Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 158 159 160 161
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, I applaud most anything that brings players of all stripes together (no wisecracks, please :). Then again, I'm a bridge vagabond with over a 1000 partners in not so many years.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom,

The idea is that declarer should simply claim (at imps) early in the hand if he is making the contract– or simply has no play to make – sparing all the sometime agony of going for overtricks for an imp or two. Time is often saved. Yes, the purity of the game is a bit eroded but who should really care if you aren't playing to make a living?

I think the notion should be at least tried at a sectional or even a regional on a Sunday. That so little new is ever field-tested by the regulators is unfortunate but I understand that most feel that they know what might be best for the customers.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, that won't play in my neck of the woods in South Carolina. The two towns with major clubs are about 25 minutes apart :)
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe many simply play Hamilton or the like over 1m-1NT.
Double is penalty; 2D is Landy, 2C is one-suited, 3 of partner's minor is preemptive.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, too, would have thought so. Will try some crunching of my own in due course.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, interesting. Years ago, I found that players (this was in California) in the lesser brackets enjoyed the games as much as in the top brackets. With todays's quest for master points, I would think that those in the lower brackets would enjoy the games more than the heavy hitters. An added benefit is that lower bracket folks can often choose to compete in the higher bracket as well. “Real Rewards” as Peg Kaplan would say.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda, that's interesting. Are they all “sanctioned?”
(I thought there was a limit.)
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of my local clubs has scheduled a special Wed Eve game – A players play with Bs and Cs randomly. This is much like the so-called Pro-Ams which have had a fair amount of success at a number of smaller regionals. We're hoping for a good turnout but even if so the bigger question is does it have “legs?”

Then, there is the notion of an Individual event (typically “despised” by the accomplished player). Too bad, in my view. I think such an event would have considerable appeal to many at both the Club and Unit level. Individuals have a bad rep, particularly among those of us who remember the directing and scoring problems of the movement, which are often screwed up. To what extent ACBL Score solves most of these problems hasn't been made clear, as yet, to me.

ACBL sanctioned extended team games, under the auspices of a Unit, have been continually successful in a number of Units. These, frequently played at a “home” over a lengthy period of time, are largely unknown to the rank and file in many areas, including ignorance among administration officials. A sad situation. More education and forceful publicity by the ACBL could undoubtedly help.

“Eight is Enough” Swiss teams seem to have considerable popularity in many areas. Segueing from that, is there merit in trying out imp team events (club, unit or even a regional), where "overtricks, not doubled, are ignored in the scoring? In theory, a faster game and an earlier start toward home for players and administraters.

Finally, aren't 36-board matches (I guess for pairs) appropriately intermingled with food and/or drink in many locales in Europe? Seems quite civilized. I don't know any details.
Sept. 19
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill Jacobs above commented:

Turn off “View other results” on your bridgemates, if you use them." with 45 Likes.

Does this imply that showing the score for your board to date is OK?

(I hope not. I refuse to even know what scores a Bridge Mate shows – whatever it is, it is not conductive to good bridge, imo!
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Following up as noted above, I queried an ACBL official with the following message:


“The Alert Chart currently reads No Alert for a 1D call (if it falls within an agreed range of somewhere between 10-21+ HCP).

If the call could be shorter than three cards, an announcement is required.

State ”may be short.“
Presumably, no further verbiage (such as a point range) is required or even encouraged.

Do I have this right?

Many thanks.”


The response:


“You are correct, given that 1D may be passed (is not forcing), as in a typical strong Club system. If you play it otherwise, either forcing or can be an unexpected shape (5-5-0-3 or such) then it needs to be alerted.”
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cant handel, thanks for asking.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed: Thanks, I now see your informed view which is the same as Steve's.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“..and always remember; this is a game, we are supposed to be enjoying ourselves.”

Ian: Careful, you could initiate a 500+ thread around the words “this is a game” and “enjoying ourselves.” :)
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A case in point was the old Walsh bid after 1m-(1H)-Double or 1S. Years ago, Max Hardy forcibly advocated “special alert, pls ask.” Made sense to me. Some still so play.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bruce, it would seem that you should since it can be less than two. I gather you, too, do not specify a point range, and regard something like 11-15 as “neatly” fitting into a 10-21+ range.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like a horse's mouth :)
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I have always thought so, too, and have long been accustomed to hearing after a 1D (precision) “may be short as two, 11-15(16) high card points.”

I will try to elicit a clarification or opinion from a horse's mouth and will advise in due course.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed:

I know you're an authority on such matters.

Are you saying (if playing a precision system) that “could be short” is all that should be said in regard to the 1D opening?

If or if not so, what do you mean by “That's wrong.”
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, for possible clarification.

Surely, a precision 1C must be alerted and (if a inquiry) must be explained as strong, artificial and forcing (strength unlimited).

My query refers only to the precision 1D.

Is it sufficient to say only “may be short” under current regs.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, for clarification – the above is meant to apply only to the 1D opening which may be short (and 11-15/16).
Sept. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 158 159 160 161
.

Bottom Home Top