Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Dehlin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This approach makes sense, and good luck to the Ekinci and Fatka teams.

For what it's worth we were the “third most recent” team to lose to Friedland in this event. But our 145-46 loss suggests that even IF “unauthorized information” was being used against us (and I have no evidence or specific suspicions that it was), it was certainly NOT the difference-maker. In fact, in the sessions I played against the Pavlicek-Friedland pair, it was our far-more-frequent errors and brilliancies from Pavlicek (rather than Friedland) that made the difference.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the last questions is about “playing level.” Most of the options are familiar – “beginner”, “intermediate”, “advanced”, “expert” – but one was completely new to me. In this context, what is “confirmed”? It was positioned between “advanced” and “expert”…is that what it means?
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I support this type exercise, and anything that can get us closer to holding big events with effective anti-cheating measures.

2. I don't see how this specific idea gets us much closer.

You're only providing anti-cheating measures for one team member (and thus perhaps one pair) out of a team. To the extent there is going to be cheating, isn't this just ensuring it happens with the other 2 pairs and the other 4 team members?
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances, re: your comment that you have different approaches to these hands w/ different partnerships…how do you define that? Is it with fairly objective criteria (based on HCP, quick tricks, “Rule of X” type measures that combine HCP + length in longest two suits, something else)? Is it defined more subjectively, but with examples hands that show specific “close call” situations that are on either side of the line? Some other approach or construct entirely?
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect you will get unanimous response that it depends entirely on the opponents' NT range.

At some threshold, holding a strong balanced hand at the same time an opponent holds a strong balanced hand is rare enough that you don't want to waste the X call, and it's best to use it for different purposes.

Below some threshold, however, the penalty-oriented X is absolutely necessary to prevent weaker NT ranges from stealing.

People will disagree on the threshold and how to best use other calls, but the pattern above should be virtually universal.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your poll is only set up to permit one response
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you suggesting the only reason the 1N bid cuold be considered silly is the point count? I'm more worried about the shape.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prior to the pandemic, I enjoyed BOTH playing online at BBO and about one club game a week. Both had their places and advantages, and I was happy with both.

I too am part of the “world of bridge” that is “watching BBO's behavior at a time of world-class crisis”. If BBO chooses to raise pricing on game options that I and hundreds of thousands of others worldwide are used to in order to accommodate clubs (who are admittedly going through a difficult time), I'll be annoyed at a minimum.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition, BridgeWinners could gin up interest by having some of your luminaries prominently involved in some of the first teams that sign up.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the general idea, but seems like a big time commitment (60-90 minutes/day, 6 days/week), which is needed week after week after week.

Is there a limit to how many people are permitted on a team roster to accommodate this high level of participation?
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for sharing the data, unfortunately I see it as a glass (less than) half full. Despite the disappearance of in person bridge, the share of ACBL membership that has won masterpoints online this year went from roughly 7% to 11%.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see two advantages to DONT, both pretty minor to start with, and especially minor in more competitive bridge:

1. Easier to remember. Yet I bet most competitive players will have few if any forgets with Meckwell.

2. Theoretically permits playing minors 2-suiter one level lower. Yet I bet most competitive bridge matches (especially at matchpoints) don't offer up opponents who let you play 2m hardly ever.

These advantages are much larger in typical club games, making the much higher usage of DONT in those games pretty rational.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Systemwide inflation + cap on individual points = eventually everyone is at 100
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love the concept of a Bridge Turing Test. Here's my version:

-Does the player berate partner for every error, real or imagined?

-Does the player minimize his own errors, and/or develop elaborate and often-implausible post-hoc rationalizations for his plays?

-Does the player treat opponents with venom after bad boards and with gloating after good ones?

-Does the player bitch and moan about every imaginable imperfection in the playing experience?

-Does the player provide an unending stream of UI through huddles, hesitations, facial expressions, sighs, etc.?

What's that?…the robots don't do ANY of these things?

CLEARLY they are not bridge players.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I teach my daughters that any “apology” that has the word “but” in it is not an apology.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does South's 1 bid mean with respect to any major holdings. Can he have a 4cM and if so under what circumstances? That will significantly influence how I, as North, would bid.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a different “Spring Online KO” match, our agreement was that undos were allowed, but would not be accepted if there was substantial unauthorized information revealed by the lead. I think seeing the dummy clearly counts.

So it is possible that pre-match agreements call for the “undo” option to be enabled, but not for it to be used in all situations.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course the opponents can't see the hand at the time when they need to make a decision on the “undo,” so the fact that it is irrational is immaterial.

EDIT: Upon further thought, the low heart lead looks pretty bizarre just given the auction and even without seeing the whole hand. Comment withdrawn.
March 29
Barry Dehlin edited this comment March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do teammates and opponents find an “invisible” table?
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The winner of the closed/invite-only event should play the winner of the Spring Online KO (organized by Tom Reynolds)…
March 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top