Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robin, the most likely number of spades is less than two given that your partner already responded 1N, so you can take out all hands with 4+ spades, and some hands with 3 spades as well.

I have a minimum with one extra spade than I might. That's still 2, especially with the crap spots. If partner has extra values, he'll move again, and if not than 2 is fine.
March 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd also like to say, what if the ace of diamonds was in North instead of South? The bidding wouldn't be any different, I presume. Its clear to me that E-W weren't damaged in the bidding by the explanation, just by the fact that they both went conservative/didn't have good methods for the hands given the preemptive effort.
March 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This makes the assumption that the OP is from the ACBL, which I do not believe to be a correct assumption.
March 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
W can ask about any bid, but it provides UI for E if he doesn't ask consistently. The directors should determine whether W consistently asks about weak 2 bids no matter what his hand type. If he does not, they should poll E's peers and see whether pass is a LA given the question.
March 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If their agreement was that X shows a single suited hand, it would probably require an alert. Their agreement is take-out, which does not. You got all the alerts you were entitled to given their agreements.

E's confusion is a side-show.

Your poll is extremely flawed, and not relevant.

If you were to do a relevant poll, it would require two polls: The one where E alerted X as DONT, and then the one where the actual agreement is in effect. You would never actually tell them that E was confused, or that he didn't alert, as that taints the results.
March 15, 2019
Chris Gibson edited this comment March 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Several things:

E-W had no UI
N-S had the correct agreements for this E-W auction, so that there is no MI.

Without UI or MI, there appears to be no reason to adjust.

Side note: Even if there was MI (which there was not), it's not enough to show that some N's would bid 3 with the correct information, you also need to show that more N's would bid 3 with the correct information than would bid 3 with the incorrect information - it would help to poll the actual auction with the alleged MI to get a baseline.
March 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep Bridge Alive is a wonderful name - its clear about its goal, and the name invokes the urgency to act now, which I believe to be necessary if there is any hope of salvaging the game.
March 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because it has been tried doesn't mean that its been done well, or that it won't work if tried again with different circumstances.
March 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The biggest problem is that it's hard to get 2-3 people who have never played before to sit down, explain the rules within 15 minutes, and play with those who already know how to play, and find it enjoyable. Its an even bigger jump to get those perspective social players to start playing at the club/tournaments.

Bridge, when expanding in popularity, was a relatively simple game played socially. It was cheap to play (important for the depression), and not gummed up by the complexities of a million conventions. There was also a social pressure to play because it was so popular at the time, and those players taught their children (baby boomers) to play.

By the time baby boomers had children, tournament bridge was exploding, and social bridge was lessening in importance. More complexity was introduced, increasing the learning curve, and more options for cheap entertainment were plentiful in expanding TV and video game selections.

I don't see the conditions from when bridge became popular repeating themselves. I also don't think human nature is going to all of a sudden change so that people don't become frustrated with trying to learn the game. My best recommendation is to partner/start a Spades organization, since it is a similar card game which can help jump start the learning curve, and then to try and recruit those players with side events at Spades tournaments. Or pour money into social bridge with simple systems, even if there is no direct increase in bridge organization membership as a result.
March 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
when you have a hand where planned on doubling then bidding, you need to follow through and bid your suit.
March 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you're right - way better than the low club I originally recommended.
March 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm assuming partner has a reverse, or at least a pure black hand with 5 clubs. I don't think I'm worth encouraging at the moment, but if partner makes another move I'll do something more than signing off.
March 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to continue clubs with a low club, assuming partner reads this as a sp situation, he's going neither high nor low. Club continuation can cost, but its the most neutral thing I can do for now.
March 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play XYZ as on when there is no cue-bid, and when 2 is available as a bid.

We play good/bad on when partner has made a noise, and opponents have bid and raised a suit (either directly or inferentially, like a take-out double then bid) below 2N.

We have other general rules for other general conventions too.
March 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm bidding 4 because partner needs the nuts, not just any excuse. On the other hand, its hard for partner to evaluate what is useful and what is not without showing diamond shortage.
March 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric - there are two people named Chris responding in this subthread, I am assuming you are responding to the other Chris, but please let me know if I am wrong.
March 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no information about the pairs actual agreement or experiences. I can see someone with AKT9 making a bid of 3, especially with a club fit to retreat to if doubled, with the anticipation of defending a spade contract even without an agreement that 3 is anything but natural and forcing, or the expectation that partner will “field” the bid. In fact, those exact circumstances exist in most of my partnerships, and I would also like to believe that I would bid 3 on that suit with an appropriate club fit. Without any reason to believe otherwise, that is what I am assuming happened here.
March 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 looks like a natural bid to me, unless they had partnership experience or notes that makes it multi-way. I mean, geez, you've never psyched a bid to get a lead when you had a raise of partner's suit? I can't even call this a psyche with a 4 card suit.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I think I understand. What I understand, however, is that somehow you have completely misread what I've written here, or at least done some reading between the lines to come up with interpretations not actually endorsed by me.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Mike, I am talking about it. Do you disagree with the need? I feel like if we are applying “sports and life” examples to a card game, that is both stupid and lazy - pretending there is a one-size-fits all option for something as nuanced as this is not something I am willing to countenance.
March 7, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top