Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Randy Pearson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don’t understand 6H vs 6D. You obviously have H void either way, so why not show DK?
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps he's a Grand LM only because he does crap like this.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray, @Kevin: I do not remember the precise language used, but this event was part of the reason we chose Houston and I traveled from Pittsburgh. We knew exactly what event we wanted, so nothing like Ray's hypothetical dialog occurred. It was more like “are you sure you wouldn't rather play in (other event)?” and possibly stronger and not just to us.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a hand in the ACBL Bulletin (Oct 2017), pg 26, Barry Rigal) showing the Grossacks handling a Dbl of Stayman using the following: Pass by opener says ‘no stopper’. Then Rdbl by responder says he does have a stopper, after which opener transfers into his major. In the referenced hand, this put doubler on lead to excellent effect–winning the board. Very nifty. The entirety of the agreement was not described, but my partnership has worked our details that continue to support Garbage Stayman, etc. We now hope for opps to make this double!
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought a 2-day pairs event in a Regional sounded like a great idea. Houston had one last January, and when buying an entry, the directors were actively trying to talk people out of the event–seemingly hoping to eliminate it. There ended up being just 7 tables, with 8 pairs (4 tables) qualifying for day 2. It was still fun, and the competition was very strong, but the anti-promotion was disturbing.

As to your NYC regionals, it seems getting a 4-player team committed to 2 straight days in the midst of the Holidays would be a challenge. Perhaps you could reverse the idea, and have 2-day pairs in December, and 2-day BAM in May.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar to an intermediate jump overcall.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I’m reading the results correctly, there are more Reverse Flannery votes for 2 than 2. I would have expected these to match. Any explanation appreciated!
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good list. Thanks for posting.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will watch more closely. Of course today, armed and ready to discover a repro scenario, I voted on a long sequence of problems and never had a problem! For certain it was not after a fixed number of problems: I have seen it after very few. And once it happens, I cannot just skip and vote on a subsequent problem–I have to kill the app (or restart phone).

Next time it happens, I'll take a screenshot. I recall the styling is different when the problem occurs, in that the number boxes that should be enabled do not have the thicker border that they typically would.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on whether you allow 5-4 or require 5-5. We allow 5-4 with weaker hands, but upper-range Michaels is always 5-5.

2 (m=), 3 (m=): signoff, misfit
2N: artificial ask, responses are:
..3: bad hand, now:
….3: bid your better major
….3M: signoff
..3: decent minimum, longer (like a transfer)
..3: decent minimum, longer (like a transfer)
..3: 5-5M, decent hand
..3N: strong 5-5, 4 asks for shortness, 4 and 4 are transfers
..4m: strong 5-5, VOID in m
..4M: strong w/ 6M, 5OM, often 6-5-1-1, 4N is 6-ace RKB
3m (cue bid): Inv+ w/ fit in one M and shortness in the other
3M: preemptive (could also play as mixed raise)
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great article. Thanks for posting.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same as Craig Z.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 3-level natural interference, I play the cheapest 3 suit bids are transfers, and the next 3 suit bids are 2-suiters (with rules that clarify the suits).
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partners are on different wavelengths in the middle of a hand, there may be a slight advantage to playing both (or neither) UD, as a ruff could take the place of a winner. That seems infrequent, but I can't see a competing reason against it.

I learned UD attitude back before both were considered together (dates me, I'm sure), and am only just now adopting UD count as well.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kokish has an agreement, not only for this natural bid, but for four different conventional meanings of 4. Dbl here is “Negative (cards)”, 4 and 4 are transfers, and 4 is a transfer to . Does he actually get anyone to learn all of this?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be happy if there were daytime ACBL events at standard pace (not speedball) and without robots. I've checked several times and such events don't start until late afternoon (Eastern).
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether the original “8+” was sufficient or not, I cannot imagine refusing to answer the further inquiry, if nothing else as a matter of politeness.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hamman's tempo point is about Smith signals. The play came later, and was just attitude for this pair (apparently).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Masterminding. Not partnership-building.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The post concerns responses by advancer to the double, not 3rd seat actions by partner of 2 bidder.
April 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top