Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I figured pass was normal, just gut checking. FWIW, partner's hand was JT87642 x x AKJx. Spades came in (singleton Q) so we were +200 on the board for a near 0. However, I expect most tables competed to 4 (which makes) and I think it is easy to bid 4 over 4.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised and disappointed anytime I see extra boards in play. A regional I attended last year had 33 boards in play and it made PMs between sessions awful: most people had 12 boards not in common. They received so many complaints about it though that they switched to webs this year which was a lot better.

Web movements are a great thing and I think it is awesome that most of the Seattle clubs I play at run a web. It keeps results more fair and makes the discussion afterwards more fun. I'm always surprised when national events have 28 boards in play on the first day. It seems like any director who is experienced enough to be directing a national event should be comfortable running a web movement.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's supposed to be a different pair event getting added instead
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't play them, but every once in a while I'll decide to super accept anyway with 3 and it has usually worked out. The usual case is that I had a max already which feels like more than a max after the transfer. Perhaps a 1NT overcall with 18 that likes the xfer or a 16 (in 14-16 context) or 17 (in 15-17) with a worthless doubleton outside.

I hate blindly super accepting with 3 just because you can though. Why play 3 down 1 when you can play 2 making?
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suction is one of my favorite things to see opponents using if I'm playing precision. It is just ambiguous enough to keep the advancer from moving the preempt to a painfully high level but not ambiguous enough to cause issues for the strong club pair. Suction is strangely popular in Seattle, but even though probably 75% of opponents use it, I can't remember a single bad result for us that came from suction whereas I've seen natural bidding and psycho suction both lead to serious issues for the precision pair on many occasions.

I prefer Mathe and don't consider Randy's point about 0-4 vs 5-7 to be a big deal as I don't even consider the 0-4 vs 5-7 worth showing if I'm playing precision and they X, suits are a lot more important imo. I'll also play Psycho Suction with some partners and have seen opponents struggle to deal with it.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multiple exciting things in there, hope to see where they lead. Specifically:

Moving the IMP pairs to Sun/Mon and a new pair event for Fri/Sat for the Spring NABC helps tackle a large issue with nothing concurrent with the silvers for people who aren't old enough to play the silver ribbon. This was especially awful as it was on the weekend which is particularly frustrating for younger players who are still working. Excited to see this get proposed and potentially have it go live in time for Philadelphia.

Overall awards depth going by size of field instead of some arbitrary cap makes sense. When you have 300+ pairs in an event, why arbitrarily limit it to 50 places?

Soloway KO for the fall seems a lot more interesting/appealing than a senior KO, and has a format that is especially appealing for teams with low seeding points who face an uphill battle to make day 3 or later of the Spins/Vanderbilt.

New Charts in place before the Spring NABC - I had hoped for Jan 1st but still getting these approved and live in March would be really nice. Seems like the committee has done a great job of revamping these and everyone I've talked to about it is excited about the new charts.

Some STaC changes, the biggest of which (in my opinion) is a long needed change to matchpoint across the field. Only using finishing % biased heavily towards small 5-6 table games where high %s are much easier and made the STaC format seem especially pointless for larger games. There's still obviously strength of field disparity issues, but this seems like an improvement over the current situation.

The discussion of KO experiments also seems interesting, I'm curious to see where that goes. Having more variety and flexibility in event structure seems like a good thing as does encouraging districts to experiment and work together to improve the current approach.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good player doesn't mean omniscient. Good players also make Xs that don't work out. Clear pass for me, not going to lose sleep if XX happened to be right on this hand.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Undiscussed I would assume someone would X 2 for the majors with hearts and then see if I could hit spades. I don't understand the desire to rescue the opponents on potential misfit auctions and “2 for both majors” by opponents has been my #1 most consistent source of good penalty X results. As for stopper vs clubs, voted stopper just because I've seen that more.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure I agree that being at the 2 level to show 2 suits is an advantage. You are a level higher and have your neck much more exposed without any guarantee of a long trump suit and are a lot more likely to get punished. With less penalty oriented partners I play 1NT (2A) X is penalty interest if 2A shows 2 suits and takeout if its single suit and that tends to work really well because the “I have 2 suits” overcalls are a frequent source of nice penalties. Similarly, 2 suit bids vs precision are a common source of penalties on a misfit and intelligent play of the hand later if not.

Bidding 2 suited hands at the 3 level is even MORE preemptive than the 2 level but no one seriously suggests that, so the “higher is better” assumption in the “more 2 level preempts is good” assertion seems questionable in my opinion.

I also think the main value of preemption lies not in what you can do unless you really can bid 3M on your own, in which case the system doesn't really matter. It is what advancer can do and specifically what advancer can do before the 1 opener bids again. Bid your longest suit naturally and if partner can raise it to 3M/4m or higher then odds are in your favor that you are getting an above average result. If responder can't raise then you get out and they have an idea of what to lead or return on defense. Declarer has some info, but knowing about 5 cards is a lot less useful than knowing about 9.

This system seems to mostly give up on the minors as far as high level preemption is concerned. A single suit is unknown, a flat natural 5 card suit isn't even in the system, and the 4 spades + minor hand the minor isn't known. The only situation we know the minor is when we have 4 hearts - which goes back to giving up info about 9 cards instead of 5 if on defense later.

Returning back to the original challenge in the OP: “Popular big club defenses don't enable preemption more effectively than a natural defense.”, I don't see how any system which mostly gives up on effectively preempting the minor suits meets that challenge.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for taking the time to go into such depth on your system! :)

As I've played precision and against precision more, I've become a bigger and bigger fan of Mathe, not because of memory issues but because I think it creates the best results. The “Not Mathe” system devised by Peter Weichsel seems appealing as well.

Some specific things I have doubts about here:

1) Giving up the natural 1 call. Many scoff at how it takes up no space, but Rodwell's simulations considered it a very valuable bid and as a precision player, two of my most memorable bad results in the last year were after LHO overcalled a simple 1 showing diamonds and their partner was able to jump directly to the 4+ level. If partner doesn't have diamonds it is very unlikely you are getting X'd at the one level and when they do they can jump it up. I've also gotten a top when overcalling 1 due to both partner jumping and also when partner doesn't support and the opponents confidently bid NT I can lay off the diamond lead and wait for one through. One recent good result required a non diamond lead, followed by an immediate switch to diamonds (not obvious from dummy) at trick 2-3 that most pairs didn't find.

2) Related to 1, giving up known natural minor single suiters at the 1-2 level. Again, best results come when partner knows they have a big fit and can jump it up before the strong club opener gets to make a clarifying bid. “either minor” doesn't help when partner unexpectedly has a lot of trump with you. Sure, sometimes they will have lots of cards in both minors but sometimes they are something like 4342 and assume your minor is clubs and are bummed to later find out your 6 card minor was diamonds. On several occasions I've had it go something like 1 2 X* 5 followed by frustration and (and plenty of wrong spot/strain) for the strong club side

3) I always feel doubtful about the value of extremely descriptive bids about shape when we are unlikely to declare. People always talk about the disadvantage of Michaels when you don't win the auction as declarer can play it nearly double dummy. Similarly, showing 1 suit doesn't necessarily give up tons but showing two suits certainly makes it easier to play. Time after time I have declared against people showing these two suits and gotten more right than I would have otherwise. Likewise, I've usually been glad that I didn't bother to mention my second suit. Sometimes they play in it and there's a bad break and other times they finesse things the wrong way.

Regardless about how I feel about it though, it is definitely an interesting and well thought out system. Thanks for taking the time to post! :)
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why overcaller is going to know to XX if 2 X'd gets passed to them, advancer had a chance to preference to the major and chose not to.

Also not sure why we are worried about missing a spade fit instead of defending when we have 54 in the majors and partner has at least 2 hearts. Do we need a written invitation to X for penalties before defending?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they understand trick taking and trumps, it seems possible. I would say 1-5 of what Michael Bodell listed above, play some hands, talk about HCP and amount to open and respond, play some more hands.

If the concept of a trick and trump is a new one, it seems like you'd definitely want to start with mini bridge. Skip all the bidding until they have a basic understanding of the trick taking part of things.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As does leading towards the short honor and finessing. Both approaches can pick up Q 4th, just a question of which side you want to pick it up in.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So I guess your vote is 2.83% or less of an inference? Since RHO having stiff Q is about that % and everything else can be played either way?
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Advancer could easily have something like a 4351 hand trying to get ahead of the penalty pass and/or find the better fit. Takeout seems silly since you can comfortably have your cake and eat it too on this auction: 1NT opener can hit 2 with 4+ and pass otherwise, and responder can hit 2 with a desire to defend and bid 2 or higher with something else.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Added a cards style answer
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, went ahead and added that as an answer.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably should have worded the answers differently, but seems late to change the poll answers at this point :(
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't disagree with you since that responsive makes a lot of sense, but I think taking the opponents at their word that they have a 9+ card fit is a huge assumption. Opener might have preempted on 5. Responder might have advanced on Hx or maybe even 2 small. I've even seen opponents raise on a stiff honor and a weak hand two days ago. I've certainly advanced a preempt with a very weak hand and poor trump support (altho typically after an X rather than a suit bid) to take up space and with the knowledge that its unlikely that they'll manage to X us in 3 of our suit and have seen many “good” players do the same.

I'm not saying it should be explicitly “I have a lot of trump, let's defend” but rather curious about it suggesting that we defend given our knowledge of partners hand (that they have 5+ Oranges). Even if we have a fit in a 3rd suit somewhere, there's no guarantee that we should be at the 4 level and if partner had support for other suits they might have X'd instead of bidding 3 Oranges.

Again, not trying to say that penalty is “better” just clarify my understanding from before which was: This is classically cards/penalty, how you play it now is based on partnership agreement since many partnerships play it as takeout, every partnership should discuss it. Clearly that understanding was wrong since the poll is essentially unanimous.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, since the polls are really clear, a followup question:

My understanding is that the classical definition of a responsive X is that they are off after a preempt. For reference, see the bottom of http://www.bridgeguys.com/doubles/ResponsiveDouble.html where he refers to the Modern Bridge Conventions definition. There are a few other places I've found that mention that responsive is off after a preempt

I haven't actually read modern bridge conventions, but a partner that has read it said that this sort of sequence is penalty. Some partners and I were playing this sort of scenario as penalty/card showing and I thought that was in line with the classic definition of responsive being off.

Obviously this is incredibly rare. Is my understanding incorrect because:

A) We misunderstood what Root/Pavlicek are saying
B) That's the classic definition but no one does that anymore
C) Some other reason

For context, I thought everyone would treat poll 1 as responsive/takeout but the answers might be more varied on poll 2 based on partnership style since we know one of partners suits and finding a secondary fit is less likely. I expected the majority in this poll to say responsive/takeout, but didn't expect for it to be essentially unanimous so curious what piece of information I had that was wrong.
Oct. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top