Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was the very first thing that came to my mind. When I see a picture of any group of top level poker players, few of them are 70 or older. Yet if I look at any large group of bridge players, certainly in the US, I am still often the youngest person in the room at 62.

So it seems a bit unfair to compare two groups of people with a 40 year differential in average age.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“he might have a clue where our $5,000,000 actually went to.”

Actually, it was recently offered to me, by a nice fellow from Nigeria, I believe. The money should be arriving any day now. :) :)
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Problems in that too.

- All bridge tournaments use local volunteer support heavily. Making sites permanent will overwhelm that volunteer base. The result will be the ACBL will then need to bring in and pay extra people to do what was done for free before.

- Not all people want to fly to every NABC. In fact, you will find at any NABC a lot of locals playing due to the opportunity of having an NABC in town, or at least only a moderate travel time away. So by putting them in permanent sites, you artificially favor those individuals who happen to live nearby, and say good bye to many individuals who will then never bother to attend those permanent sites, because they are not sufficiently accessible.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've usually used leftbot, rightbot, centerbot, abbreviated to LBO, RBO, and CBO.
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on the results of some of my preempts, some of my partners might think of me as a stupid gambler. Is that close enough? ;-)
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this might work against a novice at the art, anyone truly good at the art of stealing a wire will have checked your score against those at other tables, and come to the conclusion you have inserted a red herring. ;-) In fact, I can foresee the day when you are then brought up on charges, that you have intentionally tried to mislead them in their attempt to win by any means possible.

/CynicMode off
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But before GIB gets a turn in the well, Chthonic might be an interesting choice.
Nov. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I shall not serve.”

Ok, but even if you will refuse to serve, I'd wager you still would make a better prez than what we have seen from the ACBL in this administration.

Make this my write-in for BUNDY!
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I'm not saying your idea is not playable. When it hits the right hand for partner, you may get a home run in. (As an utter extreme, opening 7NT to show a balanced 4333 hand with exactly 12 HCP might work marvelously on the very odd day. However, we would all agree that it is an inelegant way to show that hand type.)

In fact, I'll even offer a good example of an agreement that I used with one partner for a few years. It described an extremely rare hand, so it pretty much never came up, only once in several years. The one time it did come up we got a great result though. The basic agreement was 2♢ for us described a hand that was too big, too massive in comparison to what most players would open a strong 2♣ on. We got the bid in, alerted as such, and our opponents interfered anyway on crap. When we doubled and set them for a mountain, they complained to the director. His response was to laugh and walk away, with the comment, “What part of too strong to open a strong 2♣ did not make sense to you?”

Anyway, while that hand type was fairly immune to competition, we gave it up, since it just never happened. At the same time we were wasting too many opportunities to make better use of 2♢.

I would just suggest with big hands, you do best to keep the bidding low. That is especially true when you don't even specify the suits, as then you still need to know if 3NT or even 6NT is right, etc. As well, the hand type that the LTC 2♢ bid shows is quite wide ranging in strength.

This means that higher level bids should be as descriptive as possible or they should be preemptive. (Both can sometimes apply, as in the case of multi.)

What I did with several conventional agreements that I have developed with partner was to use a hand generator to generate fairly large sets of hands that fit the description of a proposed agreement. Then with partner, we would decide how the bidding might go with the proposed agreement. We would also ask how we would have bid those same hands IF we did not have the proposed agreement in place. Finally, we would also look critically at the alternative uses for that bid. Were we giving up just too much for a bid that would rarely arise? The question of interference was also important, since people would quickly learn when to interfere in our sequences.
Nov. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should have been a poll, getting at whether East should have bid with that flat hand and giving the distribution away. At least make declarer work. ;-)
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So these hands should force to a grand?

AKxxx
AKxxx
xx
x

opposite

x
xx
AKxxx
AKxxx

Since both hands have 5 losers. In actual play you may be lucky to make a game, IF you make the right guesses. Yes, I'll admit that normal bidding will still see those hands end in some game, probably 3NT.

But on the above hands, you would start 2♢, partner needs to show their own LTC, and you are now starting out at the 3 level and nobody has even shown a single suit. Stopping anywhere low will be difficult at best.

I'd suggest it is better to start the bidding low. Now you will have an opportunity to show both suits even if your opponents do get in the way. Don't waste two levels of bidding just to announce you have a decent distributional hand.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bet that those who made 11 tricks had a Stayman sequence, showed hearts, then getting to 3NT. West chose not to lead a heart from the ratty suit, instead leading a spade. That gave declarer time to find 3 spade tricks, and helped them to find the jack. Duck a diamond for 11 tricks.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - great advice, and as a perfectionist myself, it does hit home.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you do mean the ACBL, my reading of all the charts, basic through open+ seem to disallow any natural NT bid with a range larger than 5 HCP. They are effective 11/22/18.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please be specific. What jurisdiction? ACBL?
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Corey - I DO see it as a failure of management. They chose to set an NABC in one of the most expensive venues I can think of. That they could not negotiate lower rates in paradise is not pertinent. They chose to spend our dues on their junket to paradise, and now want us to bail them out. We are asked to pony up to stay at an expensive site to cover their overspending?

I'm retired, like a huge fraction of ACBL members. I'm living comfortably now because I wisely invested my savings over many years. Suppose one day, a distant cousin of mine knocked on my door, asking for a financial handout. There they are, wearing expensive clothes, having driven to my house in their Lamborghini. But even so, they claim to be on hard times. Yes, I imagine that a caviar and champagne diet is expensive. How hard do you think I would laugh in their faces?
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I do recognize that the defender should not be able to ask that question. But it seems that, preventing them from being able to resolve the matter now should also allow East to play in a reasonable manner, not play in an unreasonable way. Had West not won the trick, it seems illogical to force East to not play to win the trick if they would reasonably have done so.

To me, it seems that forcing East to commit suicide, because West made a correctible mistake seems wrong. West revoked, but then corrected the revoke. So give both East and West penalty cards.

And, yes, it seems this is contrary to the way the law was written. Not the last time the laws seem contrary to what seems reasonable. I can accept it. I just don't need to like it.
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My take, which in my opinion is just based on logic and the concept of restoration of equity, though perhaps not on the law itself…

Lets say that South leads the diamond jack. West has a small diamond, but for whatever reason, ruffs instead. Declarer has dummy pitch the club 3 (not trump). East, who has the A2 remaining in diamonds, seeing West ruff, plays the deuce.

West now realizes that he has the 3 of diamonds in his hand, and announces the revoke, playing that card, which no longer wins the trick.

To me, it seems that equity would say that East is now able to win the trick with the ace, even if the card played from dummy did not change. Yes, East should now be faced with a penalty card in the small diamond. So logically in my eyes, the concept of restoration of equity should allow East to change the card played to reflect what has actually happened at the table.

Again, all of this is just in the eyes of restoring what would normally have happened at the table. E-W would normally have won the trick, and should be allowed to do so, at only the cost of a penalty card.

To me, this would be different if West had now found the diamond queen, thus still winning the trick. Now East would arguably not be allowed to overtake with the ace, changing the card they had played.

Does the concept of restoration of equity apply only to the non-offending side? Does that apply to East, who is apparently not an offender in the matter?

Could East have resolved the entire matter, simply by immediately uttering the classic phrase “Having none partner?”
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh boy! As an A player, I'd love to show up to play in that half table section. How does the movement work? 13 sit out rounds? Of course, they would be first in their section, so they would “win” A, and the ACBL would pay out master points. Just phone it in…

Of course, once you chase away that A pair from ever returning to the club, some other pair will now be relegated to the status of the dreaded “A” pair.
Oct. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every once in a while, I pick up a human dealt hand with 12 cards. The standard thing, is if the hand with 14 cards has not seen their hand, I take one of their cards at random, where I choose the card. Then I check to see what card I received. How can it be a deuce so often?
Oct. 11, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top