Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the current hand, accept that you are probably going down a ton. You belong in game, in 4♡. If they double, you have such a good hand with a known 10 card fit, as well as a spectacular “side” fit in spades, that you should probably redouble. If partner rebids 5♢, this is clearly a slam try. The UI is ABSOLUTELY not usable by you.

One board will not hurt anything. Yes, it will damage your current game a bit, but your honor is worth more than one board in one game. Well, it should be so, and if you are asking this question, you already know the answer. Of course there are people who will smoothly field the UI. Do you really want to be one of them?

In the future, iIf this teaches partner a lesson, then fine. Perhaps they will now remember that 2♢ is Flannery. If it ever happens again, then do the same. Eventually partner will learn, or you can decide as a partnership to stop using conventions that will not be remembered.
Jan. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan - “Who can't always govern their own schedules”

Give me a break. There is a new invention out now, called a calendar. You write on it to say what you are doing on any given day. Busy people have these things.

One delay, I can understand. Multiple delays says that you have no desire to act on this, that it is so low on your priority list that ANYTHING else is moved above it. Manicure? Oh, sorry, I must cancel. Haircut? Impromptu dog's birthday party? Sorry - reschedule.

If you take on a task, then you do what you have agreed to do. Otherwise, you should never have agreed to take on the task. Surely there were other people who were qualified? Was this issue never considered? An alternate would be provided by any organization that was actually interested in taking on the problem.

The point is, this is something that the people involved have no desire to act on. The IBF chose individuals who they KNEW were too busy to take on a problem, and once that was proven, they refuse to provide alternates who CAN do the job.

Is there no person in all of the IBF who is retired or underscheduled? Who, perhaps, actually has the time to take on a job that is unpaid, but is indeed necessary? Honestly, I thought that there were at least a few people in the IBF who had the guts and the honor to do this job. If the IBF cannot find those people, then the blame goes entirely to the IBF for not doing the job properly.

So shame on the IBF. This goes directly against the IBF, an organization who appears to have no more guts than the WBF.

Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong, but with every reschedule of this task, I am proven right over and over again.
Jan. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm guessing April fools day is closer to the date. But in what year?
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or you can use 4…3…2…1…blastoff! Just bid the darn slam. You wanted to anyway. Aces are for children.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe this is the IBF solution to F&S? If you never hear their case, then you can keep them suspended forever, but never actually be forced to declare them cheaters.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I use 4103 myself.
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO, 1430 for the strong hand and 0314 for the weak hand is a recipe for disaster, on hands where it may not be obvious who is strong versus weak. I assume that one would have a rule for what is done when the two hands are close to equal strength. But knowing where the line is drawn is going to cause problems.
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The best solution indeed. I know, if the goal is to get on the most ignored list, I just upped the count.
Jan. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And god forbid, your opponents decide to venture a double at some point in your auction? Now how many sequences could you have at the one level?
Jan. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see how this makes anything simpler, more fun, or easier.

Just imagine the complicated relay bidding systems one could invent, and that one would need to play against.

There are 120 possible sequences if all 5 one level bids were used, each of which would have some possible meaning. On top of that, meaning would be attributed to NOT staying at the 1 level, so depending on when you break out of the 1-level relays would also have a meaning. Then you continue with relays at the 2 level.

The bidding of a single hand would last for hours. And I could see the arguments that would ensue, with one person swearing their sequence showed possession of the 5 of spades versus the 4.

This would not be bridge. Perhaps if I do indeed end up in hell when I die (where some of my partners probably think I belong) then this might be how bridge is played in hell.
Jan. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our bidding was exactly that. I considered asking with 4♣, but then decided not to do so. Sometimes longer sequences expose your side to a lead directing double, when a blast keeps them in the dark.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't dislike your scheme. In fact, I sort of like it, as it recognizes explicit achievements in the different domains.

But it completely fails in terms of the real goal of masterpoints. That goal is to push people to further achievements, by keeping them playing in as many events as possible. Under the scheme above, once one has become a sectional master, many people would no longer bother playing in sectional tournaments, as those goals are now satisfied. I suppose one would then be forced to institute various ranks of sectional master, which could run in parallel with the ranks of club, regional and NABC master.
Jan. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only computer translations that have a sense of humor. Sometimes even spell checkers have one too. In the old days when I did my word processing on an IBM mainframe, the old CMS spell checker decided that my name “D'Errico” was misspelled, offering only one replacement: “derelict”.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I propose we make bidding even simpler yet. Only allow notrump bids, thus 1NT-7NT. Then use the agreement that all 1 level bids (1NT only) just get thrown in.

This would effectively eliminate nearly all conventions. It would make the game so much simpler, since we would no longer need to worry about ruffs, trump, bidding. Even preempts would not be in the mix, since with a weak hand, you will take very few tricks in a NT contract.

Of course, once you have made the game so simple (and boring), we will all just give it up completely, taking up some far more sophisticated game like war, old maid, or solitaire.

I'm getting tired of trolls.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Done!
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, like we need a partner and even opponents? Solo bridge, with rules as we choose to make them up that very day.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And occasionally even 150 honors.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect to see soon tin, lead, pewter, and cubic zirconium Life Master ranks.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. 5♢ is a poor choice based on this analysis, unless you think they can be stampeded into 5♡.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But really, I just used LOTT as a way to analyze the problem, and a way to formulate a solution in probabilistic form, that allowed for failures of LOTT. Replace LOTT with a better predictor and the same techniques should still apply to assess these questions.
Jan. 3, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top