Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
1 2 3 4 ... 161 162 163 164
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have not checked, but they traditionally set the KO by the original seed order and not by the RR results.

Also the last three rounds are not scored until all three are finished. A pair from each team must play all three and are sequestered with no score comparisons allowed. This is primarily so no one gets “help” Q-ing, but it will also obfuscate the leaderboard at the top.
17 hours ago
David Yates edited this comment 16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You know its a tough event when your team gets blitzed by “BYE”
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our local clubs allow for scoring corrections until next session. For the morning session this works fine because everyone stays for lunch and looks over results. For the afternoon session this works fine because many people want to get out before the heavy traffic.

A player can go home, check online and if you spot an error, you can e-mail the TD. The TD tries to verify, or if that cannot be made, he makes a judgment call, but never fails to notify the other party.

Once I arrived home late having gone to the gym first. I had a message from the TD and the other player. The TD made the scoring adjustment because the other player was Kay Schulle and she of course could call card by card. So the claim seemed reasonable, he made it and just wanted to notify me. Kay called me too.

What we could not do right at the time was enter the right result (me) and verify it properly (Kay) so good luck with the be more careful part.

If “be more careful” worked, you should use that wish to improve parking skills.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Everyone in the ACBL can ignore this post because obviously Harald lives in some alternate universe. Working technology and competent management? Sci Fi stuff for sure.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu, who votes with their head?

(It is so seldom an option in elections)
April 29
David Yates edited this comment April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So the decision is perfectly hedged :)
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never thought I would wish to be in Schaumburg.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think at the end of the day I think that 6NT is a better option. 5 seems too wimpy. It says: “I’ll show you the club control, but . . .???” All 5 is probably going to get is a slow sign-off unless 6NT is ice-cold and then you should just bid it. (You will b/c partner will bid 6). Bridge is a partnership game but I hate it when partners pass me the buck in an auction when I cannot have the slightest idea what is needed. South knows opener is looking at no spots in spades. How can opener know what jack we need? He heard the preempt, now spades might not be breaking so well. When we create doubt in partner’s mind, partner tends to make doubtful actions.

And sometimes the preempt has the K or partner holds something like KQxxx Kx AKxx xx.

Also, there will be that annoying TD call if partner bids a slow 6 that you need to pull to 6NT. You should win that, but again anything can happen.

So my advice is suck it up, take the responsibility, don’t pass the buck and just bid it like a man.

Oh, wait. You did. (Good job, as usual)
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spoken like a true rubber bridge player.

“Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides”
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am voting this as the most mystifying bidding poll results ever.

When did South show a club control? The initial cue simply shows a hand that is too good for a raise to 4. It does not promise a club control. What would you bid with AJx / AKQJ / Jxxx / xx? Partner has carried the auction beyond game, meaning he wants to be in a slam but has no club control (ergo xx or maybe 109xx if Stauber is E)

5 now denies a club control. Except you have a club control. But you also know 6 is down on A and another. 6NT has to have good play. The point is partner can NEVER make a move over 5 because he has no club control and you did not promise one.

So I voted and I am the lone 6NT bidder? Why are we screwing around on this board, we don't trust partner? Yes, slam might not make, but it has good chances and 5 should never lead to anything other than PASS. So I'll give you IMPs on the 10% of the time it does not make, and when partner tables something like KQxxxx / x / AKQx / xx - and he can easily be better, you just lost a pile of IMPs the rest of the time.
April 28
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously N/S were not on very firm ground with this auction. It certainly might not make sense to you Michael - (I doubt you rebid 3 either) - that 4 is invitational, but given the lack of a cue bid with extra HCP for 4, it seems likely North read it that way. If one does not have pages of partnership notes and partnership experience, one needs to make the practical bid, not the fancy bid.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it doesn't need to be that hand (2038), but lots of close ones. I make 3037 more likely than eight.

West could have some values but no reason to bid. For ex: KQxxx / K10xx / xx / Ax, so there are the spades. The diamonds are always almost certainly five or six N/S b/c no 3 or competitive effort by W.

Give South A10x / AQJxxx / Jxx / x or Axx / AJxxxxx / Qx / x and nearly everyone calls 2.

So N has Qxx / - . / xxx / KQJ109xx are you supposed to pass 2? Partner rebids 3 and now your best spot might be 4 just making or down 1.

3 was F1, I do not see a reason why an advance opposite and overcall equals a GF. Your side might already be too high because of the preempt. West probably cannot hit 4, but if you insist on playing 4 forcing, you insist on not reaching your best part score so that you can go down a bunch in 3 @ 100 an undertrick playing 6-0 or 6-1 fits with the hearts sitting over with 4 making or nearly making.

A competitive auction where the ops have fired the first shot and robbed you of bidding space is way different than a constructive auction with the ops silent. In the OP auction, West has no reason to call with moderate values and no diamond fit once his partner has opened a wk-2. But with my ex, that hand auto-overalls 1 over your 1 opening. Therefore, after 1 -(P), it denies that hand, doesn't it? Responder is not going to need to correct to a better partial.

This auction is not an uncontested 1-1NT-3 because we know opener has a 2 rebid in the OP auction. (He was forced to start at the two-level and made a min rebid). The uncontested version of this auction is actually 1-1NT-2-3 and the WHOLE WORLD plays that as non-forcing.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice field
April 28
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained, not knowing partnership methods or scoring. However:

Do not care for 3. Would prefer 2NT or manufactured reverse to 2. A charge against N for the rebid, a charge against 5 since I am guessing he is heavy for 3.

Passing 5 by South seems pessimistic. South has a monster opposite a 3 rebid. And you know it is not passed on a good suit, so North has HCP.

4 seems pointless. I don't know anyone who plays a jump rebid GF, so what were you hoping for? Exactly +130? You have 4 trump in support and an establishable suit. Blackwood seems in order even if you believe 4 is forcing.

The only way this auction makes sense is if 4 was “minorwood”, and North took it as invitational. Otherwise, all I can say is that I do not disagree with the first two bids.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Aviv says.

If an interpretation of the rules leads to the conclusion that the ops are entitled to an alert because “my partner might be acting stupidly or operating”, then most calls would seem to require an alert.

From a practical matter, you will find that there are practical limits to these types of actions. If one becomes enamored with opportunities to bid with the specific desire to mess the opponents up, one runs inexorably head-on into Newton’s Third Law. The equal and opposite reaction will produce “SPLAT”.

At the end of the day, bridge is a partnership game. The person one needs to trust in order to do well is sitting across the table. If a player makes a habit of “stepping out” because of how he reads the situation, the whole world will know in short order. As the frequency increases, the first person to become flummoxed will be the partner, as doubt creeps into his mind in all sorts of situations.

Cowboy actions are seldom properly evaluated. Bridge skill and results are not validated on one particular board but the entire body of work. The cowboy credits the win in the situation described to his actions and the loss in cases that partner passes marginal values when Yippie Kay Yay has full values to his partner.

About 20 years ago, I had a talk with a younger, frustrated player whose partnership blew up flight-C, then blew up flight-B and was now languishing about 48-53% every time in ‘A’ events. I told him that a major part of their partnership problem was not just that it is harder to win in ‘A’, it was because of how they approached competitive auctions.

“You guys bid if you have it and you bid if you do not have it. This is because you learned that you could bid all over weaker opponents (in ACBL’s world of segregated bridge) and then field the auction based on the table action.” He objected strenuously, saying that did not communicate unethically. I retorted that I did not accuse them of that, I accused them of relying to much on trying to read the ops. If the ops seemed perplexed, partner is goofing, if the ops barely look at their hands, partner has values. I said: “the problem is that you have been doing this for so long that it has crept into your game and judgment and you do not even know it. But I do.”

I pointed out that the last round I played against them for 0 MP for them, on the second board they opened with 1-(P)-1NT*-(2); 3 - (X), +300 for us. Over 1, I passed my 14 count just like it could be 0. Ron bid 2 on his 7-count in tempo, opener thought he was sitting over the opposing values and he was 5-5.

Against weaker players, this would have never happened. 2nd seat would look bewildered “because I had an opening bid”. 4th might have hitched a little bit, and then opener “knows” values to left, long suit on right but marginal, therefore, the 1NT response is dead min.

This is not to say that there are not opportunities to step out or be creative. Just that if a player makes such a habit that partner is actually concerned an operation might be in progress, or the ops might need to be told an operation might be taking place, then the partnership becomes somewhat dysfunctional.
Everyone will know, so no alert required.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We should start a petition to draft Larry Cohen. Also let him know that the line “if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve” has been taken.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
$NT is a standard shift key goof.

I was wondering if anyone else occasionally find themselves typing “!” before a C/D/H/S in an e-mail or other non-BW document?
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never get these right and would prefer to play 7.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
State of match. (BTW, these were the E/W hands)

At the time team Fleischer was stuck about 50 IMPs midway thru 5 of 8. The East player who passed 1NT is hardly a shrinking violet and was never a bridge fool even when he was a little kid.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes
April 25
1 2 3 4 ... 161 162 163 164
.

Bottom Home Top