Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless I am mistaken, looking at the past 20 Bermuda Bowls
Only 9 countries have won:

Brazil 1
France 1
Iceland 1
Italy 2
Netherlands 2
North America 1
Norway 1
Poland 1
USA 10

(note that North America <> USA), see * below.
Amazingly, looking at the World Cup (soccer), the 20 so far have resulted in only 9 distinct countries

Argentina 2
Brazil  5
England 1
France  1
Germany 1
Italy  4
Spain  1
Uruguay 2
West Germany 3
(note that West Germany <> Germany)*

Interestingly, 1/3 of each table is the same (Brazil, France, Italy fall in both tables).

So … what can we learn from selection procedures?
Advice needed from those who are familiar with selection procedures of both Soccer and Bridge … (BTW, do these have anything in common with each other?)
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall:

I took a random sample … to just happen to see … how long / detailed the cards are. Of course one cannot identify an omission without an alternative source of information.

I was just pointing out that it may be surprising to see such short/brief convention cards..

I don't actually know the regulations on how much detail one is meant to put.

I only know that I got a telling off for omitting providing narrative on “forcing pass” auctions.

Personally, I believe the word “Smith” without detail is not enough. There are 4+ ways of playing it.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As we all know, some people play simpler systems than others. One might reasonably expect that at this event, the number of agreements would be substantial.
Just being factual here…
I took the last named pair for the first 11 “Open” countries (listed alphabetically)
These are the number of pages of their convention cards.

Austria: 2
Bulgaria: 2
Croatia: 6
Czech republic: 5
Denmark: 2
England: 2
Estonia: 2
Finland: 2
France: 2
Germany: 7
Greece: 6
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James: The older EBU system also had a levy related to playing.
Clubs could affiliate or not, players could affiliate or not.

The fee and levy of the older system, just as the new system, has its pros and cons. There are many issues with the “new” system.

Many clubs who were affiliated (including some of the largest) chose not to affiliate.

Also, some clubs (smaller) who were not affiliated chose to affiliate.

The detailed pros and cons of the new system, along with HOW it was introduced, and what the levy is … is quite complicated.
There are many people who dislike the current system, for different reasons.

Personally I don't like a system that means that two of London's very large and famous clubs have reached the conclusion not to affiliate. I understand why they are not affiliated, and I think that that the system could be adjusted so that the levy structure makes it attractive to have more affiliated clubs & members, but each club and member pay less (aiming to either retain total revenue or increase it, for the club, and the EBU).
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Card Game Books, based in Stockport, (UK) stocks a vast range of out-of-print bridge books. Contact Gordon Bickley Tel: 07530 553594 email: gordonarf@aol.com
When I spoke to him last, he said he is always interested in hearing from people who want to sell their collection/items.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a strange thing to say David. Read Eddie Kantar's intro here: file:///C:/Users/Hartsdale/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/SAMPLE_25ConventionsYouShouldKnow%20(1).pdf
This list of conventions is in that link.
The book includes RKCB, Splinters, Michaels .. and plenty of conventions that the best players in the world play
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how about: 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bridge_Conventions_You_Should_Know
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the penalty should be higher for repeat offenders in the same match or event. Say 3 imps for the first, then 5 for second, etc.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about XX? what does that mean?
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No 2: playing 4 card Majors, this shows constructive 3-card heart raise, with values in spades.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
written in 2008, this one page article called “A day in the life of Martin Hoffman” will remind us of this lovely person.

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/magazine/day-in-the-life/martin-hoffman.pdf
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Michael, you've explored some interesting options.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allen

The double is Rosenkrantz, asking for one suit below the splinter suit. In England, and WBF, this is an alert.

Actually, pass is also alertable too.

Cornelia
I really like the tablet idea. I was not criticizing the innovation. I was only pointing out the potential for new issues.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, many problems will go, think about this situation:

SCENARIO 1: Tablet
South opens 1 Spade, West passes, North bids 4H (intended as splinter, alerted as such to both opps, but … North has forgotten the system). East calls Double (requesting a diamond lead) and alerts. South now knows that partner has splintered.
Let's assume this south is honest and does the right thing…

SCENARIO 2: Screens
Contrast with … (keep in mind that North and East are screenmates)
With face to face, and screens…

South didn't alert the 4H to West, assumes it is natural, and assumes the double made by East is penalties. South will pass with many hands. West passes, and North now makes some bid (knowing that South made a forcing pass, which is presumably encouraging). When this comes back to south, south now knows what the system is, and that they've made an inadvertent forcing pass.
Again, we will assume that south is honest and does the right thing.

But let's imagine a game where south is not so honest … the first scenario, nobody would ever know that south has poor ethics, how could anyone know that south was reminded by virtue of the opponent's double?

In the second scenario, West knows that south has been reminded of the system.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Anyone know the outcome of the Cuba event?
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand that “post truth” means “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”
I wonder if it is a suitable phrase to use here to describe some of the messages in this thread?
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
suppose I have K3 in dummy, and singleton 2 in hand. Dummy has no entries. I play towards the King, LHO plays ace, so I took a “winning” finesse, but my play did not create a trick that I can utilise (without a helicopter). Not sure that David Burn's definition works … the oppo gained by playing a higher card.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually - I don't bet very often, and when I do, I aim for near certainties. I fine the yield to be better.

On the other hand… when I want partner to switch suits in defence, I use hope.

Not stopping at 14, after all it goes AA according to Excel.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been working on this list of situations, to test my definition against:

A: Kx opp xx, Qxx opp xxx (and A or K led), or even, LHO has AKxx and you lead towards Qxxx, LHO ducking
B: AJT opp xxx
C: AJT9 opp Qxx, and Axxxx opp QJT9 - both cases starting with Q
D: you finesse Kxxx opposite XXX, ace on your left (not played), but RHO ruffs it.
E: you have AQX opp XX and LHO plays K on first round
F: AJT opp XX. LHO plays K on first round
G: KJX onside, AQT in dummy
H: Axxx QT98 and we run Q first
I: defence taking a finesse for declarer (including declarer being void, and dummy having AQJ)
J: ducking a losing finesse to deny entry to dummy

K: Ruffing finesses

L: choosing which card to ruff with, in case you get overruffed

Andy's definition fails for (L). I have not checked the full list yet.
April 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top