December 1st, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 3 Comments
In Wednesday’s “Bulletin” from the Orlando NABC the following hand was written up:
The auction went N E S W
1H X P 2S All Pass
North led one of the top diamonds, and declarer proceeded to take 11 tricks.
To quote part of the article “Naturally, Joel bid the “obvious” 2S”.
Can’t argue with the result, but is this the kind of hand that should be given the official imprimatur of being printed in the daily bulletin?
What would someone learning the game make of West bidding 2S rather than some number of clubs? Does East’s double of 1H show preference for the other major? Would East still have doubled with AK3 AJ 9652 J1054 ? If so, wouldn’t 3NT be the best landing place rather than a 3-3 spade fit?
Oh the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
September 25th, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 6 Comments
In a recent club game, stratified Open/1500/300 there were 5 tables, comprised of 1 “A” pair, 7 “B” pairs, and 2 “C” pairs.
The winner was …….the “A” pair, who received 2.19 master-points.
Half of the 5 table “field” received master-point awards, the smallest being 0.55
What we have come to !
September 21st, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 11 Comments
In the recent world bridge championships in Wroclaw, Poland an auction went
P P 1H
where opener’s hand was
J984 Q5432 J Q107
Another auction went
P P 1D where opener’s hand was
A982 65 KJ953 97
Still another was
P P 1S opener’s hand being
108432 J63 QJ52 6
In each case the opening bidder was non-vulnerable.
Is this what bridge is now about? Or is it some new game, perhaps a combination of poker & bridge, called porridge? If so, then we have, IMO, reached a truly sad state of affairs.
July 8th, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 5 Comments
A situation came up at the club today on the following partial auction
RHO Me LHO Partner
1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3♦
I alerted partner’s 3♦ call, and later in the auction LHO asked me to explain same.
When I explained it as “a diamond raise denying the A or K”, LHO remarked that partner’s call was not alertable, and RHO added that it shouldn’t be alerted as the alert might “wake up partner”.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not opponents should be telling other players at the table what is or isn’t alertable, most players at the club do not look at their opponents’ convention cards, and would not be aware of the meaning of the 3♦ call. That puts me in the position of having information that they do not have, and
even if the ACBL does not require an alert (is this true?)
even if opponents should look at my convention card but don’t
I believe I have an obligation to alert them as to the 3♦ call.
Opinions on this will be appreciated!
May 9th, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 6 Comments
The re-opening of the MP case on the BW website is now up to 334 comments, and that number is growing by the hour. Many, many people are still baffled that the decision of the ACBL Ethical Oversight Committee, which was comprised of bridge experts, and which was
Probation = 13 months and loss of 18,000+ masterpoints
was overturned by the ACBL Appeals & Charges Commitee, and changed to
Suspension = 14 days over the Christmas holidays, and loss of 15.4 masterpoints.
The re-opening of the case on BWs is due to a posting, for the first time, by a member of the team MP was playing against. That member states that he complained to the director at the tournament about the incident, and was told that his best course of action was to file a Player Memo. This he did, and the Player Memo, rather than going to the Unit 102 Recorder or the District 9 Recorder for handling at either of those levels, somehow ended up being handled by the ACBL EOC, making them the de facto body of original jurisdiction. This, in my experience, is …….unheard of, as the normal protocol would have been to have Unit 102 hear the case first, with that result being appealable to the District 9 Appellate Committee. The findings of the D9 AC would then be appealable to the ACBL A&C Committee, with no involvement of the EOC at all.
Also unheard of is the making of a joint statement by MP and the ACBL following the decision of the ACBL A&C Committee
There is considerable feeling that such treatment would not have been afforded to a “lesser” player, and that any perception of a double standard being employed is very,very bad for the game.
April 19th, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 10 Comments
Played in a game recently where LHO, who used the bidding box cross-handed, had two different ways of bidding. One was reaching across his body with his left hand to the bidding box on his right. The other was squaring his cards, emphatically putting them face down on the table, and then reaching across as above to make his bid. His partner meanwhile had at least three distinctly different ways of holding his cards – with both hands, fingers intertwined – with one hand and the other hand resting on his arm – and with one hand alone. What would you do in a situation like that? Call the director? Can players actually be required to make their bids in a physically consistent manner? Can players be required to hold their cards in a consistent manner? Wadda ya think?
March 6th, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 2 Comments
With the Reno NABC coming up in 5 days, I am repeating my usual NABC request and asking anyone planning to be in Reno to keep an ear out and let this blog know if the ACBL- mandated Zero Tolerance announcements are made by the directors before each session.
To refresh memories re the above, the ACBL ZT Policy states in part:
The following procedures have been given to the tournament directors for implementation.
- At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.
The above is quite clear, particularly the word “shall”.
It also does not tell the directors to say “Be nice” or “Have an enjoyable day” , but rather to announce that “….the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE” for unacceptable behaviour”.
For anyone wanting a great presentation of what ZT, customer service, and good club management are about, and more, I urge you to watch the four excellent videos presented by ACBL TD Dan Plato. You can find them on YouTube using
and then add to the address above 1-rtL16r5a8 for Part 1
Z3z8CAXC6Jw for Part 2
COR5Ea-qAdU for Part 3
oS9Iu9O3AM4 for Part 4
January 22nd, 2016 ~ paul cronin ~ 8 Comments
Topping our list of bridge resolutions for 2016 should be some version of the following:
Play nice – it is possible to be social and friendly at the table while trying one’s best to do well. Those who are your your “opponents” are more importantly your friends, or potential friends.
When something happens at the table that interferes with your enjoyment of the game, say nothing except “Director, please”. When the director arrives, politely explain what you perceive the problem to be, and then let the director sort things out without any personalities getting involved. Calling the director is not “petty”, but rather protects everyone’s rights, provides an educational opportunity for all players at the table, and keeps the game enjoyable for everybody.
When asked for an explanation of one of your partner’s bids, go above and beyond the letter of the law when replying to an opponent’s query. Many established partnerships have “understandings” based on experience that opponents, particularly inexperienced players, will not be aware of. If, for example, you and your partner have agreed to never let opponents play in less than 2NT when you are not vulnerable, then your side’s three-level over-call in the pass-out seat should be alerted as “Does not promise the values expected for a three-level over-call”. When to do this? Whenever you think you have more information than may be contained in the explanation you’re “required” to give.
Remember too that, while bridge is a wonderful game that brings so much enjoyment to so many, it is a …….game. A game in which about 82% of the ACBL-registered players have fewer than 1000 MPs. And although there are some 16 ACBL master-point “ranks”, none can be compared to being regarded by others as having the rank of “honourable”.
December 24th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~ No Comments
Just wanted to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, along with all best wishes for health and happiness in 2016!
Some of the events of 2015 should make us all count our blessings, as they are many!
December 18th, 2015 ~ paul cronin ~ 5 Comments
The report I received from the Denver NABC indicated that the mandated ZT announcements were not made before each session. I can draw no other conclusions but that the TDs do not want to make the ZT announcements and do not support ZT. Is it because they consider the ZT procedure too time-consuming? How much time would the following scenario take?:
East tells the director that North called West “stupid”
Director asks North if this is true.
North answers “Yes”
Director says “I’m assigning an immediate 1/4 of a board penalty – another instance of this and you will have to leave the game”.
20 seconds? 30 seconds?
Or is it that Section 6 of the ACBL ZT policy
“The DIC shall provide a summary report of all behavioral penalties to the Tournament Chairman and/or Recorder.”
would require the DIC to spend some time filling out a summary report?
There must be a reason why season after season………