Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eh! Never been to TGRs, but I hear that, if you're a fish with a Bentley, they'd rather play on.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Duplicate post
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume you are re-dealing if the board were thrown in for that to make any sense… (not something I've normally bothered with).

Anyway, I'd rather have the pre-empts over bidding a boring looking 11 count in 4th seat just to steal from opps who may not get the cards on a re-deal anyway.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whenever I've played “Chicago” I've done it with duplicate players - and scored each hand duplicate style. However, I think that is wrong technically (though you can do as you please, of course, if the game is informal)
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dealer NV on the 2nd and 3rd deals gives more scope for pre-empts.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…and there definitely seem to be posters in this thread who favor legalizing everything”

I don't think you should legalize everything. It is, however, a pity that the ACBL should be, to my eyes at any rate, overly paternalistic and conservative.

Clearly there is a case for competitions with less than 7 boards per round and catering for less than truly expert+ standard players, restricting exotica (however you define it). But equally there is a case for pro-actively (rather than reactively and a decade or more after the fact if at all), looking at innovations around the world and adopting the more common ones into play of a standard where most are at least intermediate+. If you don't do that you're shutting the door on exposing your talent pool to the sorts of things they can and will encounter at they move along.
March 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Focus on “constructive” and “destructive” is a red herring.

Example: T-Walsh most certainly has no intention to be destructive and, since the commonest sequence (1-1) replaces 1-1, you have all the defensive options you had in the first place, so it cannot possibly be construed as difficult to defend. It isn't even as if you're not used to transfers already (over 1&2NT).

I could argue that the primary purpose of the multi 2 is less destructive than standard weak twos - but most folk will get bored and not read it.

Yes, at first, while people get used to it, it may cause some variance for all sorts of reasons (as often to do with system forgets as it has with any disadvantages to the other side), but this is not a particularly good reason for either allowing or disallowing any method - other than perhaps to keep it out of competition designed for beginners.
March 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Buses have a tendency to travel in pairs for a good reason. The bus companies don't plan it, quite the reverse. What happens is that the bus in front stops to pick up and set down passengers. The bus behind sometimes finds nothing to do, so goes past all the stops unhindered. Eventually it catches up.
March 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The trouble with this (even if you agree with the principle) is just where do you put the limits. Any good player is familiar with lots of conventions and continuations and treatments. Legislating for exactly which ones are allowed and which ones are banned for any and all rounds of the auction is a nightmare. There are literally millions and millions of possible bidding sequences.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite why ACBL is soooooo conservative with regard to bidding methods deemed to be unusual is a mystery.

One can debate the merits or otherwise of the multi 2, but to make T-Walsh (transfer responses to a 1 opener) illegal is just plain short sighted. This is a method which is clearly superior to the usual alternatives and is not in the slightest bit difficult to defend in a reasonably sensible fashion.

If the complaint is that North American pairs are at a disadvantage in major events because of this (and I would be surprised if it made any difference to the top pairs in reality), then the fix is within your own borders.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never played this method so have no practical experience to input. However, I also suspect that 2NT is a naff contract a lot of the time and that, if you're going to stop short of game, 3m is just as reasonable a spot even at MPs. Of course you can come up with plenty of example layouts where this is not true, but this is just a hunch about average prospects.
March 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Put it this way, if I were playing a weak NT in 4th seat with the agreement that this is really a reasonable 12 to a bad 15, then I'd be happy enough to open this 1NT. However, with a more normal 12-14 agreement, I'd be worried that this hand is too strong for that.

So… playing a standard strong NT I have to conclude this hand is worth the upgrade.
Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction on the 2nd one is a little implausible. As John points out, it appears that partner passed a hand that surely must contain 12hcp at least. So presumably it must be very trashy looking.

When dummy looks for a major and opener denies, a short major lead is sometimes the most productive as often partner has 4 of even more sitting over dummy, In this case, 5 is unlikely as partner passed his/her 12 count. So I might often have pulled out a heart - I'm not so sure here though.

A minor is possible, but you're leading into a declarer that has at least 7 minor cards and likely 8 of them. A spade, well, could be the safest lead - but equally it could expose partner's Qx(x) holding. Who knows.

Personally I think I go back to heart - but anything could be right or wrong.

No time to think about hand 1 just now. Got to fly.
Feb. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Andrew was looking more for general advice or insight into the thought process as opposed to being specifically interested in the exact answers to these hands.
Feb. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally speaking, I would find yet further restrictions on bidding agreements to be alienating. Nor do I run into objections to complex agreements coming from the average player. They are mainly voiced by two camps in my experience: a) expert level players who think it is probably alienating to be too complex (even though they have heaps of agreements with their more regular partners to the extent they think all sort of things are “standard” for which many of us haven't even thought about let alone discussed) and b) those who are frankly out of their depth and need something to hobble their opponents, to whom they will lose in the long run anyhow.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It isn't a conspiracy theory as such. Absent an impartial investigation, it is the sort of thing that fits the known facts
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Graft, in English English in this context would most likely be taken to mean hard work. The Americans have other ideas about how to speak English.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt very much that there is an appreciable difference in most areas with respect to the safety of going out at night in North America compared to Western Europe.

While I have no official figures, I am as sure as I can be that the average age of players is rising in England and certainly in my area the afternoon games are becoming more popular (and indeed have outstripped the popularity of evening games in some places). This is as much due to the fact that older people won't have to drive in the dark and are less likely to face freezing winter conditions as it has to do with anything.

Also the younger players are more keen on tournaments, using dealing machines and all that. Older people mostly just want to get out of the house to meet their friends and have ‘a nice game of cards’ and are put off by things that they perceive as less enjoyable (like what they perceive as weird distributional hands from machines and “director, I want to reserve my rights coz righty paused for 1.5 seconds”).

Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've used inverted majors over a diamond and 1-1-1 shows three card support (over a regular diamond opening) with 1-1-1NT showing 4 hearts. It seemed to work OK.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people (not many) play diamonds must be 5 (which the card does not appear to cater for) and therefore clubs can be one.
Feb. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top