October 4th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
6 Comments 
I have sent the following e-mail to Linda Lee at Master Point Press, and am interested in getting reactions to my proposal from those whose blogs are active.
“I am sure that all the active bloggers on bridgeblogging.com would appreciate having the current list of 46 bloggers reviewed for currency, as some 64% of them have no blog entries in the 2012 year. There are blog entries that are three years old and five years old, and having these clutter the site makes it more likely that current blogs will go unread. Please consider the institution of a recency rule that would delete blogs with no entries in a given time period, say the last six months. I am posting this e-mail to you on my blog to try to get some indication of how others feel about my suggestion.”
September 25th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
19 Comments
After P P 1S it’s your call with AK8 AJ76 AK107 A9 ??? Let’s say you double, LHO passes, and partner bids 2C. RHO passes, and it’s back to you – ??? With an opening bid on your right, partner doesn’t figure to hold much, so let’s say you “temporize” with 2H. This is raised to 3H by partner, and again it’s back to you. Having already lied about your heart length, what to do now? Ah, well – time to bite the bullet – 3NT, and all pass. The SJ is led, and dummy comes down with 54 Q94 8532 Q652. How, how, how would you now plan???
September 18th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
8 Comments
For those of you who play Flannery 11-15 HCP, a question:
How “light” does the ACBL allow a Flannery opening to be?
Axxx AQxxx xx xx ?
Axxx AJxxx xx xx ?
Axxx Axxxx xx xx ?
Does vulnerability make a difference?
August 6th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
7 Comments
There appears to be great confusion in the minds of some about where and how Zero Tolerance applies. Here in ACBL land (Canada, the United States, and Mexico) the ACBL has no disciplinary authourity over clubs – except in cases of serious ethical violations like cheating. There is therefore no single Zero Tolerance policy for clubs – whatever each club chooses to do or not do about the conduct of its members is entirely up to the individual club. Even in the case of tournaments, the ACBL Zero Tolerance policy only applies to NABCs, as they are the only tournaments run by the ACBL itself. When it comes to Regionals and Sectionals, it is entirely up to each District or Unit as to whether its tournament is to be considered a Zero Tolerance tournament or not. Some bloggers write of the incredibly strict sanctions imposed by Zero Tolerance, and hold up the spectre of things like a three month susupension. So let’s set the record straight – the penalties involved in Zero Tolerance are (i) for the first offence, 1/4 of a board is subtracted from your event score (3 IMPs in team play) (ii) for a second offence in the same event, ejection from that event. Basically, that’s it! So exactly what is it in the above that is going to cause clubs to lose most of their members, or leave tournaments peopled only by the “pathetic totally compliant” wimps envisioned by Howard Bigot-Johnson? Alice was so right in saying “Curiouser and curiouser” !
August 2nd, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
3 Comments
I am truly saddened by some of the posts re Zero Tolerance, but will continue to believe that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. It is very discouraging that there are some who not only prefer to curse the darkness, but to curse the candle-lighters as well. Zero Tolerance has one, and only one, goal – to make playing bridge as enjoyable as possible for as many as possible. If the implementation is not to your liking – help us improve it! If you disapprove of penalties – help us find a better solution! If the message is not being conveyed in the right way – help us devise a better message! But what fault can you find with the goal itself? Why would anyone not want bridge to be as enjoyable as possible for as many as possible? Is it possible that minds capable of absorbing and following complicated bidding systems cannot as well absorb and follow a few rules of polite behaviour? Or is it that they don’t want to? Are abuse, intimidation, and rudeness just a part of their “game” as a means to gain advantage? Should we all develop thicker skins to accommodate them? My answer is, and will contiunue to be, a resounding “No”. A lot of the most talented, and fiercest, competitors in the history of bridge, have been absolute ladies and gentlemen in their behaviour at the table, and relied solely on their ability in order to win. But a few bad apples have taught others that their imagined “greatness” gave them licence to behave badly, and that with exaggerated egos came special privileges. And how they do fight to keep things the way they want them!
July 23rd, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
3 Comments
The following is an excerpt from the ACBL Zero Tolerance policy (bold italic mine):
“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.”
For those of you who attended the Philadelphia NABC, two questions:
(i) did you hear a Zero Tolerance announcement made at the start of each event?
(ii) did you see, or hear of, any director calls made regarding Zero Tolerance?
May 29th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
10 Comments
Am looking for suggestions as to what should be included in a ZT education program. Players in general are not seeing ZT in action often enough for them to become familiar with its workings, and I think we need to put together a primer on its mechanics. Ideas please!
May 24th, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
12 Comments
In an open pairs club game, with E-W vulnerable, the auction goes
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| — |
— |
— |
P |
| !C |
1D |
2NT |
P |
| 3NT |
P |
P |
P |
P
The layout is as follows
Dealer:
Vul:
|
North
♠ Q96
♥ 942
♦ AK1065
♣K5 |
|
West
♠ A1083
♥AQ106
♦ J
♣Q876 |
 |
East
♠ K54
♥K8
♦ 9842
♣AJ104 |
| |
South
♠J72
♥J753
♦Q73
♣932 |
|
South, a player with about 50 MPs, leads the diamond Q, and continues with the 7. North wins, and leads a winning diamond. The 3NT contract is now doomed, but…….South, in trying to follow to trick 3, accidentally tables the spade 2. Seeing that he has played the wrong card, South immediately states that he has a diamond, and plays the 3. East summons the director, who initially rules that the spade 2 is major penalty card, and that East can call for the lead of a spade. North requests that the pertinent law be reviewed, and the subsequent ruling is that the spade 2 is a minor penalty card, and there are no lead restrictions attached. North then scores two more diamonds, and the score is entered as down 1, +100 for N-S. East appeals the ruling, and at the end of the game the score is adjusted to 3NT, making 4, +630 for E-W. +100 for N-S is worth 12/12, and +630 for E-W gets 11.5/12. Only 3 of the 13 E-W pairs reached any game, although the hand analysis says that the possible results for E-W are 2NT, 5S, 3H, 2D, and 6C.
What are your thoughts, be they major or minor?
May 2nd, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
1 Comment
Friday B,C,D, Pairs 28 tables 1st. Luap Ninorc 22.05 MP
A,X Pairs 24 tables 1st. Dref Elegum 11.22 MP
I no sooner suggest it, and there it is!
May 2nd, 2012 ~ paul cronin ~
4 Comments
How about setting the highest strat at 5001-infinity, and then basing the masterpoint awards for each strat on its table count. If the 501-1000 MP strat had the most tables, then those placing in it would get the largest masterpoint awards for doing so. If the 301-500 strat had the next largest number of tables, its placers would get the next highest masterpoint awards. If the 5001-infinity bracket had only three tables, the MP award would be very small……but then this could never happen as there are so many players who say they love to play up and learn from the experts. Hmmmm………..
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related