Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless it just changed, the contestant in a team event is a whole team.

What “contestant” has to do with a rating system is a mystery to me. If a given pair play only as partners, they will have to have the same rating, but that's not a problem. Comparing team and pair games is a bit of a problem, but there are solutions. Nick Straguzzi and Gerben Dirksen, among others, have written quite a bit about rating systems.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought NABCs have four nations. (Of course players from many more than that show up.)
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After discussion, your partnership _might_ agree to play this 3 as non-forcing. (All strong hands with would have to start 1.) Without discussion, I'm never passing 3.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should have added to the above that your best contract is 2x, but you can't get there from here.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played TOSR with natural bidding instead of the reverse relays. I thought the natural bidding by an unbalanced 1 opener was a weakness of the system, but maybe (quite likely!) our natural bidding was just bad. There's probably not much in it either way, but it would be nice to hear from anyone who has tried both approaches.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised by the two comments above. To me, the double only says that 4 was bid to make, not as a save or two-way action. If South is sure he wants to defend, he has to pass and take an undoubled plus, which will be fine if 4 was not making. In this view, pulling the double is automatic.

Of course I wouldn't be bidding 2 on the first round, so different methods than mine must have been in use.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for votes and comments. I'm surprised there is so little support for 3. Sure, K is devalued, but the hand is still pretty good. This is why I asked, though, so I've learned something.

On the actual deal, it's not at all clear what contract you want to be in. Double dummy par is 6=, but nobody was in slam, and about half the declarers took only 9 tricks. You need what seems an off-percentage play to take 12. Several good declarers (including one of the Grossack brothers) took 12 tricks, though, so maybe there was a way to find the winning play. 3NT made 8 to 10 tricks for 22%, 50%, or 72%, respectively.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spades and diamonds. I'd be more concerned about those than clubs.

It would have been better to ask before dummy came down, but there's nothing wrong in asking later at trick one. Singling out a particular suit gives UI to partner. That's not necessarily an infraction (though L73A/B come to mind), but partner's legal plays may be restricted.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't one of the virtues of PDI that it is better when the situation – forcing or non-forcing – is unclear?
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What do we know about declarer's distribution?” would have been a proper question. Singling out a particular suit is a bad idea.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“so you can tell what the player was trying to do with their illegal call.”

Why do you need that? L23A2 says “possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call.” That seems to mean from the point of view of other players at the table, not necessarily what the offender actually had in mind.

I agree with the rest: before choosing his call, the offender has to know whether partner will be barred or not.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
p. 3 “partner is likely to lead a heart if you don't double”

I'm coming late to this party, but why is partner likely to lead a if you don't double? Didn't 2 show dislike of ? And presumably 2NT showed something useful in .

Should double say “please _do_ lead your suit?” Or is it better to keep it “please don't” and use it on any strong hand not quite good enough for 2NT?
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, I believe that too, but who know for sure when there is no definition? What's wrong with using “rounds,” which has an established meaning?
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed is an optimist. Our (US) tax laws are far sillier than the “nanny tax” would suggest. (In most cases, a nanny who works in one's home would be an employee.)
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the opening you propose should be allowed on Open+, though I'm not sure why you'd want it.

As I read the draft item 6, it's fine already in “segments” of 6 or more boards. (The term “segments” is not defined anywhere I see; I think they want “rounds,” which are defined in the Laws.) The change you want is to delete all of the first part of item 6, making it prohibit "A non-forcing 1NT with a void or 10 cards in two suits." (As the wording is now, I think 1NT on 6511 is legal.)

I'm not sure why they want to prohibit even that last.

On the Open Chart, I think 1NT on any 4441 (if not more extreme shapes) should be allowed.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The analogy relates to methods permitted, not events using which chart. I think Basic+ permits nearly everything now on the GCC and Open nearly everything now on MidChart. It would be useful to do a method-by-method comparison, but I haven't done one.

The effect of the new charts, if you buy my analogy, is that most Flight B events keep something close to GCC. Open and Flight A events change to something like MidChart. That was already the case in a few jurisdictions, but soon it will be true in all (if no TO options are permitted).
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the draft, Average Strength is Rule of 19. That means the shapes in Sam's message will require 10 HCP. I think Average Strength should be Rule of 18, but that's not what the draft says.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect the reason is historical. The correspondence between current and new charts is roughly
Limited –> Basic
General –> Basic+
MidChart –> Open
(no good analogy) –> Open+

The present SuperChart allows almost anything but requires advance notice. That is being retired in the new system; events that now use SuperChart will use the new Open+. Many events that now use MidChart will also use Open+.

It's reasonable to ask whether the new charts are appropriate for the events they are assigned to. Also whether Tournament Organizers will or will not have any choice. (It appears they will not, once they have chosen mp limits for their events. This means Sectionals will rarely if ever have Open+ events, for example.)
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope the Definitions will never depend on which chart is used. That's just confusing.

I can't understand what you are trying to change with your text above, but I'm sure there's a way to do it without changing the Definitions.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. do you think “one-suiter, any suit, 5+c” should be Purely Destructive? (That's a pretty common use of a 2 overcall of 1NT, though most will want 6+c if the suit is a minor.)

2. I don't think two of c are ever needed, but you might need c combined with a or b: “spade one-suiter or heart one-suiter or any two-suiter.” (I'm don't know anyone who uses this, but it doesn't seem Purely Destructive.)

3. you need to add “option b twice” to your rewrite, but I don't see any harm in leaving d as it is.
Sept. 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
.

Bottom Home Top