Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Leo Lasota
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have doubled 1.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you trying to show another hand with the benefits of playing kickback/minorwood/anything below 4nt as keycard for a minor? Success definitely achieved; if we had extra steps available, partner could have asked for something else such as 3rd round control.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just curious Bridge winners, did you change the rules after the event was over?
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie,
I expect the final to be a well played match with two great teams. It certainly would not be a big surprise if Michael's team pulls it out.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did you mean to give us an auction 2-P to this hand? You state 2 waiting and give us a bad 8 count that would not consider anything but pass as the dealer.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered your question; I did not lay claim that 1nt would always work.

We could easily miss a 52 fit that is the right denomination if we did not open 1nt.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I can't see that any development inconveniences me after the unopposed start 1♣-1R-1♠”

How about 1-1-1-1nt-2nt by you now-Pass and partner flounders away in 2nt or bids 3nt and goes down with misfitting values?

You have zero texture in the suit; if either red king was the king, the hand would be stronger in playing strength and worth treating as 18.

In addition, we are playing BAM. This is not like we are risking missing a dicey game at IMPs by opening the hand 1nt.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you really play 15-17 1nt openings, you would have opened this hand 1nt.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many play 1 as non forcing constructive (including me).
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do I not have an option to just get out in 3?
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-2nt-4-5-5nt-7-Claim
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have opened but never showed “shortness in ” with a singleton King.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner cannot have 3 1st round controls for their “minimum” bid, so they do not have 3 aces OR 2 aces and a void, or they should have made a different systemic bid last time.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was too strong for an initial 2 overcall. I would have doubled first.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 was (obviously) not the best choice last time. Seems real odd to not have double available over 1 as equal level conversion double with 4 and 5.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am trying to edit my bracket and it says sorry you already have an entry. I was never able to select the rd of 32 and beyond.

I was able to enter all my choices and saved them; it then comes back up as incomplete as though I did not enter any choices.
March 27
Leo Lasota edited this comment March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes; 5nt the first time as 2 places to play slam would have been better.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,

~98% of those that enter know that they have 0% chance of finishing 1st overall. However, it is nice for many to see where they stack up against the best and having a good session or two is a “win” for many. There were decent session scratch masterpoint payouts, so adding one or two more sessions would increase the expected payout for just about everyone.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for the youtube link; I listened in to most of the meeting. I was surprised at some of the comments made by the presenters, but one in particular baffled me.

Near the beginning, a statement was made that they were very surprised to NOT see a significant rise in $$$ from the recent online NABC. They were disappointed to only see about the same amount as last time. The event is currently 3 sessions of 24 boards. Increase this to 4 days of 26 boards or 5 days of 24 boards. This would make the event closer to a “real NABC” that has a minimum of 104 boards played. In addition, it would result in more opportunities for players to get masterpoint awards. For example, a player may do very well on one of the four sessions and earn masterpoints from that. Perhaps additional sessions would see an increase in total participation level.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 card majors is a system that I follow; it has worked for many years for a pair of Hall of Famers (Peter Boyd/Steve Robinson).
March 22
.

Bottom Home Top