Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 iff we play RRF
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks!
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Richard has said, the 3 bidders are made to look pretty silly by the dummy - AJ9 Ax Qxx xxxxx. Fair to say LHO's 2 bid (K J98xx xx AQJxx) wouldn't have been everyone's choice.
Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am interested you refer to the “feeble spade spots”, Eric. I think Q8765 may be worth quite a lot compared with Q5432.
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't exactly describe myself as a LTC aficionado, but I wouldn't think it terribly controversial to count the six and two of hearts as losers in the circumstances!
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure you can go past 3NT with this hand, Why can't partner have good clubs and bad spades?
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that you don't like to pass 1NT, and opener's 2 rebid shows hearts, I question the wisdom of allowing the bid to be based on a five-card diamond suit.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, think the wording needs changing, to refer to qualification of the team in the second event, not the individual.
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I consider this style to be somewhat common (in the context of transfer responses to 1) and somewhat misguided.
Nov. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For “umpires”, read “lawyers”.
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While imagining what would happen without screens is useful in some situations, I don't think this is one of them. When considering an adjustment, the non-offending side are only considered to have the correct explanations, not the knowledge that someone has misbid.
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All of the video evidence was from that championship. Time flies, eh?
Oct. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wait, what happened to 320-490?
Oct. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the old IMP scale and when was it replaced?
Oct. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting choice of title, I look forward to posting a similar thread “North American Bridge Clubs” at some point in the future!

Edit: No, I can't help, sorry
Oct. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rosalind - sometimes 4th seat doesn't pass.
Oct. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But even if it wasn't, I would still double.
Oct. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not like 4 forcing would serve a particularly useful purpose. We won't often be slamming on this start, and if we are we've got several other bids in our box to show that.
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely. As well as human variation in level of play, there is also a lot of luck in bridge, even in teams matches where it is a zero sum game. In the same way as four pros will sometimes beat a team of a similar standard by 30 or more over 60 boards - in fact, the margin will be over 30 IMPs, to one team or the other, more than half the time - a six-handed team will sometimes beat an all-pro team even if one of the pairs was an IMP/board weaker than the other pairs in the match.

I think your partner was off-base with his 95%/75% comment. I'm sure the percentages, whatever they were, were closer than that.

I agree completely with your attempt to get the regulations changed. The status quo superficially favours sponsored teams, but IMO it is unfair on sponsors that they should be made to feel they have to choose between playing and winning.
Oct. 11, 2018
Mike Bell edited this comment Oct. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bergen variants. I like 1M:3M to be “to play opposite a balanced 18” which puts some pressure elsewhere
Oct. 10, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top