Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I believe you are correct (http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/Other-GNT_CoC.pdf). Sorry about the reporting error, I will add an edit to correct this.
July 21, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. At this point, this thread seems to be heading more towards personal insults and invective instead of calm, rational discussion. As a BridgeWinners administrator, I would like to remind everyone to please keep all PUBLIC discussions on topic and free of personal attacks. It's okay to say “This policy sucks.” It's not okay to say "Person X is .", in front of thousands of people. Use our messaging facilities to send a private message, if you really want to get something personal off your chest. Thank you.
July 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that concept was first brought to my attention by Phillip Martin's article, the Monty Hall Trap, which is reproduced online at

https://sites.google.com/site/psmartinsite/Home/bridge-articles/the-monty-hall-trap
July 11, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Brian –

Nice to hear from you! However, Gavin's the guy who is creating the series, not Joel.
July 3, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good idea. Done.
May 18, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see any gracelessness on the DIAMOND team's part. They are being paid to win, within the rules, and teams have been known to pick up 80 IMPs in a segment. Knowing how to tactically generate swings is part of the skillset of a winning player. I admire them for having the heart to give their best effort even when the odds were firmly against them.
May 17, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know about UFR, but in this article, I was not implying that Joe guarantees a minor-suit ace. Simply, given the auction and your hand, you're going to need a minor-suit ace to set the contract. Instead of worrying about scenarios where your lead doesn't matter (for the goal of setting the contract), why not focus on the ones that do? It's like the suit combination AQTxx opposite xxxx for 1 loser (with no endplays available). An opponent may have KJx(x) offside but you don't worry about it because then your play is immaterial.
May 14, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We got a new server and are transferring results, you may see some issues for a few hours.
May 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Server should be back up now. We planned for it, if you'd like to help us purchase a better server plan to deal with overwhelmingly high traffic loads we welcome donations.
May 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Server failed due to excessive traffic. So it was because of the final results that we failed. We're working on it at this moment.
May 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cute hand, but I think you mean the three of diamonds, not clubs.
April 1, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it appears most of the commenters to this thread are ranging from unhappy to outraged by the lack of inductees. On the contrary, I say: Bravo! Last I checked, there is no mechanism to vote people out, while there are many opportunities for people to be voted in. Given that structure, I would rather have it more difficult to enter the Hall than to have the Hall be open to anyone who has enough connections. Just because Jill or (your favorite candidate) didn't make it, doesn't mean they will never make it. I personally would have voted for Jill myself, but I certainly don't think it's a travesty that the Hall didn't elect anyone this year, and I don't think one year of no inductees means that the system needs reform. Just make sure to vote for them again in a few years!
Feb. 25, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In case it isn't clear from the colors in the bidding area, both sides are vulnerable.
Feb. 23, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have noticed a similar effect after playing a very structured, disciplined weak-two style called Bailey Two bids (invented by the late Evan Bailey). These two-bids guarantee 8-11 HCP; to compensate for the inability to preempt on 0-7, you can preempt on mediocre 5-card suits. My experience is that many enemy pairs are less cautious vs. these Baileys, while the situation is more dangerous because of the effect Michael mentioned : responder can now frequently double and collect numbers.
Feb. 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben, let's take this offline and try to figure out the problem – if you are having problems, others may also be having problems.

If there are any other users who are experiencing similar issues with my movies, please send me an message on BridgeWinners so I can identify common configurations.
Feb. 11, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Benjamin –

Keep clicking the NEXT button to see subsequent tricks.
Feb. 11, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the middle of the hand, the director came by (after looking at the hand records) and asked if we were playing in 2. I responded in the affirmative. He said okay, so he apparently approved of the auction. It's possible a significant percentage of players would bid 3 with my hand (in which case, the contract should be adjusted, probably to 3 or 3-X -1, which is still a top). Personally, I never considered 3 because I only knew of an 8-card spade fit and it wasn't clear the opponents had a 9-card fit in diamonds. Since spades outranks their suit, it is effectively bidding 3-over-3. I don't like (preemptively) bidding 3-over-3 unless I know about a 9-card fit.

Also, the typical definition of 2 over Flannery is takeout of hearts (implying spade tolerance). I had a strong suspicion that RHO's 2 overcall was natural, but that was based on unauthorized information. So I believe the laws require me to assume RHO has 3-4 spades, which makes an aggressive 3 call slightly less attractive. I'm not very sure about this, though.

Regarding whether if North is permitted to psych 2, the ACBL convention charts quite clearly state that a psych of an artificial opening bid or conventional response (less than 2NT) to a natural opening is not allowed. It does not state what constitutes a psych. I believe there is a distinction between a bid with intent to mislead (a “psych”) and a forgotten agreement. My partner clearly did not intend her 2 bid to mislead, or she would not have told the table about her mistake (and thus give them insight while forcing me to bend backwards in believing her.)

I believe you are allowed to “forget” your agreement as long as the hand is consistent with a forget. For example, a common mistake by beginners is forgetting a transfer. After 1NT P 2 (with 5 hearts and not 5 spades), under your argument the opening side has made an illegal bid and should automatically be penalized with avg- or worse. From my experience in these situations, I don't believe this to be the case. Maybe you are right and I've been passing up the opportunity for a free AVG+ or better, in which case I am glad you have brought this area to my attention. Any bridge lawyers want to weigh in on this?
Jan. 20, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Henry, I did suggest a separate wing for limited winners, similar to the Baseball Hall's separate wing for broadcasters. I would have no problem with one for women. I do think that if you are giving women recognition for their accomplishments in limited competition, give it for the truly great: the consistent Venice Cup winners, not just women's national champions, which is a subset of a subset. But, there is a woman in the hall (Helen Sobel) who is well-known for her accomplishments in open events. I feel that women's events may have stunted the growth of women's bridge and inhibited the next Helen Sobel. I don't want to penalize the current generation of women for their environment, but I do want to delineate the great from the transcendent.

I also love your idea of differentiating between “majors” and “non-majors”. The Wernher is a NABC++ event but that's not a major event because it runs on Spingold Day 2 when most of the elite players are still in the Spingold. Some sort of differentiation amongst NABC++ events would also be a good idea when presenting “packets” to the voters.

And Peg, many people are in the Hall specifically for achievement outside the bridge table (Blackwood Award). For the most part, I think the voters have done a good job so far on most of the people _elected as players_. Like the Baseball Hall, the questionable “players” seem to be in via appointment (von Zedwedtz award), or are honored for significant achievements not as a player. I would hate to see the voters lower their standards to compensate.
Jan. 19, 2011
.

Bottom Home Top