Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was this comment really written in 2015 and not 2018?
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surprised there's not a larger majority for pass!
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 30 VP scale gives a bonus for winning, which I can understand, but if the aim is to try to determine which team played/scored best over the event that's not a positive. Winning a match by 1 IMP will be more down to luck than fine judgement.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David,

Presumably the strong team is 75% to win versus the other teams in matches of a specific length. The round-robin consists of seven matches, the knockout of three; it's not surprising that an event that lasts over twice as long is better at determining the strongest team.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The EBL is continuing down the track of open/women/seniors held at one time, mixed at another. The WBF is holding all four concurrently, this time around at least. It's not ideal to have the two organisations following different schedules - maybe an open/women and mixed/seniors split would be a solution that both the EBL and WBF could embrace.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seniors bridge should be replaced by “age-based handicap bridge” IMO ;-)
June 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure that being the 2nd strongest category is the same as being the 2nd most prestigious. To me, the overlap between the players in the seniors and open is a sign that the minimum age requirement is too low for the seniors. But what should it be raised to? It all seems a bit arbitrary to me.
June 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think the Venice Cup was clearly the 2nd most prestigious event; except, perhaps, for someone who has already won it.

I could see the mixed becoming the 2nd most prestigious event in time.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes, one can deduce the layout of the cards from the bidding, but only if one understands what it means.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Possibly relevant question - are US world championships teams funded, or do the players (or sponsor thereof) pay their own expenses?
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a relief that, after a close 17-13 vote, the matter was finally settled by the decisive margin of four to three. IMO, if the BoD is to be allowed to overturn a decision made by another committee, it should require more than a simple majority.
May 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner had eight clubs, thought dealer was psyching and wanted in on the action. I was a beginner at the time and decided 3NT was the right call, which made. 5 was cold but I have a suspicion partner would have corrected that to 6 - so maybe my 3NT bid wasn't so bad after all. Unfortunately I didn't record the hand.
May 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happens if a player qualifies for the mixed team and enters the seniors trials; their team wins but that player doesn't meet the board requirements?
May 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The possibility that it could be in a pro's financial interest to enter an event and then try not to win it is certainly concerning.
May 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey DG,

“Act as if you didn't hear it” has no basis in law - it's just a rule of thumb that people give. It is only meant to refer to bids and plays you take when you are in receipt of “helpful” unauthorised information.

In such situations, it is irrelevant whether it was you or partner who forgot the system - all that is relevant is that you have UI that tells you that you are having a misunderstanding.

Correcting explanations is a completely separate matter - your duty, when playing without screens, is just to make sure that oppo are given the correct explanation of your agreement at the first legal opportunity (having called the TD first, not that many do in practice, in my experience).

Thinking about what would have happened playing with screens is useful in unauthorised information situations because screens are strictly better than no-screens in this context. In terms of misinformation, screens aren't any better than no-screens, in fact they tend to create more serious problems, so there is no advantage to thinking “what would happen if we were playing with screens?”.

Regardless of whether screens are in use or not, oppo are entitled to the better of “the result obtained at the table” and “the result that would have been obtained if both oppo had been given the correct description of your methods”. They aren't entitled to be awarded “the result they would have got if they had been told that you were having a misunderstanding”.
May 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction once started

(1) 1 (1) ??

and my diamond holding was AKQJxxxxx.
May 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5/5 majors invitational when partner has shown four spades?!

And yes, Richard - I wish that was close to the most sophisticated thing I have to (choose to) remember at the table!
May 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 1N:2, 2:3 as forcing but 1N:2, 2:3 as invitational. 1N:2, 2:3 agreeing spades leaves you plenty of room for your slam-tries, unlike 1N:2, 2:3.
May 23, 2019
Mike Bell edited this comment May 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, far better than the alternative.

Under WBF rules, if the tray comes back after 30 seconds with my partner's sign off, and I wish to bid on, how do I know whether to pass for ethical reasons, or bid because my partner's screenmate may have chosen to hold the tray back?

The aim should be to even out the tempo of the passing of the tray, not to randomise it.
May 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, 15 seconds (with screens) is very different to tbe EBL/WBF approach, unless there has been a recent change. In Tromso, no adjustment was given after -

1:3 (4-card limit raise)
3:4

because 30 seconds wasn't deemed sufficient!

Edited because text in square brackets didn't appear
May 17, 2019
Mike Bell edited this comment May 17, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top