Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plenty to think about here. Also maybe some striving to see if there's any possible additional clue in count etc. Once nothing emerges, I think most (all?) would play W for the queen. Taking a long time to think and then playing E for the Q would be a lot more unusual.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia (and other's) vision of “electronic bridge replaces cardboard bridge” will be the end of bridge. Not because electronic bridge counts as dead, but because the playerbase will grow tiny and will definitely stop growing ever again. One of the big advantages of bridge is the social aspect, that its done face to face with other people.

One need only look at the recent tabletop boom to understand that doing stuff WITH other people is huge. There are very good online equivalents to board games but that's just practice for the real thing. Something to do in the meantime. Ditto for electronic bridge. I play on BBO periodically and its great practice. Its an awesome way to play against strong players from the comfort of my own home. But if that's ALL that there was, if there was no in person tournament to practice FOR, then I would 100% be done with bridge forever and so would many others.

I feel like some see younger people playing video games and doing things from the comfort of their own home and think “tablets/online is modern! its the future!”. But I think that totally ignores both a big selling point of bridge and all evidence and trends in similar hobbies. If there was no future in person tournament to train for, there are many WAY more fun video games with a row of scientists figuring out how to make it more addictive/fun/etc. Bridge isn't going to change significantly, so we need to embrace the fact we can do something those video game (currently) can't.

If you want to kill bridge forever, push for a migration to online only.
Sept. 14
Eric Sieg edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you mean by post-modern correctly. Seems like most modern style now is to get in and get out quickly. It seems like passing 2 would be in keeping with that.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Badly fitting 14 opposite a minimum. S hand is almost exactly what you would expect on the auction. Even if partner does have 2 aces, it seems likely that you have a spade loser and a diamond loser with probably not enough club pitches to get rid of the spade loser. If partner didn't go slamming after 4, we should be done.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I confess to not really understanding the 3 votes. If its unusual, that seems really low. If its not, isn't partner going to misinterpret what we mean when we bid 3? If we guess and we're wrong, maybe partner can go make themselves comfortable on the couch. But if we pick a no win bid, it seems like maybe we should be on the couch.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking forward to finding out how it was meant and the result :)
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reminds me of a hand where LHO had something like AKQxxxx Jxxx x x and opened it 1 canape. Their partner had x xxx in the majors and kept correcting to hearts.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's possible I could not be giving enough value to the fact its a short heart and not a short club. I think my worst results, by far, have come from partner raising on something like xxx AJxx KQJxx x or xxx AJxx KQJx xx
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I'm not sure if you read what I said. I love raising on 3. But I consider xxx to be a terrible thing when bumping to 2. By frequently, I mean in my experience its usually been worse to have raised on 3 with xxx than otherwise. Sure, you might scrape out 110, but maybe 130 or 150 (vs 140) was available playing a normal spot. If its right, sometimes the opponents come back in and then you can show 3 and be super clear about your shape (and by inference, values since you would have raised earlier without bad spades). Just because majors score more doesn't mean they should be the priority vs everything else.

I also very much enjoy playing 4-3 fits, and frequently pull to a known moysian major suit game when it seems right or occasionally a moysian slam. However, I've usually been less than excited when partner raises on xxx. Now frequently we have a source of tricks elsewhere that gets trumped while we have trouble pulling trump on an awful holding.

I'm sure you have more experience than me given the years playing, just sharing my experience and viewpoint :)
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No real answer for “almost never”, so went with sometimes. I've only done it maybe twice though.

I do think there should be a poll option for “Almost never, but every couple years it seems right” since that's probably what most of us sometimes raise people mean.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played TABs for a couple years when I first learned precision, as it was part of the system described in Precision Today which was my main resource. I never found them to be critical and have since dropped them completely in favor of better shape exploration.

RKC usually does fine for figuring out trump quality. I think the best way to find the lower HCP slams is to find out that our hands are fitting nicely shapewise. I use the 2 bid as a special bid as well (showing a fit for the major and invite+ values), after which opener we quickly clarify strength and then have various shape asking relays available. I think its far more important to find out that partner has a stiff opposite your KQJx or opposite your xxxx than to worry about making sure we have a good trump suit. I've made slam with a bad trump suit many times, but things go poorly when our values and shape aren't fitting well with each other.

I noticed you mentioned CABs as well, which I also used to play. I think they have value, but usually find a combination of cue bidding, RKC, and 3rd round control ask at high levels does plenty well.

Its fun to experiment and try things out though. I certainly have over the years, and doing so has helped me better understand the strengths and weaknesses of my system choices now.
Aug. 27
Eric Sieg edited this comment Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Robert, Kxx or Axx would be a lot better. Qxx and stiff small heart seem good enough for me, but I wouldn't fault someone for bidding 2. With Kxx or Axx in spades, I would consider it downright weird to not bid 2.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My experience with raising with 3 is that xxx frequently goes badly. So I'm a big 3 card raiser, but wouldn't on this particular hand. As mentioned above by a variety of people, Qxx of spades or better it becomes a 2 bid.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
mildly shapely? :)
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note: 4 is cold, but declarer needs to work on diamonds earlier rather than ruffing hearts. As soon as they willingly trumped a 2nd club they were going down on best defense.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eh? Club switch works too, but either spade or club beats 4. What spade W follows with doesn't matter hugely.

You are just trying to run declarer out of trump before they get diamonds set up.

Assume 7 return, and W plays the K.
N wins and continues diamonds
E wins and plays a heart or a club. Either play results in N having to ruff somewhere and runs out of trump before diamonds get set up
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't call doubling 4 risky. I understand not bidding 5 on a flat 15 count, but surely E should be able to see the need for a spade switch after the first diamond once he gets count on the diamond suit.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered K as standard, but don't think I have any partnerships where I would lead it. Usually play Rusinow, and usually play K as power in partnerships that aren't Rusinow which effectively means I would lead Q in all partnerships.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit also frequently suggests playing the Q from KQ to make it harder to duck the A, although that's a lot less deceptive with the T on dummy.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X and hope to beat it, but wishing I had bid 3 as a natural invite if it was available.
Aug. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
.

Bottom Home Top