Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Nelson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 84 85 86 87
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My favorite in a 2/1 framework:

1 = clubs or balanced with transfer Walsh.

1 = unbalanced, five diamonds, 4=4=4=1, or 4=5 minors not strong enough to reverse. With transfer rebids over 1M responses, see https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/esoterica/lesage.html
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd prefer weak only multi like Michael, but if my system needs some strong hands in 2 anyway, I'd make GF diamond hands part of the mix.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be rolled back. I'm speculating a NS motivation for the director call. In my experience had a weak pair defended correctly and defeated 5, they wouldn't have called. Not saying they shouldn't have called, rolling back to 4 is a reasonable possibility, a properly constructed poll is appropriate. Now give West a heart void and a sixth spade and pass isn't a logical alternative for anyone who remembers he's playing bridge and not Pinochle.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But NS threw the gift away by letting 5 make, and wanted the gift back.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the ruling is influenced by the perception that if South didn't compete over 3 or 3 thinking it was both minors, he wouldn't have competed over it with the correct explanation. I think were East's hand clubs and diamonds, it makes competing at least as attractive as when East has diamonds alone. Fit jumps clarify distribution for both sides. I'd be more likely to pass against a limit raise than a fit jump (though it's not likely I'd pass in either case with this shape).
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Premeditated collusive cheating = time and eternity ban. Life sentence is too short.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andrzej. calling the bidding controversial is the understatement of 2018. But at this point is see no reasonable alternative to a trump, indeed I think I'd have lead one initially.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For this double, North doesn't promise clubs, but he's quite unlikely to be short in clubs. With four spades and at most two hearts, North has at least seven minor suit cards, so he has club tolerance or at least five diamonds. If the latter is the case, he has a easy 3NT bid over 3 showing extras.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If North opens 1, East overcalls 2 and buys it. 2HE= -110 NS. Rather better than the actual result.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I've usually played: With a minimum, show four spades or rebid 2, force with 3, all others natural NF with extras.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director needs to poll players about what they'd have done over 3 and over 3, before they even consider whether 5 gets doubled. Polling these issues might well have shown that you'd be playing 3 anyway, or several other possibilities. Clearly a weighted score is called for. Perhaps director was adjusting based on the way things worked before ACBL adopted weighted scores. Under the old regs, I think 5X= might be right, though I need to see the hands.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure Bob said it, I'm also sure it has been said by bridge players before Bob Hamman was born, said by card players before bridge existed, said by gamesters before cards existed… Indeed, it was said by Urk the caveman kibitzing the Rock Throwing event of the ??? BC Olympics. :)
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are, however, empowered to fire the director, and I needed the money. BTW, they were not ACBL sanctioned and did not award master points. I was hired to run the game as if it were sanctioned, except that written club rules would prevail over ACBL regs (not the Laws) in case of conflict. And the board liked my idea of deterring slow play, but left me no discretion over the amount of the penalties, and none over the imposition of penalties save the right to waive the penalty entirely in extraordinary circumstances. Yes I could have fought them over the score adjustment, but I was between jobs and my unemployment had run out.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With most partners, it was “bid or forced to game on strength.” So 1-(P)-2-(2)-P for example is forcing (assuming 2/1 game force, but then most partners should know subsequent intervention doesn't cancel a game force–but not all of them do! However you phrase it, Huub has the best rule.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, is a 40% of a top PP illegal or against ACBL regulations, as opposed to recommendations?
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is what was agreed with the club's governing board. The general idea was mine, the exact scale of penalties was set by the board. I like your 25%/50% suggestion. Time limits were set by the board based on years of experience with these players as to how long the took to actually finish a round. The objective was to speed up the slowest 10% or so of pairs, the players liked a leisurely game.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The procedure I followed in the club at senior center I directed for in the 90's:


If a table was badly behind, I'd pull the last board.

If neither pair had been slow before in that session, both pairs got Average on the assumption that both pairs were at fault, but this might change if only one pair was late a second time.

The second time a pair was late, the board would be scored as Ave+/Ave-, and if the other pair at first table stayed on time, I would change that score to Ave+/Ave-.

The third time a pair was late, the board was scored Ave+/0. (Technically Ave+/Ave-, but a PP imposed to reduce offenders' score to zero.)

The fourth time, the pair was disqualified.

I only used the third time procedure twice, and the fourth time procedure never. But the players knew I would. These slow play penalties were announced at the start of each session. As the players were seniors, I allowed longer time limits than the ACBL recommendation that then existed, but I enforced the limits strictly.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the question were whether to rebid the major or bid a four card minor at the two level, the discrepancy needn't be so great. Rebidding the spades will often lead to missing a 4-4 fit in the second suit–which is more painful if the second suit is hearts.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, the admonishment in this case would be a friendly one in private, for example “making a correct verbal claim statement can avoid disputes with players like your opponent.”
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I read law 68 correctly, a player should make a claim statement. Failure to do so is an infraction and may jeopardize claimer's rights, but is not normally penalized. In this case allow the claim but admonish the claimer.

BTW, why did fourth hand bother claiming? Just win the twelfth trick with the 8 and lead the 10 to trick thirteen already!
Nov. 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 84 85 86 87
.

Bottom Home Top