Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it hard to imagine pulling 4 to 4N to play. Equally I find it hard to imagine partner's 4 making my hand slammy and, if it did, I can't imagine torturing partner with 4N. Hence I abstain.
Oct. 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And 6-7 too, in which case hearts will probably be better
Oct. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Movements is something you typically do when you know bums in seats, it should not be required to start the event

Of course. I can, however, make the comment that a lot of clubs in the UK (and I assume everywhere else) tend to use the same movement/number of boards over and over again once the number of bums is known (though other clubs may make different movement choices). Therefore one can and should default this based on past history - maybe with a “configuration options” override if there is one session (or particular director) that ignores the majority, usual choice.
Oct. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing I might add in (semi) support of some of the more - er - reactionary elements, yes, supporting multiple operating systems (windows, mac, Linux etc.) is more of pain than some realise. However, making apps browser based is the supposed modern panacea that comes with its own problems. New apps have to be tested on multiple browsers and they don't necessarily support older versions of said browsers (which get upgraded faster than the proverbial pair of knickers). New features added to the apps have to be backwardly compatible with all the old browsers that you used to support and so on. It has its own nightmares.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“And what is so special about SQL? As a director, I'm glad that I can copy the game files and move them from computer to computer. I don't disagree that perhaps ACBL wanted to keep all the data secret, but that's just paranoia. Some of the information is better off secret. But text files, when appropriate, can help both the programmer and the user.”

Just because the app natively stores its data in an SQL database, does not preclude interfaces to other components being in terms of text files or XML files or whatever you need/want to do. And while the task of, say, exporting the database so it can be readily imported onto another computer is almost certainly beyond the average user, there is no reason to say that the front end can't make that job much easier. (And though you obviously can copy files from one machine to another and not miss out necessary ones and not put them in the wrong directory etc, there is little reason to assume that the average user can do it - so that needs to be semi-automated as well).

And while I agree that the multi-user, multi-threading aspect that a decent relational database would help support is probably overkill in a typical club scenario, it almost certainly is not when it comes to big events where there are multiple sections to multiple tournaments with multiple directors all doing their stuff at the same time.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In partial defence of KnR, it is (generally) much better at evaluating hands for the purposes of play in a suit contract. So I am not surprised at the more quacky hand being better for 3NT. As far as a the 4S results are concerned, it seems to have missed the boat this time.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't. Not from ACBL territory. Plus, while I am very sympathetic to you and your predicament on that side of the pond, I sense that it would fall on deaf ears anyway. What I do sense is that something is completely lacking in the minds of those who matter. And while they are allowed to continue sailing the ship you will continue to drift towards the rocks - for the simple reason that, whatever it exactly is that is lacking in those minds, the upshot is that they cannot see.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is like taking your horse drawn carriage and adding a 50cc engine with no gears. Then maybe later you add some drum brakes. Then maybe later you do some other bit.

Or maybe you take some more ambitious steps - but you still leave the passengers travelling without a roof. It still looks ancient and basically still is ancient - just maybe, if you're lucky, re-written in a language that is still supported and has a compiler, but still doesn't support multi threading, multi user blah blah modern features.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure what refactoring would necessarily do to what I see as the core problem here, i.e. that you have a centrally built, centrally controlled, monolithic, ancient charabanc.

What is wrong with someone defining some independent components and their data requirements? Then the pieces could be assembled relatively at leisure… Oh, um, but that would destroy central control, wouldn't it?!! Oh dear.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eh. Probably quite a few more than one might think - but still a tiny number.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With that hand, personally, I would still have either passed or bid 1NT and, though 5red would have been less of a mess, 4 the other way still looks off to me.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, East's 3NT is a reasonable gamble with a probably running suit. And XX, from the same player, expressing doubt without running elsewhere, seems perfect to me.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP asks would you open and why. My answer is why not? I can't think of a reason why this is really at all close. Heck, I've been playing Blue Club with one p lately - which is really quite an old system these days with what were arguably some modern features, but it is essentially very conservative (more so than the way most are playing 2/1). But I suggest that it would be quite a clear 1 (canapé) opener even in that system.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the previous comments, i.e. you really need a concrete example to work with.

A potential concrete example exists with the Europeans. What they did was 36 teams split into 2 sections playing RR. The top 9 then went forward to play the other top 9 from the other group. So, they basically did a slightly reduced full RR. Now, in the Europeans they need 1) a winner and runner up of the event naturally, but they also need the top 6 to qualify for the world stuff. According to the theory proposed in the OP this should be a good way of finding the top 6, but is potentially dodgy for finding the winner. How would you improve it? (And can you prove it)
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really don't like these 4333 t.o. doubles - not with xxx and QJx is worse still. Yes 5 is a bit ott especially when p quite likely holds Hxxx, but I can't get past seeing what I think is a really yuck take out double in the first place.
Oct. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't understand what the discussion is here. Responder's X shows 4 hearts, you've agreed support doubles, 2 of responder's major has not been passed. Therefore opener's X shows 3 hearts. What is there to discuss?
Oct. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where I play, I'd probably lead the A unless we'd agreed K for count in which case I may well do that.
Oct. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've played precision and blue club over the years. Also a lot of Acol, of course, due to where I come from. Also something not exactly “standard”, but certainly a lot closer to it than Acol.

IMO, Acol, though scoffed at by many, is actually quite a reasonable system for match points, but leaves a lot to be desired if you're playing IMPs. Standard seems to me fair in both MPs and IMPs but not really excel at either - with the 2/1 variant aimed more at IMPs. The strong club systems seem to me to be inherently IMP systems (despite the supposed match pointed oriented versions of some that have been seen). I haven't seen strong diamond and forcing pass systems in action, but I'd put them in the same category as strong club systems.
Oct. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite this hand being ‘only’ 7hcp and relatively flat, it was, before the XX, as close to a limit raise as it was to a simple 2 bid. Now that we've heard the XX, we have to think this is a good hand - hence 3 is well in order.
Oct. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Caveat - not sure about anything being standard on this auction - can't remember discussing it or seeing it discussed anywhere.

IMO your XX shows a desire to defend when they pull it, rather than press on constructively (you could have bid 3 for example). Nor does it suggest a desire simply to compete (you didn't bid 3 which would have suggested you're a minimumish opener with 6 hearts.) So it shows a hand with certainly at least a sound values (not the speculative rubbish some people open in 4th seat) and probably 4 cards in at least one of their suits.

However, it can't have set up a forcing pass situation as you've only shown an opening hand and partner has only made a weak raise. You're not even quite guaranteed to have half the deck. So pass merely allows opener the opportunity to double if so desired and denies the ability to wield the axe immediately.

In that context, presumably, 3 has to be weak as it stops partner from doubling and pass then pull has to be stronger - so it has some similarity with a forcing situation

Edit some minutes later - not sure that last paragraph makes sense having thought about it!
Oct. 8, 2014
Nick Warren edited this comment Oct. 8, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top