Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can jump raise a major suit bid over my double, but can I advance with 2N over partner's 1N. I can reopen with a double after I overcall 1 if it comes to that. If partner cannot take a call over my overcall then we didn't belong in game.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fixed
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sent bw a query on the
“Unable to get poll results; got a 500 error” message
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
getting a 500 error
i cannot see the poll results
is this just my problem?
Feb. 13
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A
J863
KJ72
Q987

Ax same honors and shape but a better Q
J863
KJ72
Q98

AQ same honors and shape but with heart & club intermediates
JT93
KJ72
T98

Ax same honors and shape but a better Q + hearts are upgraded
JT93
KJ72
Q98


AQ same hand with j98 and the T9
JT93
KJ72
J98

I assume you are doubling with the first hand. What about the others?
I agree with Jeff. The double is a touch, mildly, somewhat, very, seriously aggressive
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the risk of betraying the source of the problem I would want to know the predilection of the opponent holding this hand at the other table. If I think they would be likely to double then I need to decide if I want to mirror their call or not.

In our usual decently sized club field I would be more likely to double.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
including, on this one, whether or not 2 was diamonds and a major
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please share the final contracts
1N x __
1D x __
1C x __
2H x __
3H x __

I can imagine E choosing to pass any West opening bid.
Unless NS can find a diamond lead 3H-E will fetch 140.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
contiguousness    is such a pity
I guess we'll go with contiguity
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand IS outside the range… too strong. As mentioned I would have opened 1N if my heart suit was as weak as mentioned.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like a system that requires a 1 opening to promise four pieces. We typically reply 1 to 1 with a balanced 6-7hcp and no four card major. With a weak 4x3 hand partner might not respond in their 4-card major over 1 but will always bid the major over 1.

If the heart suit had been QJ43 I suspect you'd see many more opting for 1N
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opps were playing standard carding. IIRC South encouraged and played the Q on the second trick.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

2 2 11-15 5+ if 5 then 4cdM 2=1rnd force
2 2 have at least 1 major what is major & how good is hand?
3 4N 4 and non-minimum RKC
5 6 2 with
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Grass Roots IMP Teams?
ACBL-sponsored
club qualifying required during the GrassRoots Fund Month (May) IMP Pair Events
IMP seminars, mini-lessons, post-mortem panels eligible for education grants from district grass roots funds.

3 flights: NLM, 0-1500, 0-3,000
Districts to set unit/district final contest conditions and are not compelled to send a district champion pair of pairs in any flight. Districts may supplement the ACBL subsidy.

National finals can be scored as a Team of Two Pairs where one district pair is NS and one EW: cross-imped against each field

or as a National Limited Swiss Pairs scored by IMPs so that pairs doing well get matched against others doing well.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If splinters and picture jumps have not been discussed nor a fragment jump shift to 3 which you once employed against my dad & I at a regional in Pittsburgh! in the 80s, I would gladly pass and then discuss methods to discover degree of fit and controls below 4M if a reasonable slam was missed.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don,
You can get a glimpse into world class methods by reviewing the convention cards posted online. The USBF, ecats, & WBF are sites where you can find them.
Years ago I noted a shift from 4-suit transfers over 1N to 2 as a range ask. It led me to Danny Kleinman's book, The NoTrump Zone, which I found most instructive.
As a forcing club adherent I've pestered Alan Sontag over many years with iterations of a response structure to the 2 opening. World class players are routinely willing to help the rest of us.

All of the online cc cards have more detailed descriptions of defensive carding than the acbl approved cc templates
Make Kit's Korner mandatory reading

Obtain a copy of The Rodwell Files, bite off small bits, and digest slowly.

Fulltime players play many more hands in tough competition. Situations that are very rare for most of us have been seen before by them and countermeasures developed. Their risk/reward computations for rare situations is much better informed and their general level of judgment is more highly refined.

You can have a tool belt with lots of implements, but if you've never had the occasion to implement them will you remember how to use them?

There's a slammish adjunct to 1m 1M 2N(relay to 3 when xyz is employed) that distinguishes the length of your major, the length of support for partner's minor, and the location of your singleton in one of my partnership notes. That sequence has NEVER come up in 20 years. If it ever does come up will I remember whether 3 & 3 show a longer major or a longer support for partner's minor?

At the summer NABC GNT finals the grand life masters have an undeniable advantage. Thirty years of stratification has dampened the enthusiasm for tilting at windmills. I enjoy the challenge in the Vanderbilt and Spingold, but believe the GNTs should be recast for the benefit of the league's club players.
We need to encourage them, and even the most accomplished of them, to become or become MORE regular tournament attendees.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2N might have appeal if 3 promised a weak hand and something else a GF hand.
At IMPs vul I'd like something heftier than 2
Without such an agreement 3 is a problematic stretch
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GRFd use ideas:
reduced entry fees for Flight C players at district final
travel subsidies or mileage reimbursement for teams to travel to the district final (I think D17 does this as Vegas is a long way to travel for some)
income supplements for IMP mini-lessons before club qualifying GNT events (include 1/2priced entry fees at the clubs for running them)
free district final entry fees for first time Flight B and C participants
1/2 priced Flight B entry fees at district final for teams with 0-1,000MPs
district reimbursement of NABC GNT entry fees beyond two days AND for the Open Flight

Len 112-58 states
“ shall be used by the District to help fund Grass Roots Events.
Grass Roots Events are defined as the Grand National Teams and the North American Pairs. ”
IMO, providing an adequate award so that district champions can consider that they've WON A TRIP to the summer NABC can certainly be considered part of funding the team portion of the Grass Roots Events. I'm not sure what you meant by NABC expenses.
Feb. 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
re D14
I was a member of a GNT Flight a team who traveled to the middle of Iowa to find out we had no opponent. We had to pay 4 sessions of team entries to not play, but earn the right to represent the district.

District policy at the time were that the GNTs were self-supporting. No district funds were available to support GNT champions. Table fee surcharges from club qualifying, and the profit from unit and district finals were the only sources for travel subsidies to the winning teams.

The cost to attend the district finals exceeded the check we received from the district to go to Nashville (IIRC 2007). Maddening.

Of course, when I complained at the following D14 board meeting, guess who got to do something about it.

In point of fact our district GNT conditions of contest require club qualifying in the lower brackets, but only attendance at club qualifying games for the top two brackets. There is a buy-in clause for district members who are unable to play in a club qualifying game.

The N.Dakota unit is the only one who still runs a Unit Qualifying event.

I remember, as a B player, having to finish in the top half of a unit final to be able to attend the district final. Re grass roots: one year we had to appeal a decision by our neighboring unit who didn't want to let us play in their unit final. Those days are certainly gone.

Len, the ACBL has not been in the business of dictating to the districts how they select their GNT representatives, only that
“each ACBL district will name a district champion in
each category by means of a fair competition that is not necessarily the same from district to district.”

Those of us who worked to establish the Grass Roots Fund wanted the league to administer the funds so that districts doing the best job of increasing participation would receive the most GRFds. What did transpire was a travesty where the D7, D9 and D16 are garnering a huge percentage (~45% in the last cycle) of the GRFd pie even after the 20% tithe that had to be applied to address the inequity. The dollars flow to the districts who run the most GRFd games, not do the best to improve Special Events participation.

There was no will to eliminate and/or recast the Special Event team event 6 years ago. I don't think there are enough ACBL members who care enough to effect a change now. It took a vote for reconsideration to even let a second Flight C team attend the NABC final. ACBL board members doubt the GNTs ability to drive increased NABC participation.

We should be embracing strategies to do so and experiment with ideas that reach the broad base of our least experienced players.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another nail on the head Don. I expressed that position at the last unit board meeting. don't know what they are going to do.

It's the last straw for me after a decade.

Everyone should know that we may very well not have a Grass Roots Fund but for conversations Don & I had when I was first getting into ACBL/GNT politics.
Feb. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
.

Bottom Home Top