Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When capped at 15 (and not an amazing 15 at that), how much more can we really have? 6 card spades headed by AK, A of hearts, diamond singleton, some fitting clubs if partner has clubs (which is likely).
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declining tournament attendance has seemed pretty widespread and potentially the start of a trend. See Bob Heller's comments about a tournament task force in his blog here: http://district7bridge.org/home/districtdirector/
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we start with 4 and then bid 4 over partner's probable 4, what does that show?
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) X should usually show 4+ hearts. We don't play it as asking partner to bid 3NT. Sometimes X'er has to X without 4 with an unusual hand, maybe something like xx KQx xxxx AKxx but we assume Xer has 4 in follow up bidding.
2) Normalish? 10+? No special agreement on strength.
3) I don't think this is forcing
4) Also don't think this is forcing
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard I don't think a lot of the pro multi group really cares about forcing it down the throat of the casuals. If clubs don't want to allow it, that's fine. I can even shrug and move on over sectionals and ABC Pair regional events. However, the fact that it is banned at NABC+ Pair events seems pretty silly. Isn't that where the 1% that you mention is supposed to congregate and play what they feel is best?
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like a lot of people view multi in isolation as being destructive. It also opens up more bids. When allowed to play multi, we've started using 2 as less than invitational with both minors which is very descriptive/not confusing imo.

I'm fortunate to live in Seattle where most clubs allow whatever. This compares to where I first started playing bridge where basically nothing was allowed. For example, I wanted to play polish club when I was first learning bridge in order to understand the system better. It wasn't allowed. In comparison, there is a pair trying out polish club right now and other pairs have played it in the past.

Fun story from a recent GNT A final: There were 7 teams for the Swiss, which worked out to 6 10 board matches for each team. However, in order to make the movement simpler and the afternoon/evening similar in length, it was broken into 6 5 board sessions, a break, and then the next 6 5 board sessions. Even though the match was 10 boards, because each session was only 5 boards we weren't allowed to play our system for the swiss. The director attempted to walk the line by allowing us to ask our opponents permission to play our system, but multiple opponents said no. Asking our opponents each round what we were allowed to play seemed absurd to me, but that's how it went.

I'm fine with restrictions at the sectional and regional level on multi in pair events to keep it simple. However, banning it in national championship pair events (other than the fast pairs) just seems absurd. It takes roughly 10 seconds to say “we play multi” and the opponents to agree on defense 2.
April 18
Eric Sieg edited this comment April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David I think most of the best players were playing in the GNT Open that was played alongisde the Everett sectional. Even when that isn't the case, Everett is so soon after the Spring NABCs and people also have GNTs to worry about this time of year that I think Everett gets skipped by those who are worried about family time, other interests, etc.

The Seattle May KO sectional is coming up in May and that usually gets a healthy turnout.

edit> just realized David's comment was a year ago. Oh well.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Money tournaments are a cool thing and would help suck people in. I know when I was a month into playing Magic the Gathering I went to a tournament and took 2nd out of 200ish which was good for $800. Wait, a fun game AND I can win money? That helped hook me into the game and I played fairly regularly for 3-4 years after that and won often enough that it felt like I was breaking even on the hobby.

There are some challenges though for bridge:

1) Nobody who has been playing for a month is ever going to take 2nd in an open field in bridge.
2) There was a lot of $$ to be made in selling magic cards, so if the tournament host lost some money on tournament costs vs expenses, they could make up the difference in profit from the cards they sold. Larger sponsors like Starcity Games had a big online presence/store, so it was also a marketing strategy for them. There is no real equivalent for bridge as the cards are the same. Nobody rushes out to buy the A of spades for $50 after seeing the A of spades do really well in a tournament :P
3) At the NABC levels, people filter into their events such that the #s of people entering top events makes it hard to have an impressive $$ award without making the entry fees exorbitant. For example, at GP Seattle (an MTG tournament) which happened last weekend there were nearly 3200 competitors that entered into the main two events. In comparison, the Vanderbilt usually has like 80 teams and bigger pair games have 320ish. That's a really big difference when trying to spread out paying for a prize pool.

I think a fun goal could be some $ tournaments with enough money to get people excited about winning but without it being relevant in a “could live off this” perspective. Even in MTG, the pros don't make their main money from winnings - they get famous for winning and then make the $$ from writing articles.

Steve's links to some example tournaments seem on the right level. Enough money that its pretty cool to win or place, but not enough that people can seriously use it as a primary source of income.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somewhere between 1st and 2nd. It is a really conservative evaluation, but not sure what grounds you have for calling a TD. The fact you X'd and then the contract was allowed to make certainly makes a memo seem like sour grapes. RHO might have also have read your body language which tipped him/her to stay low.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point, think I meant to say ruff the 4th diamond w/ the king, ruff the heart w/ the A, ruff the spade.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't like the K of hearts play. General plan would be A of spades, A of diamonds, K of spades, Q of spades pitching a diamond, ruff a diamond, heart to K, ruff a diamond, ruff a heart small, ruff a diamond, ruff a heart big, ruff a spade with K, claim 1 of the last 2 tricks with 98 of clubs.
April 9
Eric Sieg edited this comment April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this one is fairly clear imo, I did have the following occur once:

1) I forgot our system and made a bid that did not describe my hand
2) My partner also forgot our system, and described my hand as it was rather than as it should be.

I remembered after the auction ended but before the opening lead. However, correcting the explanation when my hand DID reflect how my partner explained it into something that did not resemble my hand in the slightest seemed really shady/slimy.

Correct or not, I decided to just stay quiet and then explain to the opponents what happened after the hand was over and invite them to call the director if they felt damaged.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm confused as to why weak NTers think they are special for having runouts. Most experienced strong NT partnerships will have runouts as well.

There's a big difference between:

1) Having a runout system (a good thing!)

and

2) Pass forcing redouble, which I think many strong players would consider terrible.

The “Moscow Escapes” mentioned by David are usually referred to as DONT runouts by most people and its by far the most common system I've personally seen.

Most of the other systems all seem to assume that the partner of the 1NT overcaller MUST have two 4 card suits or a 5 card suit, which seems like a clear flaw. If pass forces redouble and all sequences show a 5+ card suit or two 4 card suits, what is someone supposed to do with 4333?
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I definitely play runouts here, but none of them ever involve the 1NT bidder being forced to bid. An example that comes to mind from a friend was a hand with something like:

xxx xxxx xxx xxx after (1H) 1NT (X) ?

If the NT bidder doesn't have a suit of his own to run to, is there really a better place to play than 1NT X'd? At the 2 level not only are you a level higher but declarer's heart honors might be getting trumped out. Instead of a normal -200 they got a zero for -400 after the forced redouble.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your concern is trading experienced people for inexperienced, the ACBL already includes average years of ACBL membership in its reports. While not perfect, it seems like a decent proxy for “newbies” vs “experienced vets”.

Two years ago the average age in the ACBL was 71.63 and the average years of ACBL membership was 18.90.

Last quarter the average age in the ACBL was 72.18 and the average years of ACBL membership was 19.18.

I'm not sure how best to analyze those numbers. It does seem like the average age is growing quicker than the average membership duration, but if looking at it as a % comparison/increase the difference flips. Not sure how much weight (if any) should be given to a % difference.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene, as Art just mentioned, making it to the round of 32 (aka day 3) results in a 17-32 finish and should provide overalls and seeding points. It would be a bit silly to make it to the final 32 teams and end up placing lower then 32nd.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Takeout, doesn't promise 4 spades. With 4 spades can simply bid 4.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not being able to get out in 2 seems like a pretty huge sacrifice to make. Also, now we are likely going to end up at the 3 level on many hands for no good reason.

How I typically solve this is as follows:

After partner responds 1:

1) If we have 1453 shape we typically rebid 2. This seems perfectly adequate.
2) With 1435 shape we either rebid 1NT (if a minimum) or 2. If partner corrects 2 back to 2 we can bid 2 to show our exact shape (this sequence shows 1435 non minimum).

This has typically worked very well. The dead minimum 1435 hand is pretty rare so its very unusual for partner to rebid 2 expecting 2 in dummy and only getting 1. A truly dead minimum might even pass rather than opening, to avoid issues after a 1 response.

I personally think the 2 promising 6 is amazing and would hate to go back to only promising 5.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
cool poll. My gut was non forcing but have no confidence that I'm right. Look forward to seeing what the results are like after more have responded.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Adam It sounds like there might have been a mistake or perhaps something has changed since then. Winning a 4 way and then a head to head to get into R32 should have been 25 plat and .5 of a seeding point. Recap from Spins in Toronto shows every team who got a 17-32 finish getting 25 plat: https://live.acbl.org/event/NABC172/SPIN/2/recap
March 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
.

Bottom Home Top