Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once psyched to try to talk a partner out of playing a convention I despised. (I managed to get a win on that board, but he was so livid he probably gave it back in card play the rest of the session. And he still wouldn't agree not to play the convention.)
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem, especially in a stratified game, is, “out of contention for what, exactly”?
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why I hate 3. It's such a narrow target. If the 3 bidder liked his hand too much, you may push them into game. If not, it's as likely 8 tricks is the limit for any contract as it is that both sides can take 9. Anyway, the 4 bid, in conjunction with the decision to bid 3 last time, was bad. If you were going to bid 4 anyway when pushed then obviously at these colors you think there's a chance to make. So if that's how you feel about the hand, either jump to 4 earlier, or make some sort of game try. Maybe that's the question we should be asking. What should Double or 3 of a minor by advancer over 2 mean?

A couple of additional thoughts:
(1) This illustrates why it's important for 2 by opener to be weaker than pass here. If pass were the weak bid, opener would have passed, and advancer would have had an easy 2 call.
(2) Perhaps I am more negative about responder's 3 bid than most because I am used to (a) the possibility of a four-card spade suit with opener in 3rd or 4th seat, especially when his hand is weak; and (b) one-way rather than two-way Drury. (I really can't stand two-way Drury. I completely agree with Kleinman and Straguzzi's send-up of it in _Human Bridge Errors_.)
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously 3 is a good bid double dummy. I don't think it's a winning bid just looking at that hand and the auction, though.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps it is bad form to psych when out of contention, but it's not something you ever tell your partner at the table, or you're likely to hear “and what do you call your bidding this session?”
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, 2 isn't bad. I still don't care for 3 nor for 4.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit's corner is the best. In several months of reading, this is the first hand that I didn't find all that interesting…mainly because it seems like a bad 3 bid was rewarded due to *both* opponents making overbids.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, well, this clearly isn't *that* kind of software. LOL
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TIC = terminator-in-charge? :)
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You would think that preparation of adequate training materials by the software vendor would be part of the purchase negotiations….
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director I knew from club games in the 90s who knew all the appendix movements always looked up the rule even if he thought he was sure. Most directors know way less than he did….
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ahh, so you are applying sesqui-dummy analysis…
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's my preference. :)
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think maybe it's been missed that after responder rejects the game try with 3, if opener simply reraises to 4 he has skipped over several bids at least two of which (and, for most pairs, at least three of which) would have indicated slam interest. The partnership doesn't have an agreement that opener's 4 is a bar bid, but bridge logic dictates that responder will not try for slam. That, of course, does not make the phony trial bid risk free, as responder may later face a double-or-bid-five decision if the opponents sac.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the ACBL wants to act in the best personal interests of the vast majority of their members, rather than focusing on promoting bridge, they could just add their voice to every political letter that AARP (the American Association of Retired People) writes.

Deciding where to hold bridge tournaments on the basis that there are some places that would make some ACBL members uncomfortable is fine. Sending a letter to a state governor that implies that the sender is morally superior to the recipient is more likely to backfire than to accomplish anything productive.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, I think the distinction you are making is a good one. I hope things will work out in practice in a way consistent with what you are saying.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, climate change is a great example of another topic the ACBL should not write about. It's a critical challenge for the world, and there are a lot of scientists, engineers, public policy experts, and risk management experts planning for the best way for humanity to deal with climate change. Why would anyone care what a bunch of bridge players think on the subject? (I am sure a number of bridge players do have expertise that makes their opinions relevant, but it'd be awfully hard to state their credentials on a letter coming from the ACBL rather than from them as individuals.)
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You needn't worry, Amir. I think we've established that you're not my type. :)
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amir, obviously you learned more from the intolerant regime you grew up under than you care to admit.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
New York has historically been the center of US bridge with all of its famous bridge clubs (sadly not so many now), its being where the Bridge World is published, etc. There are a lot more tournament bridge players on the East Coast than in the non-Florida South, or at least that's my perception. Also, perhaps there are other reasons but it always seemed to me like HQ was located in MS (and previously in TN) due to cost reasons.

As for mentioning New York boorishness specifically, I was trying to give an impression of what a non-bridge-playing Mississippi politician might think when reading the ACBL's letter, with its ever-so-empty threat of never holding a national tournament in a place it never would have held one anyway. In that context, the main association with New York is only its fame for rudeness (especially from the perception of Southerners). “Consider your audience” is supposed to be the first rule for a letter like that…
April 14, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 14, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top