Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dan Jablonski
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ACBL knows, PR should pick that up the next month. Can also let Chris know directly – he's got a link on for exactly that, so that must have hit a few nerves.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a few issues with it, but it is clearly better than nothing.

My main issue is that I don't like recasting past history based on present results. A game 23 months ago should be rated based on the opponents' ratings at that time, not thrown into a pool with newer results and recomputed. Some of those opponents are very different players today!

I would also like to see older results decay rather than stay on at full strength until they fall off the cliff.

I track power ratings far closer than I probably should, and enjoy trying to get a feel for what's going to happen. But some months I know the biggest hit on my rating is going to be two of my regular partners playing together and putting up a stinker, or a great game. Or that I'm fighting a strong headwind on a good tournament from a couple of years ago falling off.

These are minor gripes.

I think the main problem from a credibility standpoint is that it only includes matchpoint results. That's what I like to play, so I enjoy it. But it's been a frustrating couple of weeks putting up good team results and less good pair results.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right next to that book on the library shelf at the local bridge club is probably the most real bridge book I've ever seen. It's titled “everything I know about bridge” and it is a 150 page volume of blank paper.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm 45. I think I'm now closer to being eligible for a junior event than the D25 senior regional. Thanks WBF!
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree in principle with “bidding game does not create a force” except when it's no trump. And a jump to 3NT to boot. That's bid to make in my book.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had one of those hands yesterday. I was dummy, but I appreciated the problem my partner had trying to find a particular card both opponents had shown by lousy tempo. He told me later it was late enough in the 7 board round to know which one was full of it.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner asked the opponents the other day “how do you interpret that bid?”

One of my favorite local directors, running the game, was in earshot and dropped in with a loud BZZZZT. Illegal question, he said. “Now, what agreements do you have about that bid?”

He managed to be friendly and fun and educational all at once.

I can't figure out from the OP if excess information was asked for or freely offered. But I think I read it that the over explaining happened after the auction was done anyway.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
there was some . . . . weirdness with pending points in July. (so maybe they both have to wait until September 6 to see if the AS/400 will let them have it!)
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If our hearts were worse, we would have forced slam.. that's a compelling case.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might as well give the opponents one shot instead of two.

I do my best to pass in tempo to win the postmortem.
Aug. 3
Dan Jablonski edited this comment Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“E.g. if the last making contract is 3H by N/S then the optimum score is +140 if the opps are vulnerable and +100 if not.”

True sometimes, but far from always.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in some ways, i consider a just declare robot individual *more* like real bridge than a matchpoint robot individual. some of the techniques that make the bots look really bad on defense involve telling lies in the auction. if you can get to the right contract via an “interesting” auction, you can get some very good boards.

just declare, at least everyone is playing the same contract in the same conditions. it has its problems, too, of course. (the trick 2 claim boards really irritate me. the fact that they often score 53% is amazing.)

but the just declare tournaments are the ones where my mindset is most like i'm playing that other game we all enjoy.. you know, bridge.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did this for a bit recently. red opponents don't bid nearly as much over the strong club. seemed half the time they bothered to come in at all, they ended up in game!

when opponents are nonvul, it's sometimes nice just to get a natural suit on the table before the auction reaches the three level.

it takes concentration, but after about a session, it starts to feel pretty normal. even our more frequent opponents were starting to get used to it.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
looks like the domain registration probably expired.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ahh, the joys of one-word agreements! with partners i have actually discussed it with, 2NT is still forwardgoing with whatever convention you play there, and redouble demands the ranking bid, for pass/correct.. allows reaching 2. I got it from one partner, and have relayed it to a couple of others, and maybe it turns out I'm perpetrating a counterfeit convention!

i need to learn to ask myself the “what would i do if that came back under the screen” question more often – it's a good way to get the rest of thought process to a *starting* point. I thought about a lot of stuff in that moment, but not in a coherent framework.

still absorbing, but thanks for all the feedback!
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
funny, both situations came up in last night's (jan 2 eve) common game. I led the king both times. (east on board 4, north on board 19)

i like it from AK because i expect to complete the signal at trick 2, and get a suit preference signal from partner. the KQ lead will take longer to develop, and if anything, the signal feels like it helps declarer more than partner.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, that is hilarious. Because 7 points is one fifth of a board. (No impact on the actual result, but I like mocking bad math. :) )
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finn, I'm quite sure you and your partner weren't worried about the difference between 14th and 15th. but when did the directors tell you they had decided on a 7 matchpoint penalty? and did they call it 7 matchpoints, or 20% of a board, or 1/5 of a board?
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
just checked – an extra 1.75 would not have changed the overalls..
Dec. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you already know controls before you get to the mulberry sequence, that would make sense.. our system is all about shape at the lower levels, and uses the mulberry sequence to establish values/controls.
Dec. 28, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top