Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, if you consider this always responsive I think takeout sums up that as well.
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any idea what book? I glanced through winning declarer play when you mentioned this but didn't see anything.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, lots seems to be fixating on 1 2 4 whereas I was just trying to find an auction that didn't give info about suits/side strength/possible good leads etc. Updated to include 1 2 3 4 as a different example auction.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've seen people teach classes that do precision instead of standard. The issue was that all the other new players were taught 2/1 or standard american and so finding partners to play it with became an issue. I switched to precision when I had like 2 masterpoints and thought it was great, but my 2/1 bidding and system understanding was incomplete which was a hindrance when playing with other people who didn't play precision.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely, its hard to generalize. However, trying to pull out a single inference to evaluate it in isolation - not sure how to do it better. If I start giving specific hands then other inferences/assumptions can come into play and contaminate the discussion on whether this is a reasonable inference or X or Y or Z inference from that hand biases the Q one way or the other.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some sort of discussion over interference seems critical.

I've played precision with 15 minutes of prep with people before, but always with partners that know a system that they can then quickly describe. Frequently its based on Precision Today with transfer positives or Meck Lite without.

Realistically I would agree to play precision with a C player who is interested, but would recommend they read precision today, we talk for 30-45 minutes on what we are using, then start playing. I don't like the Precision Today system in an experienced partnership, but personally think it is a great starting point that's fairly intuitive and easy to learn and play.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The one I always remember like this is the Saturday afternoon set of the Vancouver WA regional. After 26 boards, we had not bid a single game! We were +170 on one board but the most common results was -400 with the other direction making 3NT. There was also a magic 3NT that nobody in the field bid on (4333 8 count opposite a 14-16 NT). All games and slams bid were done in the other direction, glad it wasn't a total points affair!

We still did well (58%) because defense matters and there was some partscore fights available, but it was still the only time I can remember finishing an entire session and not even bidding game once.
Oct. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is negative
Oct. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On this hand I wanted to bid 4 but thought my heart tolerance might get buried that way. I was worried about partner only having 1 stopper in NT or spades being better. How crazy is 4? My thought at the time was that it should show a good hand w/ good spades but better hearts than I actually have. At least a club ruff would come from the short hand.

Partner had Tx AKQxx xxx AQx and the diamond K was onside and hearts 3-3 so we are always gin for 11 tricks in NT but possibly less in spades on a bad spade break. In hearts we made 11, but could have made 12 tricks on any lead other than a spade (they were 5-0) or only 10 if the preemptor had come back a diamond.
Oct. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to mention it would remove skill from determining the winner of close matches. I've won a Swiss match 2 to 0 or 3 to 0 a dozen times and there's no way that's a unique experience. Imps already place too much emphasis on a swingy boards, removing the ability to get an imp back here and there with careful play would make it even worse.
Oct. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to confess, that's the first system I've ever seen which has a bidding sequence defined for 35-36 HCP! :)
Oct. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for answering! You were one of the people I noticed in other threads expressing this view which prompted this thread. A few followup questions if you don't mind? :)

Do you just rebid 3NT over the 2 relay with even bigger hands?

Going by the WBF convention card I found it looks like you use your 2NT opener as both minors, potentially preemptive. Do you still open with only 9 minor suit cards in 1st/2nd? Or is that mostly a 3rd/4th seat approach?

Also, what are your thoughts on both minors vs some sort of constructive minor suit preempt? It looks like you have 2 as a good diamond preempt but no “good club preempt” equivalent. Is that primarily to avoid wrong siding a NT contract or because enough “good club preempts” can get opened 2 that 2NT as the minors is more beneficial on balance?
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are your NT ranges?
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What advantage does 4 have over 3? If they rebid 3NT we know about wasted values and if they bid 4 we can bid 4 at that point. If they rebid anything more forward going than that - aren't we going to slam?
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Willing to admit it, just don't want people to have to untangle an unusual bid in order to understand the auction when just displaying 1 works out the same for all intents and purposes :P
Sept. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responding to “Money Bridge”:

Winning money is definitely something that motivates people to try. They also seem to remember the times they won money and forget the cost to play or all the times they competed and didn't win. I've certainly seen people rush to play Magic the Gathering or Poker even with a very negative EV for their skill level and it'd be great of Bridge could tap this same tendency. However, it seems like the key challenge is structuring it in a way that the average person feels like they could win “something”. Can it be structured as an amateur event in some way?

Most other events that have money awards have a MUCH easier learning curve then Bridge. I started playing MTG and won 800 bucks after playing 1-2x a week for 1.5 months. At that point in bridge I could barely follow suit. Poker is simple enough that people always feel like they have a shot. Throw the average newish bridge player into any sort of open money event and they are going to do nothing but lose for 2-3 years. Solving that challenge seems.. interesting.
Sept. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responding to the “Strength-Based Ratings” Idea:

Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not work with what's already been done and expand on it? It already exists in some form here: http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FILES/PR.HTM

There are obviously some issues. However, a lot of work has already been done on this and bring ACBL resources to bear to improve the existing solution seems like a much better approach than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Sept. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responding specifically to the “Redistribute Tournament Activity” idea:

It seems like a big focus is doing away with sectionals and running more STACs. That seems unfortunate, local sectionals are one thing that IS popular with local players. Conversely, STACs are not. Of the 4 D19 STACs run in 2017, only 1 had any relevant participation from the bigger Seattle clubs and even that STAC was ignored by several other clubs due to player complaints about STACs and requests that the club not participate. Perhaps the first step to any tournament reorg should be a look at STACs and similar events on how to make it more appealing to players such that it is something that excites players rather than something they dread. Specific issues I've heard: the scoring system unfairly rewards small games (fixable by taking a common game approach and comparing by board) and the entry fees are too high for the reward.
Sept. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking through KO results on ACBL Live, an unsurprising pattern results:

1) In all brackets except bracket 1, almost no team ever has more than 4. I didn't see a single example in the 20ish events I checked although its likely that some exist.

2) In bracket 1, the vast majority of the teams larger than 4 seem to be made up of people who are very good and are getting paid money to play with 1-2 people who are not as good.

People talk about declining KO attendance. Surely this must be a factor as well. A few years ago KOs paid so well that it didn't matter, but now its easy for your average “decent but not rockstar” player to feel like pairs might be a better use of their time. Now people who have a vested interest in seeing Swiss pay out in the same way are arguing here for this same rule change to Swiss events.

While Peg makes a good point, looking at names and events it seems like her example is a tiny minority.

Would love to see more interesting events that Gavin mentioned. A Swiss into a knockout or a 3 day knockout or just some “different” events would be great. I'm not even sure he's wrong on the Swiss attendance impact, but it does seem the two people arguing the hardest for it here would financially benefit if the rule was changed.
Sept. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a pretty poor 15 count, bidding just because you technically have 15 HCP seems to skip the hand evaluation step. 4333 with poor spots, partner passed but LHO not, red, seems like an easy pass.
Sept. 26, 2017
Eric Sieg edited this comment Sept. 26, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top