Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a stellar match regardless of whatever the final ruling may be– was lucky to vugraph one of the rooms yesterday. Amazing judgments by both teams all around, and was close all the way through.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah shoot, problem posted wrong. Feel free to ignore, will repost later.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a good point.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I have at least one partner that would prefer to have the agreement that XX be scramble here, but not sure how common that is, or if it has much merit.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It reminds me of a stepping-stone squeeze, though not quite because you don't actually need to put East in as a way to get to stranded winners in dummy (you're happy if East flings you back in hand as well).
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roughing finesse in s rates to be on. If partner has a something like AJ10x xx - AJ109xxx I'd want to be there. We could easily have a grand with all the KCs.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would strongly prefer just to show a mixed raise in s if we had the methods (even lying about only having 3s). 3 limit is disgusting. Normally I would just raise to 2 and stick with the known fit and not worry about it, but I feel stuck if they balance in 3m. Can see how responding 1 and delay preference to s has it's own problems though in terms of describing the strength of the hand right.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At last summer's Board of Governor's meeting, there was similar discussion about the integrity of various NABC+ events, when the board decided to officially strike down the last motion to save the Baze Senior KO.

My favorite comment from the meeting, was when it was suggested the reason these events exist is so “Meckwell can have their own personal drinking fountain” in the main event, and other people can win the concurrent event (whether it be Baze or otherwise).

I personally support the existence of the gender/age events, but I think the real problem is when the existence of these events scares people away from entering the open NABC+ events. Like still having the Baze concurrently with the Soloway premiering, just so people can enter a National event and avoid playing Meckwell, is really stupid.

A lot of the NABC+ events have to overlap due to scheduling, so I think some of this is unavoidable. I don't know what the exact solution is, but I think the current schedule of events has a decent balance of things, and there is enough interest in most of the current gender/age events to keep them going. The only real problem is when these events start to die, like the Baze and Wagar KOs. The last Baze had 10 tables, and I think the last Wagar had 8 tables. I think there just has to be a fine line where we say, “why is this still a NABC+ event?”
April 6
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Idk where Phil originally got it from– appear to be multiple versions out there, maybe he remembers and can share a link. Here is how we play it:

s/s/s at any level are that suit and a higher (and next suit up by advancer is always P/C)

s at any level is natural.

NT at any level (well, except 7NT) is a single suited hand (relays s as p/c)

X doesn't exist. Though I have been experimenting with one partner as playing it as the minors. Phil won't let us play this as anything because he loves to remind me of the first time we sat down to play HUNT: 5 seconds before the auction starts I asked him what double meant, and then the auction proceeded (1C)-X.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This balance just seems a little light more than anything else. Also the vulnerability is just wrong– we might be -200 at the 2-level on top defense. I don't think 4333 with length in the majors is a dealbreaker, though certainly a downgrade. The best hand partner can have is like a bad balanced 15, and that doesn't even look like a hand we are looking for across this garbage, which is a bad warning sign.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Sam,

Phil has it right, as mentioned above. Phil’s the one who found it, has been a favorite defense among us and the Northwestern group for a little while now.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ribs good. Eat Ribs Matthew ;-) (Also thanks for low-key calling us savages in a public forum lol).
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like 1-1-1 to promise an unbalanced hand in most partnerships, so I would be stuck with no rebid in that situation. Without that agreement, appears to be no rebid issues after 1 opener (at least, out of competition).
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep good catch! West didn't find that good play though– J was finally exited after some hesitation, and that was that.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whatever red suit he exits, you can win in hand (K, Q/10 depending on what he plays), pull his last trump, and get to the board with the A, and pitch your remaining losers.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes good catch, 7 should be Q, will fix!
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That being said– it feels unethical that East did not alert his X when he thought it was artificial. Unfortunately, by not alerting, he actually did his side a favor by not accidentally giving misinformation. I would take note of it in case the behavior continues in a case where it would legitimately be misinformation, but unfortunately no grounds for discipline here. Have my sympathy here Ping (and certainly you did get fixed on the board), but in ACBL land there should be no adjustment.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East was never obligated to alert his bid. If the bidding had started with an opening strong NT as East thought, then yes, he would have been obligated, and not alerting an agreed artificial call would have been misinformation.

It doesn't matter what East thinks his bid means at all in this position– as long as presumably the agreement the partnership has for a double after (1D)-(1NT)-X is unalertable. And it sounds like their agreement for a double in that position is takeout, which is not alertable.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East forgot their agreement and mis-bid with X. After partner responded 2, he recalled the true meaning of his double, and opted to bid 3 anyways. Dbl had no unusual meaning by agreement, and so East had no obligation to alert his call. There is no damage.

If East HAD alerted X, it would have been misinformation according to their agreements, even though the alert of X as “single-suited” would have accurately described the bid East meant to make. Now NS have some protection, depending on how the rest of the auction proceeded.

The laws only protect against misinformation, not a incorrect bid. This time they got lucky and landed in the right spot, but NS was given all the correct information with respect to EW's agreements (at least in terms of what is required to be alerted– I assume NS did not ask about what any of EW bids mean during the hand until the play had commenced and suspicion aroused).
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ultimate puzzle game
March 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top