Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opponents are entitled to your agreements, not your interpretation of the bid. If your sure 2D weak with Ogust is your agreement, you must alert 2NT as ogust. If they don't ask (and even if they do) you must reply naturally how you would by your agreement (an ogust response). The misalert will be explained at the end of the auction and the director will be called if necessary. If you messed up likewise you'd explain 2NT as what your patner meant it as. If you honestly have no agreement, about 2D and followups, that is what the opponents are entitled to for an explanation of 2NT, not what your partner meant it as and not what you wish to respond to it as.
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on partnership agreement for dealing with bidding the minors. I would expect partner to be 5-4 in the sequence, and not 4-4, and so I'm thinking 2D. Your shouldn't really be worried about correcting to a 4-2 fit or anything like that– if partner was 3-2-4-4 or 4-1-4-4 they'd have different bids than 2C over 1H. The 5-2 fit should play better than the likely 4-3 club one. This is one of those situations that merits partnership discussion about length agreement.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the particular lead of the cards, I think a spade lead was best (if I recall correctly, partner had KQJx or something). A major lead felt right, considering both players tended to deny a long major by their bids– the main question left up to my lead, was which major was more likely to be best. I lead a heart, but a spade lead happened to set the contract at the other table (this hand is from 1st session of the collegiate semi-finals).
Aug. 9, 2016
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would fall under 1NT, unless the hand also held 5 clubs, in which case the hand would open 2C. It's not perfect, and there are definitely some problems with dealing with some club hands like these in this precision system. I do play a similar system with another regular partner in which we play a hybrid 1 club (in which the one club open can be used to accommodate club hands such as this), but I was wondering what most classic precision players might do with this hand given the standard opening restrictions.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1C. With only 4 losers, I'd just open normally across a passed hand. If partners has the right few points in the right places, maybe this will even reach game.
June 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe I could have done that, but it was undiscussed at the time this hand came up. We were playing major transfers, 2NT as a minor transfer to diamonds, and 2S as the strength ask (or a weak club hand with under 8 points, which would correct to clubs as sign off if opener bid the 2NT response). We did leave 3 level bids natural slam invites, but I wanted a way to show the hearts too.
June 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our system 2 Spades could indicate the 6 card minor club suit. A flaw with our strength ask convention is that we forfeit the ability to minor transfer into clubs for slam invites. Partner should expect after the strength ask that I either hold a slamish 6 card club suit, or a balanced hand either inviting to game with 9 points, or slam with 16+. Since I bid on to slam despite the min stength ask, I intended imply I had the more distrobutional option.
June 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Northwestern Student and Current Collegiate Captain here (a little late to the party on this thread, but I just started really using bridgewinners and found this thread, so here I go

This is only my first year competing in the competition, but I think going back to 8 teams would be a good idea. Frankly, there just aren't many College-age players out there and I think the ACBL should be doing all they can to encourage us to play, so I don't see why they really want to limit the number of Junior players they are inviting to the National!
I'm finding that a lot of college players that know how to play in our area, just aren't being motivated to go to a lot of the bigger events. I myself got a big motivation to go out and play more from attending the Chicago NABC last year– I think promoting the NABC to attract us can't be a bad thing.

Regarding prize distribution, while I certainly don't mind the higher prize, it doesn't really matter a ton to me. As Ben joked above, in all seriousness really the $500 in airfare is already a nice prize. I think the high amount of gold points might be motivating me more :-). I agree that they could sacrifice some of the prize money and make the event more serious by actually getting us rooms in the actual hotel for the finals. This year I have room booked at the real hotel, but my teammates who are only staying for the final have rooms in the other hotel. I'll probably end up staying with them over the two day period, which is kind of annoying and an inconvenience.

Regarding cheating, I think ACBL definitely needs moderators of some sort. Why not have us have us moderated by a director at a local club or something? They should assign each college to a club close to campus and require that they play their matches there supervised by a director to prevent blatant cheating. If the competition had to be condensed to a shorter period, I think it would be worth it. I do actually like the longer structure though. Having the competition spread out, and playing nice long 15 board matches was nice. Scheduling was hard though. I tried my very best to email all Captains from the other team each month and get times from my own team as early in the month as possible to schedule a date and time, but often regular life got in the way a lot, a few matches had to be rescheduled, and most of the matches were completed a few days (sometimes a few hours) before the monthly deadline which was annoying for me and my teammates. I think these are issues that could be resolved very easily if the ACBL took a bit more time to make the qualifying round a bit more formal, like a GNT or other major district qualifying events.
June 18, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top