Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 247 248 249 250
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and Guadeloupe was not last :)

21.49 - 18.51 vs the teams from my country.

Even Italy did not win first time out. Took them 6 years.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard not for me to root for all those Davids.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not for us. But our methods are designed differently. (see above, I was edit/adding when you posted.) Standard methods pasted onto to limited opening bids do not maximize efficiency.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Precision we always called our 2 response to 1 “minor suit Stayman”. It categorically denied a 4CM, but it could have longer diamonds than clubs.

Best is to have methods after 1-1!M to later work out the hands with 4+ clubs. Given the nebulous diamond opening this approach was worked well for us. We have no problem identifying fits. You will have problems otherwise.

It really comes down to efficient use of space. 1-2 eats up space and 1-1M is a cheaper start.

Edit/Add: wow, I just voted and am in the 9%. Did not know that the space efficient, majors first camp was such a minority.

Following old-fashioned bidding from standard seems just theoretically completely wrong here. The advantage to Precision is the limited opening bids. Partner has made a nebulous but limited start, responder is unlimited. To construct continuations where the unlimited hand now has to describe itself to the limited hand is just plain wrong. It is far more efficient and accurate to make a cheap response and let the limited hand describe itself further to the unlimited hand. Not the other way around.
9 hours ago
David Yates edited this comment 8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other: Having made my bed on the previous round. . .
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jimmy Cayne Multi. Maybe his lawyers got him a loophole.

I think there is a typo in the ACBL charts. Under-disallowed:

*** In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened, unless that bid is also Strong and Forcing.

This seems to be the expected ban provision on multi, but it specifies “1-level” and not “2-level”. My reading of the charts published online is that Multi 2 is legal. Multi 1 is not legal.

Assuming the SCBL chart is supposed to read “2-level”, then JEC Multi becomes illegal except in 6-board(+) segments.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recorder form? In Alcatraz they had better solutions.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the Center's Director: “We need to have a system for communication”.

Apparently, a meeting is too technically challenging for the brain trusts in charge. This is a 5-table bridge game and the center's director treats it like she is negotiating with a labor union.

Looks like LJ Peter is right again.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is that you have reached 3NT and responder told opener about 8 of his 13 cards and 8 of his 17 points. It is hard to have useful continuations because of the inefficient use of space in the auction thus far.

BTW, what does North bid over 3 with x / Jxx / xxx / AKQxxx?
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect more than a 3-count for a natural 2NT call and I would bid 3NT with the actual hand.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 :)
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no problem with declarer taking 5, 10 or 15 minutes to make a play. I do object to being charged for half of it.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just one?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is good about the example is there is some inherent risk in drawing a conclusion.

That being said, against the usual suspects I am fairly certain that if either Barry or I could get the read as right at a poker table as often as we can at the club, we'd be in Vegas.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And Mr. Bumble says. . .
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N/S play YGIAGAM

This was old hand and predates support doubles. I wanted to see how people handled YGIAGAM.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is these people call this approach (2=/M) Landy. They often also add playing that X is now clubs and a higher. And still call it Landy.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was curious what the redouble is thought to be by players who choice that option, though I also suspect it's not Rosenkrantz.

Seriously though, for the XX people is that extra strength or do you want to play there?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, how can you possibly make that statement without a taking a poll? :)
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So now we run a poll for to see if it is UI or whether a player is supposed to follow the rules?
Sept. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 247 248 249 250
.

Bottom Home Top