Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 81 82 83 84
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is exactly the problem: because the ACBL dominated WBF banns FP (and lots of other good stuff), it doesn't make sense for the NBOs to have pairs playing this stuff qualify for international events. So the Australian (as an example) top pairs face the choice of abandoning their (supposedly) superior system or play a totaly different system in the play-offs and above. Fine choice that is.
And of course there is David Wetzels solution: “I've hit on the only fair solution. Cancel all worldwide bridge events.”
Jan. 28, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, do you mean to say “no regulations” is also a regulation?
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our LOB from the 70s was very Precision like, but with 1M 8-13 and 1 14+ with 5M, but 16+ without. 1N was (of course) 10-12. The real profit compared to Precision was due to opening 1M more often.
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North Americans can do as please as long as they do not impose their rules and regulations on the rest of the world (only talking about bridge, no political statement implied)
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played rubber in the 70's too, but I wouldn't play the same system I play at duplicate. In fact despite all the different systems I played, at rubber I preferred ACOL. Once you have a part score, you just have to bid high enough to bring your total up to 100. You only bid on if you have slam prospects. Saving and penalty doubles depend on the state of the rubber which is more then vulnerability at duplicate. You make tactical opening bids if you have a part score etc. I can not imagine that anyone would like to play FP in a rubber game.
Jan. 27, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't remember exactly when I played (only for a very short time and not with my regular partner), but I stopped playing in 1978. In 1987 top US pairs were totally unprepared to play against a system at least 10 years on the market? What arrogance does that show!
Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is obviously the 4th suit because 3 other suits have been bid before, it is also forcing, but not to game. So far, so good. It is natural, although the notes do not expliciltly state that it promises 4, but it promises 5. It definetly does not ask for a stopper. Without a -stopper the correct bid is 2. I am not sure if this treatment makes sense outside the K-S-framework for 1m.
Jan. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in K-S there is more then playing 2 as forcing, it shows more then a minimum and may well be just a stopper. Responders 2 is natural, 2 is F1 and a waiting bid.
Jan. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“others may prefer to focus on card play and find dealing with a wide variety of different bidding systems annoying” For those there is mini-bridge.
Jan. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I retired I gave myself to options, either start playing bridge again or buy a bass guitar and take lessons. I am perfectly happy with my decision pro bridge. If Goren 1950 were the only allowed system, I'd have bought the bass guitar.
Jan. 26, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I draw a line at the lower levels, I must wait with my system until I can play at the higher level. When I finally reach this higher level despite playing an (IMO) inferior system, I can now play my (IMO) superior system. Unfortunately I have no praxis playing this system and didn't have the opportunity to fine tune the system. I think it is best to have no line at all, but I have some understanding for drawing a line somewhere. It should just be the same on all tournaments (but each club can drwa his own line).
Jan. 26, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“opponents are forced to throw out their entire constructive bidding structure” is not really true: after a pass opps are in their defensive bidding structure and can basically play the same as against a strong club system. It is true that they need new defensive methods agains the fert, but the same is true against a precicion 1. Had Schenken invented the strong pass, strong club systems would probably be forbidden today:-)
Having said that, I can understand the barring of strong pass systems, because it is a very alien concept to the avarage player. I do not understand why Wilkosz is banned or why I cannot play Baron/NTO in Germany.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Counting hcp in stead of serious hand evaluation is independent of the bidding system. I can hardly imagine that players who learn a very complicated bidding system count only hcp.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This post and its companion are very interesting. Obviously some bid 2N even without a -stopper. It seems that 2 is a doubleton and therefore 3 3154. I have different approach to 4SF, which I call “quasi-lebensohl”. Opener usually bids the next step, in this case 2 and responder explains why she bid 4SF (missing -stop, 5crd , slam try in , or ). Only with an exceptional distribution (5-5, 1444) would opener bid something else.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I want to emphazise that you don't tell what your partner may expect you to bid next. You have to explain the meaning of your partners bid. Even Stayman and Blackwood are not an explanation of the 2- resp. 4N-bid, but (only?) these conventions are so common, that it serves as an explanation. Although, playing Garbage Stayman, I always add “promises neither points nor a 4crd M” (I know that's not full disclosure). Explaining 4N as (say) RKCB3041 is absolutely not allowed IMHO. If it is a “real” relay, not giving any (additional) information, you might say just that: “forcing, no additional information”. By that definition Stayman is not a “real” relay. How about “4th suit forcing”? I know it is the 4th suit, because I have followed the bidding and I would be very surprised if it is not forcing (and THAT requires an alert more then the “usual” 4SF). Beter to say what it means like “could be 5crd M or 4crd without a stop in the 4th suit” (don't say “asks me to bid NT with a stopper”) and add if it's F1 or FG.
Jan. 24, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Preemptor does not bid again unless forced by partner” Exactly and double forces partner to bid.
I'd rather give information on the 3-level then gamble after they have bid game.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, one could say that every forcing bid “asks for a further description” and every non-forcing, non-sign-off bid “optionally asks for a further description”.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had kibitzed and played a few games at college and at a student club. One evening someone came to me and said “My partner hasn't shown up. Do you want top play?”. After the match he said “My partner is very unreliable. If you want to be my partner, I will bring you a book tommorow” It was “How to play winning bridge”.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plus, I can stand a conversion to penalty. If I don't want pard to convert, I bid 2.
Jan. 23, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 81 82 83 84
.

Bottom Home Top