Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The discussion that prompted this question was actually HH, the AK to be specific :) I mentioned I would probably set hearts if partner rebid them which prompted a discussion about how 3 would 100% guarantee 3 hearts.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bridge community also probably didn't consist of 90% retired people in the 70s :)
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder how many cities could field company teams that could be competitive. In Seattle, viable teams could probably be built from Google, Adobe, Amazon, and Microsoft and I'm not sure anyone else could field a team let alone one that could compete.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A big part of why I posted this was because I was curious about 3 as an option. Yay for the 3 bid! :)

Partner has xxx AK AKTxxx Kx but didn't want to pull to 4 with opener bidding NT twice. So 4 and 5 both work better with defenders taking the first 5 spade tricks, but I don't think anyone did anything unreasonable on the hand, just doesn't work out well. If the hand w/ long spades isn't on lead, taking 12 tricks in NT is simple with Jxx of clubs dropping. Over 3 showing doubts about strain (if that's what it shows), the hand with concern about both black suits and AK of hearts has an easy (imo) raise to 4.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep, still going on! A link to the C&C for the round robin: http://www.bridgeinseattle.org/2017-round-robin . It is popular with the flight A players, but we've had varying success with the B and C flights. In 2017, there were only 2 brackets which resulted in a huge disparity in strength of teams in bracket 2.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep, went with 2nd option but would certainly consider Qx good enough when considering whether to bid 2NT or rebid 2M.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not opening would be anti-system. Partner is aware of the system agreements to open lighter than vanilla 2/1 and should adjust their GF responses accordingly.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't you want any black suit lead coming to you?
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for the 3 suited short diamonds, but I don't think that's because it is the best in isolation. I certainly would prefer to have 2 be a weak 2 in diamonds. However, it is the glue that lets lots of other things come together if playing 5 card majors: 1 now promises at least 2, 2 can promise 6, etc. I've played systems where 1 promises 0, but the system gets warped around that and I constantly regretted all the compromises that resulted.

FWIW, I think 2 as the short diamonds and 2 as multi is better, but that's also not legal for most ACBL events.
Dec. 29, 2017
Eric Sieg edited this comment Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know we have an agreement so much as that bidding stronger would be on hands where missing game opposite a hand partner would pass outweighs the risk of getting too high opposite a bust. 3 is not forcing but shows extra strength, cue then 3 would be a moose I believe. So, a 20 count is certainly possible if partner is worried that 3 might be too high opposite a hand at the bottom of the 0-7 range.
Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 and 3 are natural and non forcing
Dec. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I think that's what we're currently leaning towards if I understand you correctly. Round Robin (8 boards per round), then switch teammates and play another 2 rounds of 8. Doesn't work perfectly in rotating teammates around and you only play 4 of the 5 pairs, but seems like a decent solution.
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, part of the appeal of these things is established partnerships playing the systems they've worked on. While an individual might be fun in a certain situation, that wasn't what was advertised and isn't what people are showing up for.
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People keep whining about being out of town for the holidays! :P
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
32(ish)
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, made a companion poll :) https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-ufmbca0v41/
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope, partner can have A + K. Hands with A + K make independent decisions on whether or not to upgrade.
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “no one is suggesting a change” was in the context of MtG, not bridge. Heck, there are people in this thread suggesting a change for bridge :)
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It will be interesting to see what happens when virtual reality gets a lot better than it is now.
Dec. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg To me personally it is no longer the same game. MtG would also benefit (cheating, clock issues, other things) from going pure digital and despite the younger demographic, no one is suggesting a change. The physical version is the game that people care about and anything digital just supplements the primary medium.

Are there advantages with a tablet? Sure. But the main criteria for me is “how fun is this game to play, and does X change make it more fun?”. For me, replacing cards with tablets makes it less fun and appealing. I don't think it matters if cheating is slightly harder (but still possible!) if it means the game goes away and no one shows up. I think you'll have a hard time convincing people to travel to nationals to then sit at a table and play on BBO or an equivalent. There is no good answer to “why couldn't I do this from home?”.

I think BBO is great, but once bridge is ONLY BBO (even if we are playing BBO while co-located), then I'll move on to other hobbies that DO still provide the tangible, physical, in person experience.

Digital versions of many popular board games exist and yet board games are exploding across the country with people showing in droves to play board games in person at bars, board game clubs, bookstores, etc. People could theoretically play these games on their tablets while being co-located, but nobody ever does that. If in person they want to play the physical game. Why would it be any different for bridge?
Dec. 27, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top