Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Caprera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3N is natural in comp (no serious/nonserious). 4H was a control bid because no last train after both other suits (C and D) have been control bid.

These are our rules. Obviously, this is a question about “What are your agreements?” While I like our agreements here, one could certainly agree differently.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I would prefer not scheduling the trials over Memorial Day weekend. That is both a personal preference (the Denver regional is that week) and based on the fact that, be it bridge or otherwise, that weekend is very busy for many people. But that is just my thinking and it is definitely a question worth asking.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play kickback with all the same structure we use for 4N keycard when spades are trump. 4N is an ask and NOT to play. What do comments regarding matchpoints have to do with playing bridge?
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No experience but how about DBL=C or big, 3S=D, 3N to play, 4C both minors NF, 4D both minors GF?
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1H-2D-2S-4C? Splinter in support of spades on my planet (where the water is blue.)
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4N in David Levin's given sequence is “regressive.” With that agreement South has an automatic 4C bid.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like “choosing door one, I show you door two, and let you choose door three.” Feel lucky punk?
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The original title reminded me of the “Pigeon Coup”, a term I believe that is credited to Benito Garozzo. It is a pseudo squeeze where declarer abandons dummy's winner without an entry in order to take the remaining tricks in the closed hand. The “pigeon” is the opponent who miscounts declarer's distribution. The pun on “pigeon coo” I find amusing. Whether Annie would make me sleep in the coop or the coup is something you would need to ask her about.
Oct. 15
David Caprera edited this comment Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition to the obvious couch, I have slept in the garage, the driveway and the horse stables, but, fortunately, Annie has not thought of a chicken coup…yet. But don't put it past her. Perhaps a sequel, “Sleeping in the Coup - the reward for playing chicken shit bridge.”
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. When the opps have bid and raised, 2N is not natural.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are absolutely right. My fowl.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our rule is that four of a minor is forcing by an unlimited hand unless forced to that level by the opponent's bidding. One might infer that Kit agrees, given his statement, “It doesn't pay to stop on a dime in four of a minor.”
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree except that partner's spade card should be count so I do not think declarer is 2=4=3=4. In particular, Barry's discussion of partner's suit preference carding is inconsequential dribble. The correct way to think about the hand is based on what declarer chose to do. If declarer had Kxxx of clubs he would have played differently. If declarer had Kxx, partner would have played a higher club.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My thoughts have been all over the place on this. It happened not too long ago to me in a nonconsequential regional ko match. (We were getting killed and the outcome was not in doubt.) I was the one who revoked at trick 11. Pure inattention. The hand was effectively over and I pulled the wrong card. My opponent was a friend who said, “Pick it up.” But he then asked, “Would you have let me pick it up?” And my answer was, “Yes, because you would let me.”

I think that is the “right answer” in a friendly game. No, it is not the right legal answer. And in a major championship, I believe it is not the right answer. Call the director. In part, it could affect the outcome for others. What gives me the authority to do this? Obviously nothing but it just seems consistent with why I play the game.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Legalized marijuana?
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am fine with a 120 board final but favor a round robin to reduce to the power of 2. Yes 9 playing for 8 is awkward but I still prefer that than 9 playing to 4 and having more than 50% of the field going home after two days.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, if you mean last year's USBC senior result (the reason for the word “and” capitalized), that seems very unfair to someone who just aged in this year.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And that was how we learned. The experts would be there and the conversation would start, “What did you do on board one?” I used to write my hands down on my scorecard because I didn't remember them. Hand records? What are they? By the time you got through board 26 you had drunk enough beer to drive home. (But to be honest you have to back it up another 15 years.)
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok. I'll bite. This is a 2S bid. But at matchpoints if the opps balance we are probably defending doubled.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Giving additional seeding points based on RR finish is a fine alternative but merely converts the dialogue into one where we debate the formula for how many additional points.

Look, this isn't life or death for me but the whole theme this past year has been, “The trials are great events. We should make them larger, more inclusive, and more attractive for people who wouldn't otherwise play.” Using the round robin for seeding purposes is certainly consistent with those objectives.
Oct. 11
.

Bottom Home Top