Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what he wrote, I'd say he isn't exclusively using in private. I also think that having someone very openly using drugs and doing their normal life things out in public “normalizes” drug use, and that is something that may influence younger people when people they see as mentors behave in such a manner, especially when they publicize it to the greater world.

Listen, I'm not asking David to change in anyway, I'm just pointing out that while his behavior may be fine in isolation, and while it is admirable that he mentors young bridge players, the combination of the two may be problematic for some, especially if he is flagrant about advertising what he does.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The implication of my comment is that you open yourself up to the charge of “corrupting youth” and/or are possibly giving parents a reason not to support having kids in the program. I don't know one way or another whether your influence would make someone more inclined to smoke pot or not. I do know, as a parent, that I would be less inclined to give my kid over to someone who uses drugs recreationally outside of the confines of their home. U26 does not exclude people from the lower age ranges, if I remember correctly, even if the more common and likely participants are older.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to be the fly in the ointment, but if I were the coach of a youth bridge team, I wouldn't admit to using federally illegal drugs.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have a king and two queens. Is that normally good enough for you to XX?
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might have opened this 2N.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those people should just give up their variants and just play Ford- Landy, except X = clubs or a major minor, and if the major minor, then a diamond rebid shows longer and stronger diamonds and a side major. :)
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe he means that he knows the defense well.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
its a simple squeeze played as a double squeeze
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ELC is definitely non-standard, even if it is common. My definition for standard is if two random experts sat down and said “expert standard” as the only two words, the expectation of both would be that it would be played. ELC definitely doesn't meet that threshold.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm ok with that. If its a part score hand, I want to play in clubs. If its not, I might get a chance to offer spades. And most importantly, if its their hand, I want partner to play me for club values and length when planning the defense.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe its a reference to the rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. Note, I am not evaluating whether I agree with the sentiment, merely providing interpretation.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NV I'd throw a 2 mini-psych out there, probably.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your comment was way out of line - She might have interpreted it as saying that you don't even think she's good enough to know how to finesse at all. I actually have some sympathy for her reaction - she felt like her skill level was publicly questioned in front of her partner, and she responded by stating that she has had a history of success at bridge, as measured by masterpoints, not only telling you, but also telling everyone else who had heard you question her skill. The someone like you at the end was strange and more personal, but in the heat of the moment we all react differently.

I love going over the hands with a fine tooth comb after a session and figuring out my own mistakes. I would still be opposed to an opponent telling me my mistakes at the table in front of my partner. I'm not trying to improve between hands, I'm trying to compete and do my best, which involves keeping both ends of my partnership focused on the upcoming hand, not looking back at the ones we can't do anything about anymore. I don't need to spend any time or mental energy thinking about past hands until after the session. I don't want to hear how I screwed up until then - I'm probably already aware, but I don't want to think about it, and I don't want partner thinking about it.

It sounds like you did what you did out of ignorance. That's fine once as long as you learn from it. But it sounds like you might have been neglecting a bridge skill - care and feeding of partner opposite. Taking care with your comments, not embarrassing partner, not setting off opponents, and encouraging partner to live in the now are all things that help your score more than learning about esoteric squeezes ever will. Your goals may vary, but if scoring well is one of them, you need to do whatever you can to make sure that the person playing opposite you is playing their best.

I know that a partner I used to have would behave so badly at the table that I'd feel the need to go back and apologize to opponents after we left. That partner did not get my best. Another partner would criticize me immediately after every hand where I made the slightest error. That partner made me a much better player - after I dumped his butt, I was able to apply a lot of what he said - but that never benefitted him because I was a wreck playing with him.

Now I know this is a little off track, but mostly I'm just saying that social awareness can help your bridge game immediately, as well as getting you better partners in the long run if you are pleasant to be around.
Sept. 6
Chris Gibson edited this comment Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope you get that couch cleaned with the amount of time you seem to spend on it.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Things aren't sitting well for me. The 4th heart is something partner doesn't necessarily know about, but if he wants to compete on that basis, he'll bid 4 as pass/correct. They aren't in a game, and the vulnerability sucks. Pass seems warranted, almost mandatory.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris - there is a problem with your reasoning. If subtle reasoning is what enables you to make the correct bid, then in real life you may or may not get it right. On the other hand, if UI suggests the right bid, you can often work out the subtle reasoning that also suggests it, and now you get it right all of the time, gaining advantage from the UI.

I think the only way to unwind it is through polling, of course, to see if your peers are universal in duplicating your subtle reasoning without the UI.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play to make. Not everyone will be in game, like Steve said. No matter how normal you think the defense is, you actually cannot know what is normal at trick 3, and you also can't say with certainty that your opponents will have been bidding as the field would, so calling it a normal contract is also an overbid IMO.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on South's level of play, obviously, as to what his LAs are if he had UI (good is in the eye of the beholder). But I also think in the scenario presented South has no UI, and can bid what he wants - unless you are alleging that the bid is so unusual that it would not be made without some wiggling/grimacing after the initial explanation, but that assumed behavior is not among the facts that we are given.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or a suit that partner has definitively shown, like in the case of a transfer. Here neither partner has shown hearts definitively, thus is conventional.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on style to some degree. Can partner still have a weak NT? Does partner guarantee 4+ clubs? 5+ clubs? 4-4 fits don't play nearly as well with no secondary source of tricks, and my ruffing power in partner's primary suit is not necessarily a positive feature.
Aug. 1
.

Bottom Home Top