Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Henry Bethe
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 181 182 183 184
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, and it would help if y'all would read the conditions before asking questions. 1&2 are predetermined. 3/4 is then settled by random draw. If the winner of the RR is 3 or 4 it can ask for a redraw.
May 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only reason I said other is that a lot depends on the methods popular in the club. For example, in my club I insist on pre-alerts of 2 as weak Roman (or Precision); In Florida weak Roman is so common that you almost have to alert if you don't play it. (At least that is my understanding.)
May 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One should always try for +170
May 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a youngster. My early years were spent reading Morehead's column, which ran from (about) 1933 until he relinquished it shortly before his death. I started reading it in the mid-fifties which lasted then for 10+ years.
April 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my (bridge) world, which is obviously not the same as many of yours, 1-1-2-3 is fairly automatic. Responder can't rebid 3 because that shows 5-5 in the majors INVITATONAL.
Opener's third bid should be 3. Not 3N with three small hearts, and not 3 with a spot-free diamond suit. That would also tell responder that his stiff was not facing heart values, and he could just about bid slam then.
April 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was independent of the size of the regional. Remember that was pre-stratified, pre-flighted, pre-bracketed. Essentially everyone played in one event per day: often Mixed pairs, Masters' Pairs (playthrough), Open Pairs (Qual and final) and Swiss Teams; Sometimes Men's and Women's pairs rather than mixed.
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing I find very interesting: when I worked on the McConnell Committee, the average masterpoints per table at Regionals was about 3, not 6.5.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose I'll throw in an old-timer's two cents worth. If you play 2 is either game forcing or a balanced hand too strong for your 2N opener - which is the “classic” meaning - there are only two schema that I have found sensible. The one I prefer is 2 waiting with a few bids usable for extremely unusual hand types. The other is old fashioned controls, e.g. 2 = 0/1, 2 is 2, 2 = A+K, 2N = 3K etc.

I like Kokish, so I really dislike 2N as an immediate double negative.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most of us are American, not continental European. In Europe it has remained fashionable to make takeout doubles based on high card values. Not so much here.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fault, Dear Brutus, is in the system and not in the men playing it.
April 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't follow this. please convert to a hand diagram with a bidding chart.
April 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 would almost certainly be Drury. Not available as natural.
April 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is that there are various strong hand auctions that normally go through 2N, and I don't see why 3 at this point wouldn't suggest one of them.
April 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 3 whether 3 is natural or a transfer.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-1M-2 is a one round force promising a rebid. 1-1M-3 is an unconditional force to game. At least those are the normal meanings for the two bids.
April 4, 2015
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A hand that is game invitational opposite the limited 1N by partner.
March 26, 2015
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think South should (might) have bid 2 over 2. Apologies: I had not read the other stream of comments before posting this.
March 26, 2015
Henry Bethe edited this comment March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, lets see, Yuan. You have a moderate 9 count opposite 15-17 with a known stiff opposite no more than three cards. Now you were unlucky: partner could have had the A instead of the A. On the other hand partner could have been missing a minor suit key card in which case a heart lead would probably be fatal.

Why not bid 2N over 2. Or is that against your religion?
March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As so often I have to play historian. In the early 70's (or perhaps late 60's) a group of Young Turks decided they wanted to open 1NT with balanced hands in the 8-10 (or 8-11) range. Some Old F***s on the BOD came up against one of these pairs, did badly, and immediately wanted to punish and ban. Your hero and mine, EK, patiently explained that the BOD could not ban a natural bid: the Regulating Authority's reach extends only to conventions.

“What can we do?” asked the vengeful OFs. “You can bar the use of conventions,” responded EK. So they did. The only reason that the ban does not start at 10HCP is that at least one board member was already experimenting with 10-12. Otherwise the minimum for conventional responses would have been 11.

Now the Work PC may not be the most accurate hand evaluation tool. But it is the most universal and it has become enshrined in many situations in regulation. Not just ACBL regulation but WBF and other RAs as well. Adjustments for distribution, for honor location, etc. are not similarly blessed.
March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, Chris, I don't really know. The density was certainly not as high as today, but among those I know were in Atlantic City in ‘91 were Zia (who was still a foreigner) and P.O. Sundelin. I am fairly sure of Jaggy Shivdasani from India, several Poles etc.

1991 was a watershed year: the year that Men only events were eliminated. The Thursday-Friday Open Pairs used to be the Men’s Pairs. It was contested for the Wernher trophy until the initiation of the Platinum Pairs. I think it still should be.
March 24, 2015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 181 182 183 184
.

Bottom Home Top