Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Chris Gibson edited this comment Sept. 6, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian - Hard to say. If they don't have any experience with someone playing things other than Michaels, for example, it might not occur to them that there are other likely possibilities. At some level - and it sounds like they were playing at this level - it is more likely that the opponents are just not playing good bridge. The more relevant question is whether the assumption they are playing Michaels is so egregious as to limit their rights going forward, which I do not think that it meets that threshold.
Aug. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian - you might double because you KNOW you have 3 heart tricks with hearts & spades as the two suits, and now you potentially have 3 opportunities for tricks in the minors, depending on what partner was doubling on, assuming the standard Michaels definition for the cue-bid. With an alert of 2, there is reason to ask, and pass-correct would probably alert the doubler that this is not Michaels, changing the trick math.
Aug. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You aren't just limited to the 2 level - you can trot out 3 or 4 spades. Hell, if he has hearts and spades you want to be in game with your double-fit anyway, so 2 pass or correct is, in my opinion, misjudged.
Aug. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I definitely roll it back. He's counting on 3 heart tricks and maybe something more based on the auction. If you had alerted pass/correct, he would have been tipped to the fact that all three hearts might not be cashing, or if they are, that there isn't a trick coming in diamonds. I believe so strongly that this is the right ruling that I think if you appealed, it would merit an Appeal Without Merit Warning.
Aug. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no way of knowing - you didn't provide the hand that made the decision. Polling would have to establish it one way or another.
Aug. 1, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top