Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That could be taken as a threat” might be a Logical Alternative, but I think there's sufficient Authorized Information to set it aside.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Because professional players are directly earning a living through ACBL activities, for starters their dues should be higher; say by a factor of at least ten.”

Then shouldn't a carpenter who is buying a tool have to pay more than does the customer who wouldn't be using the tool to help generate income?
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was about 10, our family of four learned together from Goren's Bridge for Two set. I played fairly often but didn't begin applying myself until my mid-20s, primarily as a result of a serious (and far more accomplished than I) bridge player's joining my department and our starting to play together.
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoops. In writing, “request the number of brackets upward,” I was thinking of KOs, which of course isn't the topic of this thread!
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Instead of having a rigid upper masterpoint limit to a section (which seems based on the fiction that exceeding an MP threshold magically confers bridge wisdom), perhaps players above that limit should be allowed to enter, but any MP award would be reduced proportionally (and perhaps for the person's partner and teammates as well, to make it uninviting for a client-sponsored pair or team to enter the lower section). For example, if a person holding 5,000 MPs entered a section with an upper limit of 4,000 MPs, that person's MP award would be 80% of what it would have been for someone with not more than 4,000 MPs.

If the MP awards for the various sections were set reasonably, a player could roughly judge when his/her MP total had reached the point where the player's expected MP award would be higher in the top section than in the section for which her/his MP award would be subject to adjustment. Players who pick a section for reasons other than expected MP award would have the same or more options than they do now.
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or perhaps allow a team to request the number of brackets upward it wants to be assigned or to request “top.”
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it possible that the director didn't remember that there was a delay in assigning you to a table?
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps you could call it “Angry Bids.”
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two possible responses to the director come to mind.

“Perhaps you're not aware that we played the boards in seven minutes total?”

“You're right, it shouldn't take us seven minutes to play only three boards.”

Viewer discretion is advised.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's Johnny Appleseed!
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps immediately running Dummy's s would have squeezed Declarer.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If East is a disciplined bidder, I would expect her/him to hold more than five diamonds to have bid 3, implying that we should play Partner to hold at most one diamond.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not having seen the East hand, my initial thought was to bid 3 because South's Double increases the chance of North's holding KQx(x). But, East has shown about half of the s, which makes East a big favorite to hold at least one honor. And where East doesn't have a honor, trumps might still split 2-1, and even 2-2 is plausible because our auction put South in essentially a balancing situation.

In the minors, it's unlikely that the opponents could take more than two tricks off the top. Being that neither the auction nor our hand tells us which minor is more vulnerable, the opponents are unlikely to know. Therefore, a Help Suit Try seems unnecessary. I'd feel differently if West's minors were AJ2 Q765.

I would bid 4.
July 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“1430 might be fine for superstars, but in the hands of the masses, it is a tragedy.”

That statement in a milder form might apply even to standard Blackwood.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“World Series” is based on America's delusion that it invents everything. Baseball was actually the glorious achievement of Dmitri Cartovich and Igor Wrightoff. The game was later corrupted by the introduction of stealing by greedy capitalists.
July 22, 2015
David Levin edited this comment July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Benoit, I agree with you. But, the potential value in making systemic that RKC responder raises to slam when holding 3 keycards, is in protecting your side when an opponent does not agree with you. 8^)
July 21, 2015
David Levin edited this comment July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the RKC inquirer holds AQJT987 KQJT A x, and RKC responder doesn't raise inquirer's signoff when responder holds the 3 keycards rather than 0, how will inquirer know what to do? Granted, this is a rare case, but I'm not sure what is lost by playing “Autowood” (other than that someone might forget).
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know. I had tried “\” before the bracket, but that didn't work either. Perhaps someone from BW will address this in the next few days, otherwise I'll probably email BW support and post the answer in this discussion.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the BW site, square brackets within comment text are treated as delimiters for an HTML or HTML-like tag, such as “b” for bold or “\b” for no longer bold.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted (redundant with my above comment).
July 21, 2015
David Levin edited this comment July 21, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top