Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, this is not new. I remember in Reno 2 years ago, the team full of Singaporean juniors faced team NICKELL in an early round, and the Singaporeans had not complied with ACBL regulations in providing written defenses. Meckstroth called the director on them, I believe after the first half when the match was reasonably close, and it caused a little controversy then. At least he's being consistent.
March 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Mark – Jeff Roman currently doesn't have a Bridge Winners account. If he creates one, we'd be happy to give him that picture, or a picture of his choice.
March 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Photos only appear if that player has a Bridge Winners account with a picture. Speaking of which, Debbie, where's yours?
March 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff – that is correct. That's how you do 4-way matches with 3 survivors. With 77 teams, the goal is to eliminate 13 teams today. The top 25 teams have byes and the remaining 52 play 4-way matches with 3 survivors to get to the round of 64.
March 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Debbie –

Go to the front page, click on 2012 Vanderbilt Results, then click on Opening Round.
March 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie – See our front page, and click on 2012 Vanderbilt Results, then Opening Round.
March 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Card games are dying out? I disagree. Just look at poker and how popular it is, even amongst people who are not legally allowed to gamble. It's not because there are “poker clubs” at school, it's because the rules are easy to understand, and there's a strong reward mechanism. Or Magic, a (collectible) card game that became very popular during the video game era. Or all the designer board games (Settlers of Catan, Dominion, etc.) that have been popping up in the last two decades despite all the other entertainment options. As long as your product is fun, easy to learn, and provides enough instant gratification, you will get people of all ages interested.
March 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry about the Romans claiming more than their fair share, there was an error in the translation process. This has now been fixed.
March 13, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to most people's understanding of your agreements, you have to lead the ten. Tens are honors, so this is not a “three small situation”. Whether showing the sequence is _useful_ in this situation is another question. I can't figure out a suit combo where partner has 6 good spades missing the T98, declarer has a holding he considers a spade stopper, and partner needs to know you don't have the jack but have the T9. You could persuade me that the count might be more important here, but even then I'd lead the ten. It's perilous to implement undiscussed rationales at the table – partners are rarely on the same wavelength!

I also would have bid 3 over 3, and that would completely solve the lead problem. General rule of thumb: if you haven't shown your partner 3-card support, and you have an entry so that your hand isn't completely dead, you are worth a raise. As Marty Bergen likes to say: support with support!
March 13, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a general rule, having at least 3 controls (Ace = 2, King = 1) for a “cards” double in a high-level auction seems to work well for me, so my vote is the King.
March 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Barry is right theoretically, which is why I play that style with some partners. But in practice, I've never had a bad result with the agreement that 2M = weakest, and this auction comes up a lot. Again, just knowing what you are doing here puts you far ahead of the game. The most critical information I want to know here is : does overcaller have a real hand, or not? Once you know how to convey that, the rest is nice to have but not essential.
March 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT. Brutish auction, but they pay a big bonus for vulnerable games.
March 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Adam –

Thanks for entering the Well. I also appreciate all the answers you post for our site's polls, keep it up!

How do you think the ACBL should improve its efforts in marketing the game to players under the age of 25? And who or what was your greatest influence in motivating you to play the game? (Note this is a different question from who helped you learn/get better, which you've already answered.)
March 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is a very important area for discussion because it comes up frequently, and knowing what partner is doing here makes a big difference. I always try to discuss this within the first two sessions of playing with a partner. I've played each of the first three options with different partners. All are playable, what matters is that you have an agreement.

FWIW, I think it's important to distinguish between this type of auction, and a slam-going auction where they double a cue-bid.
March 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's matchpoints, both vul, the worst situation to balance. We don't need to be heroes and double when we're likely getting a good score just by passing it out and going plus (often for +200 for a good score). Bidding indicates you think your hand will do 5-6 tricks better on offense, which is not at all indicated by your hand. The big winning case for double is a penalty pass but the chance of that is low given your spade holding. This would be a close decision at IMPs for me, but at matchpoints I think pass is clear.
March 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For more on this common situation, I highly recommend Steve Weinstein's article:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1m-1m-now-what/
March 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Barry, this hand is closer to 6 than pass. Those who pass are counting points and not tricks. Give partner any hand with 5-5 in the red suits and it's difficult to come up with hands where bidding 5 is wrong. (Remember, on some hands where you go down, they are cold for 4).

March 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note Steve Weinstein agrees with Gavin, as recently mentioned in his article here:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bbo-juniors-club-2/
March 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 0% of experts would bid 3. I think the choice is between 4 and 5.

I vote for 4. If I open 5, most opponents know not to bid 5-over-5 – I estimate I will buy this hand doubled a plurality of the time. Partner came to play too, and the A could be a critical card that causes their game to fail (partner gets a diamond ruff). With no voids to induce defensive error, when I get doubled, I think I'm likely going for 300 against most games, so the most likely upside isn't great (win 3-4). The big win of 5 comes when you push them to 5M-1 when the other table is in 4M making, or when 5 preempts their game and you escape undoubled. Against certain opponents, 5 might be percentage. But against typical good opponents, with a good partner, I'll play it straight and put partner in the captain's seat.
Feb. 23, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top