Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Bertoni
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, a few years back in the Silver Ribbons we finished day one at 51.67% and did not get a Q while others in a different grouping of sections (same direction as us) got a Q with 48.78% so the answer is yes you can have over 50 and not get a Q until they address the grouping issue. I hear they did but not so sure.
And sure we could have/should have done better but…
July 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with John and Peg on this one. I have an Ace I am going to bid. 2 Controls is a much different hand than a random K+J or 2Q for “a 4 count”. Over time I think bidding yields better results with this than passing. On any given day the opposite can be correct but we play by %. I am not sure about the 9-1 split but I am pretty comfortable saying that bidding will be better over time with an Ace.
June 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you psyche its a lot like the roulette wheel. (See comments “by the sword” “gambled” etc. All correct.) I am guilty of an occasional psyche but I would not try this hand in the first seat ever. Too many chances to go wrong. Partner can still have a 20+ count, and you wont prevent him from driving to 6 or 7 for a 0, unless you pass an asking bid driving you to the partnership desk for next round. The colors are ==, meaning that foo x-3=-500 is a 0 for you.
In the third seat this hand you have plenty of information that it “might” be ok to throw the dice, partner does not have 12 so they have minimum 28 You have to open 1 imho so you can pass all responses if you decide to psyche. I would be prepared to pass 2 in tempo by partner if it came to that and buy the lunch for them after. 1 allows you to survive a near certain negative double with the OM. 1 has some value but partner has to get the canape and the psyche to correctly guess the strain in a doubled contract.
To answer the case in hand I would pass the 3x as pointed out earlier “all is revealed” when you run, and you are already at a disaster and partner could have it set on your luckiest day. The only other option would be 3 and thats pretty tough opposite the 2N bid, but east may save you with 4, doubtful but you know what is happening to 3 so give your self the only chance to escape with a pass. I could not blame my partner for the x
I would save your psyches for tournaments against good opponents, club games they are kind of meaningless and can be perceived badly against pairs they are ill equipped to understand what is going on.
June 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if the 1NT gets x and back to me I will then bid 2 yes. This sends a different message then 2 directly of course.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To answer the question, its a weak field I will play with this field and Cash A now. To go against the field is all or nothing approach here, I will take the average here and try beat them on the rest.
To the point in the title. Matchpoints is where I hold AQ clubs and low spots on opening lead and leading the Ace is the the huge MP winner… as declarer collects 13 tricks while I watch my A go away when I lead off suit and wait. It is pretty crazy that giving up my only tenace to set the contract is the the winner. So I assume no one will do this, and see after I have a below average and 15% of the pairs did exactly that led the Ace…I don't understand Matchpoints either….
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT, I cant pass with an Ace in my book/card, and I don't have enough for 2. Assuming 3 is weak ugh nope not this quality, If partner is unbalanced they will bid their next suit after 1NT and I can bail. If they pass 1 NT I should survive.
June 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First let me say that a 25 member board that meets 3 times a year is destined to be problematic. I could not agree more that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. 25 is just too many people to get anything done.
The problem I have with these redistricting proposals is that Districts becoming larger makes a difficult job for district officials and takes away much of the local flavor.
I am the President of District 25. For me to think that I can be relevant in Toronto or make good decisions for them and their tournaments is not something I want to pretend to do even if I was re-elected to this “new district”. Travel costs for these district players for NAP, GNT and district officials would increase substantially.There are many more issues to numerous to mention.
Online qualifiers? sounds great and I am all for it but we sever a full 92% of our current membership when we say that. I am sorry to say “we” are not there yet. (I am an IT professional so I am not the norm) There are a myriad of other logistic and financial concerns that we have not yet considered in this or any of these proposals.
Lets look at where and what the problem is; too many BOD members to be manageable and increased costs to have them attend meetings. Lets think a bit outside the box to solve this National problem not by redrawing Districts locally, but by creating something else; lets say “Areas”.
(I want to use “Regions” as the term (Nation/Region/District/Unit) but we use “Regional's” as the district tournament title and this would just be messy unless we changed the tournaments also to “District Tournaments” rather than “Regional Tournaments”)
So the Area Board Member (Formerly District Director) would be from 1-3 districts based on geography, and membership to the extent possible. We could draw lines to give us 12-16 “Areas”.
The ideal of “One person-One Vote is not ever going to be exact, and to force Alaska and Colorado to be 1 ”district" in search of this ideal seems to ignore their differences, culture and geography for the sake of helping us get a smaller National Board. Albeit one that might actually do something when management spends millions of dollars on software that yields nothing positive to us, and increases fees to clubs, units and districts to help balance the budget mismanagement then we are getting somewhere.
The Board of Governors is where you can put representation in a better ratio of members to representatives.
The BOD & BOG should certainly have an independent online forum that is private for them to work year round and have constructive discussion.
The BOD should have workspace/skype/gotomeetings online periodically. The cost is less and productivity would be greater.
The current districts being collapsed into 9 to x is not likely to be the answer in my opinion.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was written from declarers POV. The director did not decide immediately and I assume he spoke to another when was away from table. Whe he came back he said the the “Sorry partner I got this wrong”, constituted a claim and the Q takes the trick even if defender misplayed and continued to play. It was not dummy but the partner of the misplay defender that called the director.
We have no “desire to win this way” but when defender puts Q under K are we obligated to help wake him up or give the trick anyway? If the declarer played the K on the A that's an error also but I think it would stand.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks this is true (#4+#5). The important cards were the top spades and the rest of the hand did not matter except there were no losers possible except the Q. So I was a lax about the spots and cards.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is exactly what happened Greg IMHO. The director decided since “something was said by declarer that a mistake was made” even though the called for K and then another card, it was a claim. The miscarding defender played to end of hand without comment. And to Paul Huggins comment that did not happen it was just played, I assumed that LHO revoked when Q came down.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He played it flat on the table without comment and played the 2 to the next spade trick, and played to the next trick as well.
May 5, 2016
Bob Bertoni edited this comment May 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with the down 1 group. Law 70 says that any line may be enforced that is careless or inferior for the class of player, but not irrational. If he indeed says “I have the last trump” it would not matter what order the cards are played, when faced with the fact of “losing” the high trump by the contest of the claim, declarer can not now be allowed to take best line of safety to making. I would say your claim states 1. you have the last trump and then the rest are good thats your play. -1. If we allow this best line to errant declarer then I should claim anytime I get confused and fix it when I see the problem as Mike Ma said I believe. I would have sympathy for declarer IF he(she) stated “I am playing all my Diamond winners and cashing the top spades, and my trump is the last remaining at that point. As his ”line is that he is playing the side winners first".
April 26, 2016
Bob Bertoni edited this comment April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was bidding by the opponents at our table. I was the South hand and we lost to 6 as we were in 4+2.
The auction at our table was 1NT-P-3!(Puppet)-X-3!(5)-Faced with the looks like sure loser and needing perfection on the rest I signed off in 4 after righty passed. The opponent doubled 3 with KJxx. Certainly looked like AK or KQ at a minimum, the K was on the doublers hand but was the only trick they would take. In Flt A I gave the x more credit than it deserved I guess. Constructive thoughts welcome.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree completely with Lynn, to psyche against weaker players you more run the risk of keeping them from a game that goes down than going right. If you are smart enough to figure out a good psyche opportunity you will beat them 65% of the time anyway. Against good players it has worked well when the declarer finesses wrong direction. I psyche on rare occasion, but like Ronald Kalf it crosses my mind each time I have a Axxxx suit and out against P-P- and I am sitting third. I usually save it for when losing a KO and nothing is coming our way. I think it should stay legal and most decent opposition will uncover it and believe partners bids anyway. It is a compliment when people psyche against you. it is an important tactic that has to be allowed, they allow a change up in baseball by fast ball throwers don't they? In a club game its just not necessary.
Years ago when I had about 200 MP I psyched against a nationally ranked pair, and it kept them from game in a team match, the top player who now sits on all national appeal boards, said to me “well done, I really never saw that coming”, but know I have a red card and will remember you :). I never psyched against him again.
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not suggesting throwing it out at all, I am suggesting that they do it better. You may notice that only one result was correct of 11 sessions and that was corrected manually by me.
I think we can do better.
March 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An Amazing victory, Well done.
March 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North made an error, plain and simple. With 2.5 tricks opposite a neg x, converting with those spots is; ___________. You pick the descriptor as long as it is a negative one.
June 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is my problem with those that think that the delay compells us to bid 7NT or 7x. We play controls- I think this is the key to what matters here. 2H is or should be 2K since it cant be 1 Ace. The 2C opener is the only one who knows the level in control auctions unless the responder asks questions. Since I “know” we are off a King the only reason to bid on to 7 especially in a club game where partner selected the MP winner NT would be the hesitation that might demonstrate that partner either had a heart positive hand and forgot controls and woke up from the alert of 1A or 2K, or forgot that NT systems were on from 2NT (doubtful) or forgot the controls sequence (more likely if new partner) and now made a bid that looks invitational to me to 7. I dont think I should be compelled on the BIT to bid on when I am the captain of the auction and partner has selected the strain. So auctions like bidding 7H “just in case” or 7x off a K look suspect, In fact I think there is a case that should prevent me from bidding on missing a K off the hesitation. I can't see a case where 7 off a K is a “logical alternative”.

June 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dont think the hesitation should constrain you, It would seem that partner has 5 and didnt feel that he could bid 6 as you may have 2, or he realized that he made a mistake and forgot 2NT systems on. I hate the 6NT bid. Since I am certainly off a K I dont think that I have a 7 bid unless I want to play 7NT on a hook and thats not my cup of tea. Pass becasue it has to be right, not becasue of the hesitation.
June 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 after 5 is such a good call I wish I thought of it.
June 13, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top