Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jordan Lampe
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could invent a whole new system for 4th seat openers based on the fact that you can ditch all the preemptive bids and use all that bidding space for constructive hands that are otherwise hard to bid. 2 as 11-15 with 5 and 4! 3 to show 6, 3 and 17-18. The sky's the limit, the constraint is how much memory load you want for a situation that comes up only around 2% of the time.
Aug. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you think it's a clear 2 bid, bid 2; no need to feel bad, call the director, or apologize.
Aug. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Quiz Factor”. The fact that someone is asking the question increases the odds that something slightly weird is the right answer.
July 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
QF makes me want to bid 2 but in real life I think if you are fixed stay fixed.
July 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is that with flights, every low rated team can just choose whether they want to go up 1 step, 2 steps, or all the way to the top. It's much better the way we do bracketed where a team with insufficient master points has to choose between the bottom bracket where they will win easily, or the top bracket where they will lose quickly. They want to play in the right bracket? Tell 'em to get some masterpoints first. We need the money.
July 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dummy isn't likely to have many hearts after an auction like (1)-X-(P)-P-(P) either
July 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The top of page 5: “Clearly you are going to lead a major.”. This wasn't clear to me at all! All the textbooks say to lead a trump when you have the opponents outgunned in a low level contract. Was is the Q that changed our mind? Or the fact that trumps are likely 5-2 in the opponent hands and the 2 hand isn't going to get ruffs anyway?
July 15, 2019
$20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have one Precision partner who wants to always show 4 spades here. I have another one who wants 1 to deny a balanced hand. Sometimes my 2/1 partners have views here as well.
July 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We already have this. Anyone can write “TOP” on their entry form to request the top bracket even without a lot of points.
July 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray - that works too. Like Poker you can choose to join the high stakes table or the low stakes table and nobody really cares. We could set it up so that everyone can choose from the “3 * number of teams gold points” bracket, the “2 * number of teams” bracket, or the “1.5 * number of teams” bracket.
July 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's all really rather simple. Every team puts down their bracketing master points on their form, which must be greater or equal than the actual number of master points.

The complaint I hear from this is that sometimes some other team gets put into a lower bracket than they wanted because they got bumped by the want-to-play-higher team.

But I'm not sympathetic. That “other team” can ALSO write a larger number of bracketing master points on their form next time.

You might say this will cause a race to infinity, where everyone writes infinity (or “TOP”) on their form. Well, first of all, since most teams don't want to play any higher than they have to, I am not sure this is really a problem. But more importantly, we already have that problem today: What do you do if you have a 4 round KO and 17 teams all want to be in TOP?
July 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There may be a case for it, but so far 94% of voters didn't.
July 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the companion hand: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-8q9k1plsmd/ The 2 majority is missing a cold 4.
July 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel like you led the witness
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is also a viable choice. Should show 6 blah blah blah but still.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised the term “logical alternatives” hasn't been mentioned yet.
June 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does advancer show the canonical balanced 8 count with a spade stopper or two?
June 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what happens if one player thinks continuation makes sense and the other doesn't?
June 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule is that if we've bid a natural NT on the 2nd or later call, then all doubles are for penalty. Maybe not optimal, but at least I'll know what it means if this auction ever comes up.
June 18, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top