Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm just bidding 5 clubs. The preempt changes the expected club length for partner. You might be able to convince me to bid 4H instead, but that sounds too much like I have a club raise with a heart control.
May 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually think 5 would be GSF.
May 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is my thought exactly. This is a minor penalty card, and falls under the rules that you quoted - which makes the OP's assertion that he knows the rules slightly ironic :).
May 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are making this bid with no agreement, hoping partner has a non-positional heart stopper, and trusting that partner will be on the same page, then you deserve the down 4 that inevitably will result.
May 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Michael. The only possible justification for not bidding the slam would be that you were swinging hard - this is a completely normal spot.
May 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would try 5N pick-a-slam. If partner picked diamonds, I'd re-pick for him.
May 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This appears to omit several points that were made in the appeals committee write up. A copy of that write up can be found at this link (scroll down until you find it): http://usbf.org/docs/2012usbc/bulletins/USBC2012news9.pdf
May 6, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't answer because none of the answers really matches my experience, which is no I have never been dissatisfied with the way an opponent has shuffled.
May 6, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg, takeout seems wrong to me. If you have a 4 card major & the desire to compete, bidding the 4 card major seems like a perfectly acceptable solution. On the other hand, if you have righty's major, wait and see and maybe compete in the major that they bid seems like a terrible solution - you know you are likely to have a bad split, and if you and righty account for 8+ cards in that suit, the likelihood that partner only has 3 for his takeout double increases significantly.

Honestly, how often have you actually backed into a major suit partscore using that method? In my opinion, its much easier using penalty doubles because partner, who probably has the majority of the hand's assets in a competitive auction, knows whether you have an 8 card fit, and also whether he can handle a bad split.
May 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 hearts. If partner continues with 4 spades, I'll pass. I love my aces, but hate our fit, and things rate to be splitting poorly too. J432 just doesn't do it for me as a diamonds stop when partner rates to have 10-11 black cards. What else is new.
May 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, sometimes we belong in 2 (or higher) of the major that righty just bid. Penalty doubling his butt seems to be the best way of suggesting that to partner.
May 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play self-splinters, I don't see any reason not to employ the method here - you even have the space for partner to make a last train/4H cue bid (whatever it means). If partner can muster up a 4 call, I'm going slamming.
May 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and hope he doesn't pick 6N, right?
May 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have liked to have bid 3 the previous round, assuming that it means the same thing in your partnerships as mine - which is that a jump to the 3 level shows two good 5 card suits, slam interest (and here because I bid diamonds first, would imply 6-5). My hearts aren't technically good enough for this bid, but the quality of my diamonds more than compensates in my opinion.
May 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have strong feelings between spades and X
April 30, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Making an effort to deter cheating is different than making the assumption that we are all guilty of cheating. Honestly, I expect that you know that, Hendrik. Can you imagine the protest and outrage and lawsuits from selective enforcement of a cell phone policy directed against specific individuals? I think you have to realize that if they make a policy like that, it would be all or nothing, and it is not a comment on the ethics of the average player.

My point about your reaction is that you've chosen to react that way about a fairly insignificant thing, and, if you chose to, you could react similarly to any number of security measures, like having police in your neighborhood (What, they think that we're all criminals? Why else would they be here, etc, etc). Yes, that reaction is ridiculous, but frankly, so is being insulted by a cell phone policy that, while it impacts you, is clearly not directed at you - its a different degree of the same thing.

In my opinion, its best to save the outrage for starving children, or partners who pass you in cue bids, but to each their own.
April 28, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fun to see Falk building off their strong Vanderbilt run.
April 27, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hendrik - put your phone in your coat pocket, and hang your coat up in the coat racks, but somewhat buried in the piles so that someone can't quickly brush against it and rifle through the pockets. In the Louisvilles or Seattles of the world, this is practically no risk unless you publicly announce that your phone, passport, and $500 in cash are going to be in your unattended coat pocket.

Are you also insulted by airport security? By stadium security? By the fact that other countries have standing armies? By the presence of police officers in your part of town? My examples are more extreme, but its really all the same thing - security policies are not meant to insult you, they are meant to slow down or stop certain behavior. You being “insulted” is irrelevant to the discussion - you've chosen that reaction out of a myriad of choices from an action that was certainly not intended to bring about that reaction.
April 27, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's an attempt to do bridge power ratings (search Colorado Bridge power ratings). The person who put it together appears to have semi-sound theory and methods - until you look at some of the results, like Eric Rodwell being somewhere around 350th best player in the US.

I much prefer to actually play bridge and decide it on the field than to have a computer tell me who's best.
April 27, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top