Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Justin Lall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haha honestly this was the first hand I thought of also!

Live by the sword, die by the sword I suppose :P
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a hard question Max for exactly the reason you pointed out, totally depends on how you define clear errors. But it would have to be way closer to “compared to double dummy” than “compared to a reasonable definition” to blow >1 imp a board on clearcut errors imo. 1 imp a board is a ton, that is like going down in 2 cold vul games and a part score on a clear cut error every regional KO match haha, and that would be per pair!
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haha even for David Burn that is an epic troll post.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are many potential families that have at least one boy in it but none named Dylan. I think the point is that the more specific the info, the more the probability that the other child is a boy or a girl approaches 50 percent. If it was a boy named Dylan with a birth mark on their back who has a 150 IQ and is a good singer that’s almost the same as “eldest” in terms of specificity for instance, and very far from just at least one is a boy.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it’s not to make him feel part of the team, it is because he is part of the team… he was on the team that won the team trials to qualify in the first place and no doubt will be the therapist and coach of at least my partnership with brad!
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Sept. 5
Justin Lall edited this comment Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is restricted choice, with T8 LHO can play either but with Q8 they must play low.

This is usually not the case since it means RHO would have restricted choice on the first round so it cancels out, but in this case with Tx RHO must play low.

Likewise, if LHO played the ten you should play the jack because again, if RHO had 8x they would be forced to play low on the first round (if they played the 8 you can play the jack and the 7 will be high no matter what happened). So a strategy of playing low low king ace, then the 9 playing the jack on either the ten or the 8 picks up AQ8 and AQT on your left and loses to AT8 on your left in those scenarios.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Marty,

I almost always agree with your posts and logic, and in fact completely agree with your first post here. But I think you are totally wrong about thinking that X of 1N should be “penalty.”

1C 1x p 1N, playing the same as you would play after 1x p 1N is definitely logical and fine, the ranges just become different. For starters let's define takeout: Takeout is a normal t/o X shape or something very strong. Partner bids as if you have a normal t/o X shape and if you're very strong you bid again to define your hand, just as after 1x p 1N. If you do not play this way then you cannot bid on your most common hand type that is important to bid on but has no other bid, a 3 suited hand with shortness in their suit. I'm sure we would all want to X with 4405 even with a minimum, we almost certainly don't want to defend 1N and on a good day we make game and 1N is still cold.

What is a penalty X? It is a “very strong hand” like a balanced 22 count, or maybe a hand with a solid suit (would you even want to X with this hand, or would you prefer to pass and lead, it depends on the vul obv). Well guess what, if your partner bids you can bid 2N with the strong bal or bid your suit (double and bid a suit) to show too strong to bid to begin with. The fact that you are 16+ just ups the range for these bids compared to normal, and the fact that partner is 0-5 meshes well with that. The logic is still the same though, you need a bid to show your most common hand type that needs to compete. Nobody wants to pass or bid 2C with 3415 or whatever.

Thus I think “takeout” is completely normal, with the caveat that takeout means just what it normally means, takeout or super strong. This is much more anlagous to 1D p 1N than a 1N opener, where you havent shown values and the opponents have not both chosen to bid, and no suit has been bid (thus 3 suited with their suit doesn't exist, and they might totally lack values. In this case even if they are psyching, they will probably run to their suit unless they are totally random lol). Even 1c natural 1D p 1N you don't double with 18-19 bal (unless you have 2 diamonds and are making a takeout X), or with solid clubs, that is takeout of diamonds.

I don't get the hate on this 2N bid. It is H+C. If you want to have a way to show S+C you should play 1D (2N) as the same for the same reason. Or Ghestem which a lot of europeans play to show specific 2 suiters. If I was playing with someone who played strong club a lot I would also assume we play lebensohl after 1C p 1D (2S) X p ?. The same logic applies, the ranges are just different. This is a common trope in strong club.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First google hit for “Bill Gates ACBL donation” was: https://staging.acbl.org/about-acbl/honorary-members/bill-gates/

I mean, that kind of misses the point since even if he never donated money to bridge that's OK IMO but whatever :) It's ok if you disagree with me and I disagree with you on a point, I don't think that is uncivil and I think it's part of the joys of discourse.
Aug. 17
Justin Lall edited this comment Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not buddies with Gates and Buffett, I do not know them. In what way did I talk like I am buddies with them? Everything I said was public record (google?) and well known.

I offered the reasons I disagreed with your post (and that sentiment in general, which permeates throughout every thread here by a few posters). If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post on an internet discussion forum lol. Nothing I said was uncivilized, and yes I will attack your post in a “civil” manner if I think it is wrong, and agree with it just as much if I agree with it. Your post and the concept of why doesnt Bill Gates just pay for it shows entitlement and obliviousness. I do not think make any judgement on you Ai-Tai Lo as a person, in fact I enjoy you quite a bit (though we don't know each other that well obv you seem like a nice guy in our interactions).

I agree with you that holding a world championship in a country, and world championships in general, are a positive thing for the visibility and promotion of bridge. I would love if someone would choose to sponsor it. That doesn't mean Bill Gates should or needs to help financially if they love bridge and it's easy for them. The same could be true of everything he likes, he could pay for everything. He makes the choice to try to eradicate malaria, even though I am a bridge lover and don't have malaria and give billions to other charitable endeavours I'd say that's just ever so slightly more important, and more to the point I would say that is his choice to make.

And he has, as far as I remember (from public record not from knowin Willie personally!), given a significant amount of money to help bridge in schools. That is Nick's point, even if paying the WBF fee to be the host country will promote bridge in USA, there are arguably better ways to spend that money to promote bridge even more in USA.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You must work in a line of work that is not run by a monopoly. It is not surprising that WBF, FIDE, FIFA etc are all completely inept.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty much can't like your post enough Nick.

But it does always make me lol when people ask why doesn't Bill Gates pay for a terrible, inefficient organization to host a bridge tournament in his home country.

Sorry, he's busy spending his time and money trying to cure malaria, has given 30 billion + to charity and started a pledge for the richest people to eventually give their money to charity. When he has given money to bridge it was to fund bridge in US schools. But the answer to every thread where bridge lacks funding is “Why don't Bill Gates and Warren Buffett just pay for it, they're rich!”

The entitlement and sheer obliviousness of that comment about those 2 of all people is just mind blowing.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lol same
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally irrelevant to your great story but I think cue=michaels and with a takeout X you pass then X over a transfer is “expert standard” in USA. Could be wrong tho haha.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's important to clarify what the actual rules are, since Meck and Stacy's hypotheticals are not possible under the actual rules.

1) Meck you aren't actually available for the senior trials since you won the open trials (still hate you for that btw obviously ;)). If one is qualified for the open they are not allowed to play any other trials according to the rules.

2) Even if Meck was not qualified for the bermuda bowl, and Stacy could play the seniors with Meck, and let's say Meck had won the mixed trials, Meck could play the seniors but Stacy could not replace Meck with another cheaper pair after winning the seniors with him since Meck would be forced to play the seniors (it came after the mixed).

3) It is possible if Meck had not won the open trials, Stacy could play the mixed with him, and after he wins, Meck could win the seniors, at which point Stacy could replace him with a cheaper pair. She could not really game the system by planning for this however, because she would have no idea whether Meck would win the senior trials or not so she might be stuck with him :)

(Just for clarification I am just using Meck and Stacy's names as examples to continue this analogy, not implying about them specifically)
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard:

When I was eligible for junior coupons it was pretty well known as an “unwritten rule” that if there was a sponsor on your team/partnership it wasn't cool to ask for the junior coupons (as told to me by the professional junior players who came before me).

When I was not playing pro and eligible then I used them which I suppose was debatable since I was trying to be/was a bridge professional, but I was usually rooming with 3 other juniors or my dad and eating fast food or pizza every day so it wasn't like I was exactly rolling in money and trying to steal from the ACBL.

Likewise at a district/unit level some places offered junior coupons and it was basically made known to me that it applied to everyone but me haha and I was fine with that. It's easier to police at that level since usually only one or two people at most are “junior pros” and they're probably well known in their area, like Adam said about the Grossacks for New England.

So basically it was pretty much like what you suggested.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MBodell, I these rules were in place (nobody got bumped and zero carryover) when meckwell won the blues then all hell broke loose lol.

People just hate the idea (as evidenced by this thread) of someone who didnt play the whole event winning it. I have the same views as Max but I think we gotta respect the strong majority view on this one.

Edit, I was wrong they started out with well below average carryover but not zero, sorrry for my mistake. I don't think it made much of a difference in how people saw it though.
April 19
Justin Lall edited this comment April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is so sad, Sheila was one of my favorite people in the bridge world, she was always upbeat and made everyone around her smile. She offered me great advice as a friend many times… she will be missed.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good for the ACBL. Not that I am a huge fan of the organization lol, but credit where credit is due.
March 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
.

Bottom Home Top