Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Reppert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 621 622 623 624
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think mollycoddling “lesser” players is the way to go. You would do better to teach them not to panic.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what do you do the next time she panics? And the next time?
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Once partner shows discomfort you are required to choose from all possible LA the absolute worst LA.”

The law does not say that.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not worry about whether a statement of fact is self-serving. You should tell the director what you know. What he does with the information is up to him.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I heard that question today. The reply was “I don't know. I didn't count them.”
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I maintain that a “North American Bridge Championship” is a zonal championship. YMMV. The ACBL's mileage may vary too. I don't care. :-)
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And Bermuda is not one of them.

Bermuda is part of the ACBL only insofar as it is a unit of district 2, a status that it specifically requested to retain when it opted to move out of zone 2 to zone 5.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bermuda is not a member NBO of Zone 2. It is a member NBO of Zone 5. So it has nothing to do with Zonal championships (i.e., NABCs).
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming the club director knows it's in there, knows how to get at it, and knows how to print it.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first heard of EHAA, I was a bit bemused by the fact that it has no strong artificial opening. Now I'm thinking maybe that's not so bad after all. :-)

NB: I'm aware that there is at least one version of EHAA that has such an opening.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given the apparently nearly insurmountable difficulties in opening 2, why isn't everyone in the world playing Precision?
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder how much of it survived the flood.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I'm wrong. It's happened before. :-) What I meant was that the Recorder should not be on the DC, nor involved, except perhaps as a consultant or expert witness, in the hearing. But the bit you wrote above “To prosecute the Complaint on behalf of his or her appointing organization when selected or appointed to do so” bothers me. Not sure what's intended here, but I don't think the Recorder ought to running any prosecution of a disciplinary matter.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alexander: That would go 1NT*-2*-2-4-P, assuming opponents pass throughout.

* denotes alerts.

1NT: artificial, forcing, balanced 19-20, 6 controls, or unbalanced, 5+ controls, 4 or 5 losers.
2: artificial, 0-5 HCP.

I can't answer for John, but yeah, if I'm playing a more standard system, I'd open that 1 - unless the standard is Precision. :-)
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So what if I get to a light game. Will probably make anyway.”

If it doesn't, you probably shouldn't have opened 2. :-)
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Romex 2 opening: balanced 23-24 with 8 controls, balanced 29-30 with 11 controls, or unbalanced, three or fewer losers, not primary diamonds (that hand is opened 2).

Initial responses:
2: 0-1 control. (I know, I know!) :-)
2: 2 controls
2: 3 controls
2NT: 4 controls
3: 5 or more controls
3: transfer, essentially a weak two in hearts (with AK, bid 2 instead). FG
3:transfer, essentially a weak two in spades (with AK, bid 2 instead). FG

There are meanings for higher responses, but they come up rarely.

I think I said earlier that a 3NT rebid (e.g., 2-2-3NT shows 9 controls. It shows 11. 9 controls (and 25-26 HCP, opens 2NT (natural, forcing).
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The purpose of control showing responses to 2 is to determine whether the partnership has enough controls (10, usually) to make a slam. In combination with control requirements for strong balanced hands (8 controls for a 2NT rebid, 9 for a 3NT rebid) if opener has a balanced hand, both players now know whether they have enough. If opener has an unbalanced hand, he will bid his best suit. They may now have a problem finding their best fit - which is I think why people don't like controls. In his Romex books Rosenkranz seems unconcerned about this. I don't have enough slam experience to take a side.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that the probability of the first is a lot farther from 0 than the probability of the second.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What provision of law requires anyone to prove it? What is the standard of proof?
Oct. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 621 622 623 624
.

Bottom Home Top