Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 167 168 169 170
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Source?
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty sure that GLMs that won restricted events dropping out of bridge is not actually a valid concern.

Bridge skill is not a prerequisite for GLM - there are a few sponsors that have won over the years that would not be able to do so without their team of pros paving the way, and those have won serious events. Additionally, there are players who won when they were younger, and whose present skills mean they won't be competitive in even good events. That's life, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be a GLM.

GLM doesn't measure skill, it measures achievement. Same with masterpoints to some degree. One tends to correlate to the other, of course, since its common for the more skilled to achieve more, but its imperfect as you know, and always will be even if you go to a progressive rating system.

Finally, I repeat, who cares? Who does it hurt to have the GLM like it is now? You know who is most proud of their GLM? Its those who know they would normally never be good enough, but the sun shone on them that event and things fell into place, and voila they won a random event like the Imp Pairs where luck can greatly augment skill. I hope to be one of those someday. Why take that away from them?
Feb. 18
Chris Gibson edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no need for this. I don't care if your only win is in a lesser national event, even lesser national events are still incredibly hard to win. You win one of those and get 10K points, and are not found to be cheating along the way, unqualified GLM is just fine. I mean, what problem do you think that you are solving? Do you think that someone doesn't know the difference between Bob Hamman and someone who only has one national win in a lesser event from back in 1982? If they don't know the difference, does it matter?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd play whatever you decided to play when they double your transfer to a major.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may be off track here, but if I had the 1N-3N agreement as stated, forgot it, and had partner bid 4 out of the blue, I would always be led to remembering our agreement because of the very strangeness of the bid. I think that there is no chance I would get this wrong in a no-alert environment, and thus I can do what I want to recover. I don't know a reasonable way to poll this, however, and I would be ok with whatever director ruling.

I think its an entirely different situation from when you don't have an agreement about this auction and partner fishes out 4.

Edit: I misread. You have no recourse, your entire actions would be based on UI, you need to assume partner missorted or psyched as reasonable alternative explanations.
Feb. 13
Chris Gibson edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is super low frequency when you restrict it to auctions which start 3 passes.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That makes sense to me. I don't know if I'd want to do it because of the extra memory burden for a super low frequency auction, but I think it could be a wonderful idea for those without the memory burden concern.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me they have a free roll at doubling 3 about as frequently if its a mandatory cue situation anyway.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand the question.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - I think its generally regarded as showing that too, but its also the best way I can think of to get partner to try looking for other strains, while also getting my overall values across.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2N asks for the lowest suit where you would accept a help suit game try, and short suit game tries bid the game try suit directly.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
double, planning on cuing over 2 or 3 level heart bids, and passing 4H.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yeah, I wasn't sure whether 4 would be fit or splinter, so I didn't chance it, but I think its right if you are confident that partner will be on the same page.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I define a serious bid as “based on what we have shown so far, I think we are in the slam zone, please cue on any excuse”, and non-serious as “unless you have significant extras, we are not in the slam zone, but if you do, I'm willing to cooperate”. If I bypass non-serious and sign off, I not only have a minimum, but I also would not answer 2 with or better to a keycard inquiry.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David has in his profile that his master points don't mean anything if not accompanied by a national championship, so I'm surprised that he thinks it is an outrage (my reading, not a quote) to be bumped by the Grossacks out of bracket one.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The ”veneer“ of being ethical??? Really? That's like being pulled over for conspicuously doing the speed limit.”

The veneer comment was definitely not regarding ethics, but rather the potential lessening of UI. I really have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you didn't read carefully before writing a bunch.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Win. Its matchpoints, and everyone is going to be in this contract, I'm going to play for maximizing tricks rather than just the make.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - of course it matters. Joe indicated that he thought sending partner away lessens the amount of UI partner has. In reality, it does not significantly do so - at most it gives the veneer of less UI, and makes it less likely that someone will call the director for acting on UI, which in my opinion makes it ill-conceived and self-serving to do that as a procedure if you actually care about making sure opponents have their full rights.

Furthermore, what if you are wrong about your explanation? Partner being there is important so that he can clarify either after the auction if you are declaring, or after the hand otherwise.

The only people you are trying to protect by sending partner away is you and your partner, from having the consequences of forgetting/not having a clear agreement when the opponents inquire.
Feb. 7
Chris Gibson edited this comment Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had the fairly unusual auction
(1)-P-(P)-X;
(1N)-2-(P)-P;
(2) all pass.

We've also perpetrated
(1)-3-(P)-P;
(X)-P-(P)-3;
(X)-P-(P)-3;
(3N)-4-(X) all pass.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you send partner away, partner is alerted to the fact that you think that the bid may be alertable, and even more so that there is potential for a misunderstanding because you don't think the agreement is clear. I think you are fooling yourself to indicate that the UI burden on partner lessens in some way.
Feb. 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 167 168 169 170
.

Bottom Home Top