Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ercan Cem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am informed that President Jan Kamras has authorized the IT Systems Manager to publish the database of the 2018 European Team Championship. I guess it shall soon be on the official championship website.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony, Ante: Relative Butler is something I have been thinking for a long time. Still couldn't figure out how it should be done. I thought of the method proposed by Ante, but I think it does not work. Here are two extreme cases:

Suppose there are 8 pairs: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. Suppose {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged +1 IMP against H. For the sake of simplicity suppose that {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged 0 against each other. In the second version Suppose {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged -1 IMP against H. And suppose that {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged 0 against each other. With respect to above method, what are the relative Butler Scores?
June 18
Ercan Cem edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also need the championship database. Considering that all the data is on the website and can be obtained manually, maybe someone who is good at web scraping can help us to grab it.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My explanation would be Nemo the Fish bidding his hand. First he misbid, then he forgot what he bid, then he forgot what he forgot.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard: Such answers make me so sick that in real life I do not allow such a person to ask me another bridge problem.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When a convention collapses on a relatively mundane hand like this, to the point that you want to excuse yourself from the table, it is time to recollect and reconsider.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, thanks for the offer. The problem is that I have too many such deals and I am trying to figure out a long term solution.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are dozens of such deals.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to be good case to use a simulator like Deal http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deal/
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Snake-Bitten Club.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The title should have been “Trivial low-level competitive decision.”
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only that I bid four clubs, if partner opposes my choice, I am finding a new partner. (I could open with two clubs only because I have spades and a nice planned auction.)
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Barry: Jeff Rubens is of course a supernatural editor. Yet crediting him primarily with that *in this thread* does injustice. His writing is superb, his bridge knowledge is perhaps more than any other person in the list.

@Alan: Danny Kleinman should also be in the list. He is an exceptional writer, thinker, and an authority both in bridge and backgammon. He has written dozens of bridge books, and hundreds of articles for the Bridge World.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Four clubs = “I know what a control-bid is, I just do not know when to employ it.”
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You feel like an idiot even when you win.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now those are some buttons over there. Feels like a “Before & After” session.
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws are outdated. Yet the problem is that us people are numbed—we do not react to anything. Thus we have what we deserve.

Had the whole community had the courage to stand up and leave the playing room, we would get rid of the duo and make an example for the future cases.
Dec. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If six clubs is the last making spot, the six-club bidder would not be impressed with this observation.
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the relevant part from my methods.

Principle: The meanings depend on the number of choices opener has. The more choice he has the more meaningful is the given bid.

Thus, suppose 1N—2D—2H—2NT shows five-plus hearts and four-plus clubs and is game-forcing:

3D/3S: Denies primary fit for either of responder's suit. Shows strength in the bid suit and weakness in the unbid suit.

3NT: Denies primary fit for either of responder's suit. Shows strength in both unbid suits.

3H: Three-plus fit. (See four-heart rebid.)

4H: I dislike the weak-hand option. It deprives responder's third bid at a convenient level and supplies dubious, very little information. Among possible choices, it can be used to show maximum hand with controls in all suits.

3C: (Also see 4C and 4D response.) Usually fit for clubs, but can be: Axxx Qx KJxx KQx. This is THE troublesome hand. Opener does not want to bid 3N with those anemic-one stopper spades, yet neither 3D nor 3S is descriptive enough (showing weakness in the other unbid suit.) 3H is okay, but including two-card support in 3M continuation has its own problems.

4C: Either strong four-plus clubs or five-plus clubs and DOUBLETON heart. Slammish hand, preferably with controls in all suits. (The exact definition of the last part is a partnership issue.)

4D: Strong four-plus clubs and three hearts (partnership can decide to have it as four-plus) and same as 4C as to rest.
Nov. 20, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top