Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this a count situation with Qxx on dummy? If so, isn't the 8 fine? Leader knows it is safe to cash another heart to see what SP partner gives, then potentially wakes up to the situation when partner drops the J?
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not even sure why I say semi forcing in most partnerships, since the only time I wouldn't pass is if I had a max and 6+ or I had a second 4+ suit.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an FYI since a friend didn't see this either, if you open the “bracket” in ACBL Live, you can scroll down to the bottom to see the standings.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a variety of systems that also use some sort of 2 level bid to show invite+ in the opened major. We use 2, I believe the more common is 2M-1 I think? This isn't a simple change though, as your 2 now needs to cover more ground. On the upside, as long as it includes GF hands you now open up 2NT for other purposes. I prefer it as natural and invitational so partner doesn't have to decided to answer without a 4 card suit opposite our 1NT non forcing. Another advantage is you show the invite+ at a low level, so you have lots of space to relay when appropriate (or make more descriptive bids if not using relays).

Oh, also if you are playing 1M as 10-15, now you can open those light hands and play 2M when you have a weak hand instead of 1NT which can certainly be nice. Sometimes partner had a 3 card invite but 1NT goes down while 2M makes comfortably. Or you are in 2M instead of 3M in a 1NT forcing system, which can be nice sometimes too when hands don't fit and things are sitting badly.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like a totally normal X, and good on W for trusting their partner. Even with the freak hand, it seems like many declarers could easily go wrong and let 3 make.
Nov. 22
Eric Sieg edited this comment Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Likes s, heart cue. I would suspect that's what the majority of the “other” votes would vote for if it was available.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yeah, we play 1 level advances as forcing
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great article, with a lot of great insights from someone who clearly knows a lot about this.

Just a quick echo of one idea: showing total event % instead of total event MPs for a two session pair game would be awesome. The process of converting that backwards or needing to then go look up % for the first session has always been annoying. Would love to see your suggestion implemented.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cool. A friend mentioned this same treatment and we had the same question. sorry about messaging with the same question, just found the thread now :)
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regardless of what you think of it, spade A spade T absolutely has to be in this poll. When the answer getting the most responses is “I want to do something other than the options provided”, then there is a problem with the answers provided.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm going to ignore the spirit of this and say that no, 4th seat, there are many 12 counts without spades that I won't touch :P
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 for me, but any of the first 3 choices seem reasonable. 3 seems wild opposite an unpassed partner.
Nov. 5
Eric Sieg edited this comment Nov. 5
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
.

Bottom Home Top