Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Magnus Weiman
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The explanation of the “decision speed” and “point of no return” contains a significant flaw that may cause people to think that flying is less safe than it actually is. Assuming the regulations are followed, “It may or may not fly” is not true because the regulations require that the aircraft can get airborne and safely outclimb any obstacles even after one engine quit before reaching the speed where there is not enough runway left to stop. If this is not possible, then there are only two options to legally initiate the takeoff: chose a longer runway, or reduce the weight (or a combination of the two).

The name “decision speed” is actually wrong and misleading because the go/no-go decision has to be made before reaching this speed. Technically there is no “decision” involved as the go/no-go is automatic, if you are below this speed when an engine failure happens then you abort, otherwise you continue.

This speed is called V1 and the definition reads, in part, “the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance.”

Sorry for posting this non bridge related comment but since I happen to know much more about aviation than I know about bridge, I thought it was appropriate to get the facts straightened out.
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not sure if the Australian bridge terminology is different but in ACBL land, a puppet is “A bid which requires partner to make a specific bid”. A relay on the other hand is “A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate. So, if 2 truly is a puppet bid, then a response of 3 cannot per definition be covered by any agreement.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I will be telling some people that I play with that if it takes them very long at all to decide on an action I would prefer that they go ahead and make the call that isn't PASS.”

The above would not work in all situations. There are cases where a BIT followed by a call other than Pass convey UI.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After checking in to the hotel today I finally found out what the scope is with the Hiltonhhonors benefits at the host hotel. Hiltonhhonors members will receive the benefits their status entitle them to except that we will not get the room upgrades. According to the Hilton employee I talked to, the agreement between Hilton and the ACBL included a clause that allowed Hilton to not honor upgrades for Hiltonhhonors members. It seems to me that this is something we should have been told told before making the reservation rather than having to find out at checkin.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe Jones, CFO & Acting Executive Director
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Peg!
Oct. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An ACBL Executive just informed me that they have confirmed with the hotel that “players staying at the Hilton Hawaiian Village will receive Hilton points”. I will make another attempt to call the hotel and have them add my hhonors number to my reservation. Good job ACBL!
Oct. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once read somewhere that when the opponents are having an argument at the table, you should agree with the one who is wrong.

Entertaining concept but probably not in line with zero tolerance so I have never personally attempted to try this. ;-)
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstein. My preference is to use X as penalty but only if we play Rubensohl (which in my opinion is the best convention to use over a natural overcall after we open 1NT).
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot even remember anybody ever asking if we use penalty X before they overcall with trash.
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since this bid is not included in the Alert Chart, it is alertable if “Unusual strength, shape, etc.” but not alertable if “About expected strength and shape”. To me it seems pretty clear that this means it's alertable. Also, since there is no penalty for alerting a non alertable bid, it's better to alert whenever it's unclear if a bid is alertable or not.
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my experience, a significant share of the post-mortems done at the table end up being wrong one way or another.

The quality of the post-mortem becomes significantly better if done after the session is over with hand records as well as time available.

Another downside is the risk of still thinking about the post-mortem from the previous hand after you have picked up the cards from the next board.

The third downside is that it's often very annoying for the opponents to listen to post-mortems at the table - not to mention how rude it is to use up time that should be used on playing the next board or moving to the next table.
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry if I wasn't clear here but what I meant to say was that if you have an agreement that 2S shows a limit raise but you have not discussed the exact number of H required then you should not mention anything about the number of hearts in the explanation.

An interesting follow up question is what you should do in the case you play with a new partner and you have not discussed cuebids at all. If both of you are experienced players then my assumption would be that both of you will assume that responders cuebid after a 1M opening and any interference showing a specified suit does show a limit raise or better with at least three cards in openers M. Should you explain the meaning of the cuebid even though your interpretation of the bid is solely based on general bridge knowledge and there is no agreement whatsoever with your partner? In my opinion you should just say no agreement in that case.
Sept. 26, 2015
Magnus Weiman edited this comment Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You either have an agreement that the 2S bid show a specific number of hearts or you have not discussed this in which case you don't have any such agreement. In this case it seems like there is no agreement so the proper explanation is that the bid shows a limit raise. The rest of what south said here is speculation or his personal opinion on what the non existing agreement should have been if they had discussed it. Volunteering that kind of mumbo jumbo is best case useless and worst case damaging and should be avoided.
Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How will the videos help catching cheaters in the ACBL when those videos are not made available to the public? The reason the European cheaters were caught was because a large number of people volunteered a huge number of hours watching those videos which ultimately resulted in PO Cullin and Maaijke Mevius spotting the methods used by FS and FN. If those videos had not been accessible to the public then FS and FN would most likely be playing in the Bermuda bowl right now. If the videos are only available for ACBL internal access then cheaters can continue to feel much safer than they would be if they knew they had thousands of eyes trying to break their codes.

A very popular Swedish idiom that comes to my mind when thinking about Suzi Subeck and transparency is “lot's of talk and no hockey”.

To me it seems like the ACBL operates more like the government of a country like Russia or China than like the open membership organization it should be. Suzi Subeck has been talking about transparency but this seems to be mostly talk and little action.
Sept. 25, 2015
Magnus Weiman edited this comment Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the ACBL the applicable regulation clearly states that you should explain the meaning of the bid rather than the name of the convention.
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PO,

This is the device you are talking about: http://www.bridgecompany.com/ It was used at some of the side games in Tromsö. I played in one session where it was used and I liked it a lot. It eliminates the need for boards, caddies and bridgemates. It also gives you the benefit of automatically recording every played card in every trick. However, it doesn't do much for eliminating cheating but it would certainly make it easier to chase the cheaters since the bidding and the play is recorded. I personally like this solution but I would not like bridge without cards.

Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven't played at a club in Sweden for years so I don't know how they do it but tournaments in Sweden typically pay cash prizes. In the Swedish nationals I believe 40 % of the entry fees are used for cash awards. Personally I think the possibility of winning cash makes playing bridge even more attractive so this is something I miss when playing in the U.S.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can easily find the answer to this question as well as to almost any other question on the ACBL alert chart here: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/AlertChart.pdf

The alert chart says “Game tries that, by agreement, may have fewer than three cards in the suit bid” should be alerted. This means that if your help suit game tries can be made with a suit of fewer than three cards, alert. If your agreement is that you always have at least three cards, no alert. The alert chart doesn't mention any difference between minors and majors when it comes to games tries.

Sept. 9, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top