Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Bodell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 194 195 196 197
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While true, it doesn't mean I know what to do, so I'm happy partner saved me from the last mistake even if it would have probably lead to the same place (if partner did bid 3 over my 3 should I offer a now delayed 3nt on the way to 4 with my length half stop in clubs just in case partner still has only 3 not as good hearts? And if I do that will partner be on the same page that this is what I'm showing?).

The at the table the true hand was slightly different from what Debbie posted as the hand actually started with two passes before the 1 so it was:

P-P-1-X
P-2-P-3
??

Not sure if those passes would change anyone's agreements or reasoning or ranges.

Everyone was vul if that matters and it was MP.

So the 2 jump is potentially limited or altered slightly by being a passed hand (for instance, I had 9 and a 4 cards suit below, not matching what John Adams would have had; but I would have already opened any unbalanced 10 or balanced 12 so those are out).

My hand (the pass then 2) was:

72 A632 AJ8 T752

The X hand was:

AK83 KQ9 KQ52 43

At the table it was also a very friendly layout with hearts 3-3 with JT onside meaning the 3rd round club ruff with the 9 holds and 11 tricks are there on the exceptionally likely club lead from AKQJ9 (at my table my RHO under ruffed to keep the same shape as dummy in diamonds and spades, not that it mattered at that point).
4 hours ago
Michael Bodell edited this comment 4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you are allowed to psych 1NT as long as it is a true psych, not a minor deviation and as long as your agreement is 1NT is natural (which can include stiff AKQ but not small stiff).

I don't believe it is illegal to psych a natural NT of any legal strength with a “comic NT” holding (I.e., - T9xxxx x T9xxxx). Despite having a void, 12 cards in two suits, and much less than 10 points I think this is legally ok as a psych (as long as your 1NT agreement is natural, not artificial).

What isn't ok, because it is not a bid enough difference to be a psych, is to open a natural 15-17 NT with T AJxx AQxx AJxx when playing less than Open+ 6+. When playing Open+ 6+ it is valid to agree to open that hand 1NT. It is also valid to not have that agreement but decide to do it anyways. In all the charts it is valid to open T Jxxx AQxx Qxxx as a psych of a 15-17 natural NT.

At least that is how I read the text in the Open+ and the further examples clarifying that the restrictions in the forbidden section don't apply to psychs (but that psychs must be truly different, not small deviations).
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John, i disagree with that reasoning.

Your agreement can be that it is natural. You bid is a deviation from the agreement based on your judgement. In the Open or Basic chart this deviation based on judgement is not legal because you are at the edge of what would be a legal agreement - hence no room for deviations. But when you are not right on the edge of what is legal, you can use your judgement (which is the case in the Open+ 6+ chart).

This is similar to you can judge to upgrade a 14 count into a 15-17 range. You can not judge to upgrade a 9 count into a 10-12 range. It isn't that judgements and deviations are illegal automatically, it is that when your agreement takes you to the edge of legal, your deviations and judgements can't take you over that edge.

In Open+ 6+ you don't need to have the agreement to open with a small stiff to make a deviation and so do.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd expect it to be alertable if it is systemic and an explicit agreement (or frequent enough to be an implicit agreement). If it is not systemic but a deviation (something that is illegal in lower charts or shorter matches, but legal in 6+ Open+ evnets), I'm not sure it would be alertable. Obviously at some point deviations become regular enough to become implicitly agreements, but until they are that frequent, I'm not sure it would be alertable.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there is still value in tracking your score as a declarer even if more than your pure declarer play is tracked in the score. If you are in the very wrong contract (or very right contract) then your card play may not matter to the score, but your overall approach to the hand (including the bidding and the play) does impact your score and it can be useful to learn if this is the case. The signal may be that you (or your partner) overbids too much, rather than you are a bad declarer, but you can still pick up on this from tracking your score on hands that you declare.

Similarly it isn't necessarily the case that your opening lead is the only thing that influences your score on hands that you make the opening lead. Maybe you have a partner that never returns your suit. Maybe you have a partner that always brain deadly returns your suit. Either approach could lead to not great scores on hands when you are on opening lead, but it can still be useful to see how you do on hands where you are on opening lead.

So especially when looking over longer periods of times like a sessions worth of hands, or many sessions with the same partner and similar fields, looking at these breakdowns can be of interest and use.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I'm just more used to it, but I like the look/feel of BBO more than the dds page based on the images on page 11.

But this is good if it leads to more information available to everyone (like the results from all club games available for bridge power ratings and the ability to know everyone that played games - not just MP winners; plus hand-by-hand who played against whom that could help other ratings systems and analysis).

The top features I'd like to see are the better handling of multiple sections. You should be able to get views with all the people you are scored against and/or all the people total. Sure it may be a larger list in something like a NABC+ pairs events - but those are rare and more important to see the full results.

I'd also like to see support for showing actual opening leads as a way to encourage more clubs to track that (and make sure those that do can include the data). No doubt this would be optional and blank for many today, but the presence would help encourage some others to collect it.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought it would be GF when this happened (I was W, same game, different table), but wasn't 100% sure, and was happy that over my 3 continuation my partner bid 4 and not 3.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ELK would be fantastic for this. As someone that gets a ton of value out of ELK for data at work, I think that would greatly increase the ability of many people to leverage the data in interesting ways.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second point is really important. Being a disciplined bidder does not (necessarily) mean being conservative or passing some 12 point hands. Being a disciplined bidder IMHO means being a consistent bidder and holding the sorts of hands that partner expects you to hold.

If you agree to open basically all 11+ hcp hands then passing a really ugly bad 12 hcp hand is an undisciplined position to take.

Similarly, if you agree to play sound suit quality preempts then opening a weak two with proper shape and strength but with 6 to the 9 in the suit is undisciplined for your partnership. However, if you agree to play anything goes very wide ranging preempts as your style, then failing to open your weak two with proper shape and strength but with 6 to the 9 in the suit is undisciplined for your partnership.

Undisciplined actions can work out well (and you might make at times if you feel “random”, think you have a read on opponents, and/or don't fully agree with your partnership “agreed” style), but they can also leave partner not well placed later in the auction or the defense/play of the hand. Undisciplined actions can also erode partnership trust or confidence on later hands.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't always open 12 counts when I miscount my hand, miss an A, and think I have only 8. In those case I only sometimes open. Otherwise, with 12 hcp, I open.

Note, if opponents open, I do sometimes pass with 12 hcp (sometimes even with 14 or 15).
Nov. 4
Michael Bodell edited this comment Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note, IIRC, you can psyche (upgrade?) 8 or 9 point HCP hands into 1NT if your agreement is 15-17 or 14-16. It is the 10-12 NT people that can't do this.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The dealer shows out isn't even “encrypted”. It is just using information differently to prioritize a different signal. Normally the declarer understands the meaning of the signal with respect to attitude (or count) but doesn't know who holds the lowest missing card in the suit. If you use the “encrypted” method then initially declarer doesn't know this, but has the added benefit that if they can figure it out or guess, they not only learn the attitude (or count) but also learn the placement of the lowest missing card in the suit. In some situations that information about the missing card may be more important (I.e., a count of the hand for a strip or thrown in). It is just a different sort of data for the declarer.

The rule ought to be (IMO) that the agreements are known and public, but not how they apply to the hand. If the agreement is hi-low indicates (you like the suit AND have the lowest card in the side suit) OR (you don't like the suit AND don't have the lowest card in the side suit), and you give full disclosure that this is what it means, I don't see why this should really be a problem.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first hand:

You are allowed to rebid 1NT with a stiff (but partner will think you are weaker, and often have 2+).
You are allowed to open 1 with AQxx (but partner will think you have 5+).
You are allowed to open 1 and rebid 2 over 1 (but partner will think you have longer/stronger clubs).
You are allowed to open 1 and reverse into 2 (but partner will think you are stronger than you are).

All 4 of those are worth thought. I'd personally usually choose the 2 approach (either partner or opponents will likely keep the auction alive), but the rebid of 1NT with a 15-17 opening range is also reasonable, and if I somehow knew 1-1 was coming, opening 1 would have been great.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I personally play it (precision and Gazzilli) in the ACBL in a system that was GCC and likely is now Basic+.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For a while, for fun, we did something sort of similar with 2-way drury where what let you know which drury bid to make was if you have 1 of the top 2 trumps (2) or 0 or 2 of the top 2 trumps (2). If you had 1 of the top trumps and partner was accepting they bid 2. After this you then had a key based on did you hold the K or the A. You then could make game tries that were either about one suit with the K or a different suit with the A (or short tries about one suit or the other). In the 0 or 2 case we similar to you just assumed and made one try with 0 and another with 2 and expected partner to know which was which. In all cases it was to make it harder on the opponents for the purposes of lead directing doubles and opening leads. It mostly worked, but mostly wasn't worth the space/bids.

In relaying denial cue bids lots of time a bid shows 0 or 2 of the top controls, and usually unless we've screwed up, we know which based on what is in our hand and the other contextual information of the auction.

It seems to me that these sort of “encrypted” bids or plays should be legal and really are just multi-meaning bids. When someone makes a suction bid that is either single suited with X or two suited with X+1 and X+2 that is a multi-meaning bid. When someone bids 2 capp over 1NT showing any single suited hand that is a multi-meaning bid. As people pointed out a 1 or 4 key card response is a multi-meaning bid. Multi-meaning bids, at least constructive ones, are generally allowed regardless of if the meaning is later known, is inferable at the time it is being made, or if it is left in the dark throughout. The possible banned multi-meaning bids are the purely destructive weak multi-meaning bids.

If someone has a better system where they can more constructively describe their hand without suffering from information leakage (before the opening lead or during the play) I don't see why we should prevent them.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, this is the same sort of situation. He (or she) should always (or usually) bare when they don't have the K and sometimes (but not always) bare when they do have the K (assuming declarer is influenced by their play - some people will never finesse or always finesse no matter what you do and this may change).
Oct. 22
Michael Bodell edited this comment Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, from my work I can access bridgewinners (obviously) as well as my district page and the powerrating page. But I can't access the acbl page. Again, it is 3rd party blocking software (blocking games in this case).
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you care about the acronym the obvious one to use is BRIDGE itself. Something like:

Bridge Really Is Distinguished Game Elite ?

I'm sure people can come up with better ones, but that seems like the obvious acronym to try.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The notes I have over 1-1-1M-2 show that the non-GF actions are pass, 2 (relay - F1), and 2M. All other calls are GF. The 2 sequence covers a number of sequences and then allows the preference to 2M on 2 card support, as well as a number of other patterns. This does let you resolve the various shapes in the GF cases, but at the expense of complexity and artificiality.

Also, over 1-1-1 there is the 1 response available to show 4+ spades. So making that leads to one sequence, and not making it (and making a 2 or 2 response) means you know there are 0-3 over the 1-1-1 hands.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there would be more diversity of views if your RHO opened 1 and you held this hand (even more so if you switched the majors). When partner opens 1 and you hold this hand, your bid is very clear.
Oct. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 194 195 196 197
.

Bottom Home Top