13-15, the auction would go 1♦-2NT-3♣ showing doubt about playing the hand in NT. At this point, a responder with a flat 13 and most values in the majors bids 3NT, but if instead his/her heart holding is, say, Ax and s/he has a good club holding, s/he has an opportunity to explore for a club game/slam. It's my experience that most bbo pickups play 2NT as invit, not forcing, just as the notes say. But not all, among those who are not playing 2/1. I am suggesting only that if you are going to play more than a few hands with a partner you might want to check with him/her on this. Keep an open mind. When not playing 2/1, either method works for most hands. At any rate, it's a nice article and could be useful, especially if discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Regional standards may vary a bit here. Examples 5 and 6 are very standard everywhere I have played. When I played rubber bridge it was semi-standard, but it is inappropriate as an agreement for inexperienced players because of the anti intuitive treatment of new suits and contradictory treatment of one- and two-level responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Example 26. States as a fact something that a majority of experts would disagree with.Isn't 1X-1Y-2X-2Y straight out of the first chapter of the classic "Why You Lose At Bridge"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Sharon said this might provoke discussion and so it has. Example 5: 1♥ (or, I would say, 1♣ or 1♦)-X-1♠) is forcing. That's the way I play and generally I have found this matches the expectations of a random bbo pickup. Important: Some say it shows five spades. I, and I think most, would say that it does not. Support doubles, if you play them, are on if West now comes in at the 2 level. Example 6.1♥ -X-2♣ is non-forcing. That's the way I play. It's constructive and non-forcing. 8 highs is a bit light for me and I definitely would not say that the upper limit is 9. It's a constructive bid showing clubs. At one time it was claimed that almost all 10 point hands start with a redouble. This puts far too much load on one call, and I think almost no one plays this way anymore. Example 26 Uncontested 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ non-forcing. I certainly agree that it is non-forcing. I don't agree with his description as "highly discouraging". If I want to discourage opener from bidding again, I pass. That ought to discourage him/her. In my style, 2♠ says that I am pretty sure this hand should be played in spades at some level. It's definitely non-forcing though.If this is contrary to expert style, I would be interested in hearing about it. Anyway, the article is the basis for discussion. Old, perhaps apocryphal, story along the lines of Example 26. Supposedly an auction went 1♥-1♠- 2♥-2♠- 3♥-3♠- 4♥ at which point responder announced "I bid the fourth, and the last, spade". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Hi, the article is useful as far as the article list lots of sequences, and pair should go over the list finding out,what the partnership agreement is. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 The bigger concern is that the website belongs to Pattaya bridge club...The club had not been identified at this point. And it was not Pattaya in any case. Just out of couriosity, do you have some issue with the Pattaya brige club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 The club had not been identified at this point. And it was not Pattaya in any case. Just out of couriosity, do you have some issue with the Pattaya brige club? Many of us do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.