Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Especially since Jan could have lots of believable reasons for not wanting to play with me anymore.

Also, most my partners don't make a formal announcement, they just move out of state :)
Oct. 18
David Yates edited this comment Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand 3bi2. Can some explain or give a practical example?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Legislators seem to have an endless ability to take any minor issue and make it worse.

What is my incentive - other than a dislike for the starting pair - for acting as policeman? There is no upside for me to check, nor a penalty provision for not playing cop. Mayberry sees this as further proof of how stupid humans can be.

Suppose there is a penalty for my failure to act as a properly deputized narc. What happens later? Do my first round opponents - who don’t like me - call the TD and say: “David didn’t check to see if we had CCs, we do but we would like you to give him a PP for not performing his law enforcement duties.” Of course if the ops don’t have the two required Ccs and some drops dime on them in a subsequent round, the story will be “they lost them” or someone must have taken their Ccs.” And I will back them up now, wont I? It is never lying when the intent is to simply torment the regulators who had originally intended to torment the regulated.

After Rd1, there is one of two situations. Either this supercedes existing regulations, in which case there is now NO penalty for the missing Ccs. Check the time, it is no longer PRIOR to the start of the event

If this proposal simply supplements existing regs, it is still during the session - not prior - and this stuff does not matter.

As far a TD discretion, if there ever was something that could be added to this proposal to make it more random and useless, that would be it.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OTOH, Cokin's partner in crime, Sion, was also readmitted and then expelled once again for continuing in his ways.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our ACBL keeps looking better and better.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not that common, but one also needs to consider that:
1M-1NT; 2y-3m cannot be both invitational and a sign-off.

Therefore, a 2/1 GF structure needs to figure out what to with hands that used to go: 1M-2m; 2M-3m
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 or 3 (maybe) pass shows some other hand.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For extracting penalties and a good result, IME, XX has probably the lowest frequency success of any “gadget” in bridge history. It is useful in claiming ownership of the hand and identifying to partner those rare cases when one is bidding with values and not because it is one's turn.

My issue with XX on the actual hand is not just the soft values (JJJ) but the lack of preparedness. IMO, the XX is often misused when the default action is to XX with ten plus. Players think is the good because now opener does not “bury” responder for bidding, but it shows a lack of faith in partner who has seen your bids before. Where there might be gain on weak hands, there will be loss on decent ones - the very positions you need to protect.

The shorthand explanation of why these are losses is because - contrary to modern tendencies of shape first, values later, we are no saying we have something and then let the ops bang our auction and we are left to figure it out.

An easy test is what would you do if they overcalled? Suppose on the actual hand, the bidding started 1 - (1) - ? would you have offered 2? But that is the corner that XX will likely paint yourself into: 1-(X) - XX - (1); P - (P) - ? Ugh.

If your hand was Jx Axxx Jxx KJxx you bid 2. Now it is easy. This is the sort of hand that I might start with XX that has 3-card support for partner's suit.

Players tend to look at values for XX, but they also they need to consider shape and how an auction might continue over XX.

As an aside, the floor of ten comes from the old days when people opened on full values. If a soft ten is no longer a L/R because you open lighter than grandpa did, maybe the values also need to be bumped up.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not like the XX either, so if you are looking for proof that Peg is nuts, this must be is QED.

But then neither of us are nutty enough to pass the South hand…
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played plenty of rubber bridge, but not for stakes. If there was money involved - which was rare - it was trivial and meant only as a way of keeping score.

My observation is the general tendency of players is that “last hand” or “last rubber” is often akin to waving a cape at a bull. Social players often like going out with a bang.

I have no direct knowledge of whether substantial stakes would mitigate such enthusiasm for fireworks. I suspect those rare players who play regularly for rent money will keep an even keel (Richard Fleet would never be tardy with his landlord). The action junkies who embrace risk will likely take the aggressive view as they are running out of opportunities to enjoy the rush and thrill.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Snoopy & Woodstock KO'd them in the last round
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bd1

Yes. Double does look strange. This is included as both the American and Italian player took that action. Lots has been made of “off-shape doubles” by Italy. Just pointing out that USA used them too - and still got the hand “right”. And in Europe, against canape systems, European players would be more likely to be forced into those situations of not being “prepared” after X and undoubtedly more comfortable doing so given the frequency and experience.

I don’t think anything is “right” about raising or not. It becomes much more random back then than in today’s world with our responsive doubles, Lebensohl treatments, transfers etc. What I did want to demonstrate is that if one is going to suggest a pair convey’s UI in their bidding to assist partner with hand strength, then it would be odd to suggest it was the pair who failed to get the level right and not the pair who did. Not that I think either pair was cheating. But having playing bridge here in the USA before bidding boxes. Well, there was always lots of UI that the jury tried to ignore.

Bd4

I think he should have bid Drury :) The bidding is of interest because it is old-fashioned. Note that for both teams, 3 would have been forward going. So pass 2NT with your 8 points opposite PH pard and hope to make. One reason they played their cards so well back then was necessity.

The play was of interest because of a hick-up in the American defense. One of the frequent Italian observations about the Americans was we often sent a bunch of good players but not real partnerships. (Ira Corn would change that) I think that the defenders were not on the same page defending this hand was just that. It is hard enough to play very good bridge even when one does have a regular partner :)

Bd7

4-X was set a trick. This board was a big pickup for the American team. The USA bidding looks odd. In theory, Ogust preempted and bid again vulnerable (? Who knows, but 2 was certainly not a SJO). Now obviously, partner needs to have some “points”. But it could have all been in hearts or useless values.

My point on these hands is that even at the highest levels, given old-fashioned methods, there were constant educated guesses about what to do. But if Italy guessed well, some were suspicious. But when America guessed well (could have easily been 800 the other way) nobody says a thing. My view is that was just how bridge was played. I do not see anything unduly suspicious. But if one started with that viewpoint, there is plenty of confirmation bias available to sustain that belief.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the criticism guys.

It is just really too time consuming to go over 200+ boards at two tables, then make nice, complete diagrams on each one. Most of the boards were simply intended to be Cliffs notes versions of the deals. I figured that anyone with an interest in looking further can pull up the actual board, which is why I referenced it.

At the end of the day, you need to rely on your judgement, not mine.

Besides, if I did do hand diagrams and detailed write-ups on all the hands, people would clicked on the article and saw page 1 of 173 and figured I really and truly did lose it.

Again, sorry for the errors in writing. But I am actually a slow writer and a very bad proof-reader.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not intended to be a rebuttal. The main issue - which will be developed later in hopefully better written articles (Jeff, I am the worst proof-reader in history) is that the world of bridge needs to decide what standards constitute “proof”.

Everyone seems to think that because of Boye's Herculean efforts in once case, that we have it now. We do not.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, fewer competitors than today, but a lot of bridge between the teams.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty funny that someone in the late 50s in the US would think Sputnik referred to bridge.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A penalty double is either a balanced hand with enough strength that your weak partner will pull, or a good unbalanced hand and responder will pull.

Not that you cannot go for a number opening NTs, but it is harder squeeze blood out a NT than it looks. I have pen-X on a CC card with a partner that I have played with regular for many years now and if there have been as many as three victories, I am forgetting something.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or we can simply rename it the IMP “championship” for people who do not enter real IMP events.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since Al gets the bidding nuances and system info right for all these teams when he is commentating, I am willing to pardon him.

We do these things in election years.
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speak for yourself, Michael. I'm never to old for space mountain and drinking beer in all those fake little Disney countries. (Of course the entry fee to Disney World looks like a bridge event, so there is that.)
Sept. 23
.

Bottom Home Top