[sartaj1]

hrothgar, on Dec 17 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

I also recommend familarizing yourself with the following:

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm

Whao !

Wolff seems to love jumping on the "Holier Than Thou" pedestal.
While the passing mantra of his type is that they are "improving" the game , what about the insidious and unsubstantiated paranoia-inducing claims like this (from his blog)

"ACBL over the years welcomed two celebrated cheats, to grace our hallowed Hall of Fame"

[Gerben42]

Quote

General Bridge Knowledge: I think there's a problem in the way the laws are phrased, in that people don't have to disclose "general bridge knowledge." But this general knowledge often takes the form of knowing what "local expert standard" is or having a great deal of experience with a particular system. For example, say I agree 2/1 GF. Partner and I bid 1♣-1♥-2♦. Occasionally people bid 2♦ on a three or even two card suit to create an artificial force. Of course, partner and I have not specifically agreed to do this, and I have never seen partner do this before (we may not even have played together before), but I am well aware that this is a common action by 2/1 players. My opponents, who may be from some other country and may even be quite good players within the context of (say) Polish Club, may have no awareness of this possibility; it doesn't seem quite fair that I can describe this reverse as "natural" or "just bridge" in this situation. Similarly when my Polish Club opponents bid 1♣-1♦-1♥, they are well aware that this could be a three-card suit. If their explanation is "natural" that doesn't seem to cut it even though they could argue that the possibility of a three card suit is just "general knowledge of polish club" and not a specific agreement, or that bidding a three-card suit is natural since it's a suggestion to play there. Of course, it does often seem like Bobby Wolff wants to codify things so that the Polish players have to explain 1♣-1♦-1♥ as "could be three" whereas American players don't have to explain 1♣-1♥-2♦ as "could be three" which seems manifestly unfair. Perhaps he doesn't mean it this way.

I found this abstract extremely well-phrased. Thanks! It also cover my opinion on this subject. I play that are not standard where I live (Fantunes or Polish Club usually) and take great care in alerting anything opps don't understand. I found that many people playing "natural" don't do that, the "fake reverse" is NEVER alerted, and for example Acol players never admit that they have a certain strategy when to open 1♣ or 1♠ when they happen to have 4 - 4 in these suits.

[mike777]

sartaj1, on Jan 2 2008, 02:24 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 17 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

I also recommend familarizing yourself with the following:

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm

Whao !

Wolff seems to love jumping on the "Holier Than Thou" pedestal.
While the passing mantra of his type is that they are "improving" the game , what about the insidious and unsubstantiated paranoia-inducing claims like this (from his blog)

"ACBL over the years welcomed two celebrated cheats, to grace our hallowed Hall of Fame"

Thank God for Bobby's comments. I rue the day when every bridge book statement must be backed up or vetted by lawyers and PhD's in stats.

One of my all time fav books is Swanson's Inside the Berumda Bowl. Opinions, bridge hands, behind the scene gossip, great funny stories, outrageous comments....fun read. If Wolf's book comes close I cannot wait to buy it.

Now I got to go buy two fun looking bridge books that ireland is selling.

http://www.cbai.ie/

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jan 2 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I found this abstract extremely well-phrased. Thanks! It also cover my opinion on this subject. I play that are not standard where I live (Fantunes or Polish Club usually) and take great care in alerting anything opps don't understand. I found that many people playing "natural" don't do that, the "fake reverse" is NEVER alerted

One quick comment about syntax:

I am assuming that you meant to say like the following

Quote

Players who have systemic agreements that they make "fake reverses" never alert/prealert their reverses

You either need to alert all or your reverses or none of your reverses...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

sartaj1, on Jan 2 2008, 02:24 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 17 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

I also recommend familarizing yourself with the following:

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm

Whao !

Wolff seems to love jumping on the "Holier Than Thou" pedestal.
While the passing mantra of his type is that they are "improving" the game , what about the insidious and unsubstantiated paranoia-inducing claims like this (from his blog)

"ACBL over the years welcomed two celebrated cheats, to grace our hallowed Hall of Fame"

Thank God for Bobby's comments. I rue the day when every bridge book statement must be backed up or vetted by lawyers and PhD's in stats.

I, for one, will be interested to see if anyone can figure out a way to sue him in Britain using the British libel laws...