Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Albert
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also agree that the addition of forums is “a good thing”. But … (you knew there would be a but right?)

One of the pleasures of the current version of BW is that all content is easily visible (at least for those of us who visit frequently) and we can pick and choose what to read and what not to read. As soon as there's a division into forums there is always the lingering doubt “did I miss something” by not reading a forum that I'm not usually interested in.

Further, forums enforce categorisation – and sometimes things are hard to categorise. For instance consider “Kit's corner”. Most of these stories expose some point of interest in both bidding and play - where do they belong if there's a “Bidding” forum and a “Play” forum? I know this is a strawman since I suspect there will still be a front page and Kit will definitely be on it but the general point remains.

Forums can also encourage certain forms of poor manners (“You shouldn't have posted that here …”) and sometimes cliquishness. This is particularly dangerous in forums labeled by some sort of skill level (as e.g. the “Intermediate/Advanced” proposal.)

I think the best forums are those that serve a clearly defined and limited audience (webmasters, club managers) or a specific purpose (advertising for partners, lessons, ACBL specific material)

This is probably already too long – but while I'm here – what about a “hide this thread” feature? There are frequently active threads that I know I don't want to look at again.

I almost didn't write this because I've built up a great deal of respect for the BW management team, and I strongly suspect they'll get this right with or without my input. But, as they say, I've started so I'll finish.
Aug. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The normal range stated is 5-10 HCP (for the 2 opener). Vulnerable vs not, perhaps you can eliminate some of the poor 5 counts :)
Aug. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I read Steve's discussion that's exactly what does happen - flags on their own aren't a sufficient condition for action, but an indication that some attention is needed. That seems a sensible way to manage things without requiring:

a) that the operators scrutinise every post in detail, and
b) that the “community standards” be set without reference to the community.
Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure I understand “propositional”. I took it to mean “game try” i.e. invitational? Obviously a different story if it means “optional”.
Aug. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I alert 4 and pass. If opponents query my action I give a lecture on Bayes' theorem.
July 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everyone. As the anonymous East I have to say that I'm in agreement with those who find me to be the main culprit. A case of “signing off” from the auction after preempting I'm afraid.

Vis a vis the 3 vs 4 question - I don't feel there's a correct answer here. Sometimes I'd bid 4 with this hand and sometimes 3 – my feeling, based on a certain professional knowledge of game theory in general, is that it's a mistake in principle (though rarely taken advantage of in practice) for preemptive bids to be tightly defined, particularly opposite a passed partner.
June 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A true expert has also kindly pointed out privately that the much more prosaic line of playing for honour doubleton or KQx onside in is almost certainly superior (cross in and just play on ). My bad - a case of hand record induced blindness I suspect.
June 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to thank Jeff Miller for pointing out the extra chances in the lead line, and the psychological lead of a to the king.
June 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, though somewhat optional at this kind of level.
June 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See also http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-4848/ (which contains spoilers)
June 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, LHO was 1561.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're very kind - but it shouldn't have been difficult. Lefty is clearly marked with 11 cards in the reds, so if are splitting 3-1 then the singleton is on my left and I can only handle the jack there.
May 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to finish the story (though it's nice to see that the choice is not terribly clear cut). At the table, I chose 3. Somewhat to my surprise, my LHO now bid 4! That came back to me and I bid 4 of course, now round to my RHO who bid 5. Feeling worse and worse about the whole thing, I bid 5 which (incredibly) I was allowed to play undoubled.

A top was led and dummy came down:

984
32
Q63
QT754

LHO did not helpfully continue with a second but cashed a and played another .

I had a complete delusion that I could handle singleton K on either side (I don't know why – like I said a delusion) but only singleton J on my left. Of course, the singleton J *was* on my left, so I finished a rather shamefaced one off.
May 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I quite like the Robson and Segal treatment (though they wouldn't have suggested it in this sequence I suspect) that 3NT is either to play *or* allowing partner to consider a sacrifice at the next level if I subsequently run to 4M (willing to concede up to -450 if they let me play 3N undoubled).

On the other hand a direct raise to 4 says “I don't care about your hand partner, do not under any circumstances bid 5, it's up to me” (either planning to do so regardless, or planning to double them at the 5 level, or letting them play there because I think slam is almost certainly on).

I think they suggested this in much more limited situations (e.g. partner opens 3, RHO doubles) but I've found it to be useful in lots of contexts where partner has made a weak bid (and my hand is unlimited) so to avoid memory strain.
May 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “most likely” is a bit of an underbid. For RHO not to hold the strong option requires basically that he has a maximal weak 2, and both LHO and partner have 11 balanced. I wonder if the prevailing majority for the Pass option would answer the same way if they were acting over a strong 2NT opening.
May 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can vote for 4/8 and need 50% to get in it would seem that there ought to be more being elected this way? Is the 50% criterion “eligible voters”? I guess that would explain it since presumably some can't be bothered.
Feb. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, forgot – my bad :( But I wanted to tell the story and get the title in :)
Dec. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But of course that could be a red herring. Or more likely a cultural reference …
Dec. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ooops – it was indeed to late at night! And of course no hand records … . I've edited the hand, I'm sure it's 2-1 in the blacks, but it could be either 7-3 or 6-4 in the reds, not that it really matters!
Dec. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
.

Bottom Home Top