Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 ... 37 38 39 40
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question!
No. I didn't mention 4th best leads until page 2. Sorry if it felt like a trick question, but asking - then thinking about the answer - was kind of the point.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meant this for the intermediate forum, hopefully it can be moved, apologies to those who think it is way too easy.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark, my comment above wasn't how I would play these auctions or what is standard but an attempt to explain what I thought was going on.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its funny, when I made it I thought it wasn't textbook but everything seemed to be pushing me there: I didn't want to miss a vunerable game and lose a bunch 9f imps for +300, 10 tricks are easier than 11, at least the enemy trumps are likely under ours (unlike if we play in diamonds for example), etc that I convinced myself that 4S was the normal bid all things considered. That was definitely wrong, even if it wasn't a huge loser.

After seeing the feedback, it now seems wrong to bid a questionable vulnerable game when I have a likely plus that could be 500 or even 800, we will probably find it anyway if its a very good game, there is a chance we have a better game, and I might be inducing pard to compete too high. As Keiran said, too many ways 4S can lose and only one way it can win, and sometimes when it wins it is only a few imps better.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep, I got it wrong, too focused on the vulnerable game that looked most promising from what I knew at that point. I should have doubled and seen what partner had to say. It would have cost us a few imps vs my actual decision (which turned out brilliantly when the double helped partner pick up a 51 spade break), but would have been a long term winner.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, definitely not penalty, but often partner will pass, and if we have a minor fit its not guaranteed that 5m is better than 4S, so I was mostly thinking about the X being passed. I can bid 4N for takeout to minors if I really don't want to defend, and partner knows that when I X.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, my 0% (of other respondents) action was duplicated at the other table.

Thankfully at our table my LHO doubled 4S, which helped pard make.

I just didn't think we would get enough against 4Hx and thought I had enough for partner to have good chances in a 52 fit. Obviously I am in the tiny minority.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing “direct denies”, 2N could be on the way to bidding 3N showing a heart stopper.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would vote no, but for different reasons.

I think the biggest issue is long events. Playing 60 boards a day for a week is tiring. I would feel better about the change for events of 2 or 3 days and shorter than for long events. This is compounded by an aging member base.

I also like aligning our big events with how international competition works.

Ok, on the topic of pros and sponsors, I can't believe I am the only one to notice certain teams playing very well in the evening. Watching the comebacks would one form of entertainment lost with this change.

Since my most common team configuration playing with a pro is 3 clients and 1 pro, I suppose I would be helped competitively, but I still dislike the change.

Personal issue, shared by few: I sometimes bring my kids to summer nationals; its hard to play 2 sessions a day and watch kids. A 5 or 6 handed team lets me take a break to pay some attention to the kids.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike,
I apprecicate that you have spent some time on this issue.

Speaking as someone who is representing their district in flight C:
1. If there were additional club/unit qualifiers as some have suggested I might have skipped the whole process. I did not do NAP for example; I happened to miss the club qualifier. If however I had to play in additonal flight C specific events for GNT I might have chosen not to, I enjoy them less than open events (but expect to enjoy the national flight C final).
2. The elimination of the open event would be a loss for me:
next year in addition to B I plan to enter the open district GNTs. (it conflicts with C but not B). I would do so to gain experience playing against top teams. Besides the Spinderbilt, and trials, where else can I play full day matches against top teams? I would hate to see this great event eliminated.

Please please don't take away my only local opportunity to play full day matches against strong teams.

Finally, without the open flight I worry that the prestige of the event would fade. The “Youth Championship” is limited to 5000 mastetpoints but the strong eligible players don't enter. This becomes self fulfilling. Please please don't do the same to GNT.

Would more participation be great? Yes. I don't doubt your effort but I have yet to hear ideas that would help.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And exactly what I was going to comment.

FWIW I have recently been teaching a lot of beginners and in my opinion the transition from responder bidding some number of spades on their first turn here to bidding 3 is perhaps the biggest step on the way to understanding bridge bidding; it carries with it drawing a distinction between competitive and constructive bids, forcing and non-forcing etc, natural and artificial. These are really hard concepts for new players, but in my opinion much more important than lots of conventions that are often taught before players understand these concepts.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absent agreements to the contrary I would expect parter to lack a spade control here. Showing a spade control therefore has to be my priority. Therefore it can't also show a first round diamond control.

For me bypassing a suit tends to deny a control in that suit; bypassing a suit and skipping past 4N to the 5 level categorically denies it. If I showed up with Axx, AQJxx, xx, AKx I would be because I had missorted my hand and thought I had xx, AQJxx, xx, AAKx :)
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aaron,

First of all, and this may be semantics, I wouldn't call that a splinter, I would call it a 3 suiter with shortness in clubs, since a splinter is normally either supporting a suit partner has bid, or showing a self sufficient suit.

What I am saying is that an intermediate pair that doesn't have splinters marked on their card very likely doesn't have an agreement that a jump by 2C opener shows a 3 suiter with shortness in the bid suit. Much more likely they forgot (even after alerting it) that 2H didn't actually show hearts, and splintered supporting partner's “suit”. I know that sounds absurd and very unlikely, but the intermediate pair having this agreement is imo (quite a bit) more unlikely.

As far as your opportunity to double, yes, you got screwed because that agreeement is so unusual you would never ask (even if imo asking “do you have an agreement about the type of hand that shows” in that auction gives away very little UI in practice, since pard will never guess that you thought it might be artificial).

Net, I see your point that perhaps it would be better to require immediate alerts of really truly surprising artificial bids, even if this case I am still offering 100 to 1 that there was no such agreement in the actual auction under discussion.

Perhaps a prealert of such unusual agreements would solve the problem, even something as simple as “we play some unusual and artificial comtinuations after 2C openings, please ask if it comes up.” That is what I would do if (say, forced under penalty of death) I had this agreement.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like your rule and process. Nevertheless I assign most of the blame to those who found the alternative interpretation.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It should not have been alerted at the time it was bid or later because IMO the actual pair did not have an agreement that the bid was a splinter. 100 to 1 opener just got confused. I have heard of autosplinters but neither partner had bid a suit and I have never heard of an autosplinter in pards artificial bid suit and very much doubt they had that agreement.

If opener thought it was agreed as a splinter, it should have been a post alert in that confused world.

This is a good example of why post alerts make sense; in this situation an immediate alert was more likely to help partner (even if in practice they may have been beyond help).

Edit clarification added to second paragraph.
April 25
Max Schireson edited this comment April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this one could be simpler, the flight C player typing this comment understood it quite clearly.

It seems the problem may be with the application of it. While it could be simpler I think there is plenty more complex stuff we ask directors to rule on. Somebody screwed up.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack,
I appreciate your honesty.

Unfortunately that view makes me feel better about the regulation of methods; in my view playing inferior methods in hopes of catching opponents unprepared makes the game worse.

I hope that at some point in your bridge career you come to a different view.

If everyone shared my belief that this is not a good reason to play unusual methods, in my opinion regulation could be lessened (at least to a degree) and system innovation would increase.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12 imps.

Seems clear, am I missing something?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack,

I agree that the ACBL is too restrictive.

I don't agree that opponemts being unprepared is a good reason to play something differerent, or that disclosure should be reflect that goal.
April 24
1 2 3 4 ... 37 38 39 40
.

Bottom Home Top