Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it depends quite a lot on what exactly 1m actually is. Some people, for example, play that 1 is frequently a weak NT and 1 is usually unbalanced. WJS over the former makes some sense, less so over the latter.
May 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've played it and (often, not always) found counting easier.
May 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That does, however, depend on your habits about opening 1NT with 5M332 shape, especially 2=5=3=3. Weak no trumpers in particular have been slow to adopt opening 1NT with that shape.

(But I appreciate your original point)
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In which case, I abstain. I think the organisers of tournaments that may attract people from a long way away should try making an online alternative version. People will vote with their feet. If it proves popular (on whatever grounds, be it sheer $£$ cost or green considerations or time etc.), then it will become the norm. If not it will die a death because too many like f2f bridge.
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, but your opening post says “all” bridge tournaments. It didn't say, “Internationals only” or words to that effect.
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried playing online once. Didn't like it, haven't tried it again and being told I have to because it is the only green option would just make me feel resentful. I don't fly to any events.
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play many one winner movements these days. In the 3 clubs I've played at in recent years, two do not seed the Mitchells. The 3rd one doesn't seed either, but it does randomise i.e. the director/person collecting the table money asks the two pairs at the table to cut a deck to see who gets North/South. This latter method evens the N/S and E/W fields out over time (though not necessarily in any one session) and works quite well with minimum fuss.
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you use the one level transfer completion to show 3 card support and do not have a very strong opener, it is normal to show that support. It is usual to play this transfer completion as either forcing or some partnerships play it semi forcing (i.e. rarely passed for be nit pickers among us), so there is little likelihood of missing a spade fit. Furthermore, (depending on your exact agreements of course) it can be very difficult to show that support later without implying at least reversing strength.
April 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I was about to edit my comment!
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair AK xxxx AKJ xxxx is a rare bird.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've abstained, I would not have guessed that declarer could hold either major suit king for the first round negative - but I would have clarified that at the table.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why, do you want her to be your partner?
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“I can not tell for sure but it seems to me from the literature that Lightner disasters are not so rare even at top level play”

I think Reese said Lightner doubles have cost more than they've gained.
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh well, one of these days I'll pick a hand to post that doesn't open a can of worms.

Anyway, the comments were interesting for me at least. Thnx.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, I'm not defending 4, I wasn't even playing the declaring side. I just thought it was an interesting combo to play. So, I reiterate the question Frances put to you.
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With one partner I play Blue Club. The 1, 1 and 1 openers are alertable under EBU rules because of their possible canapé nature. You wouldn't believe (or perhaps you would) the number of questions we repeatedly get about the sequences 1x-1NT-pass and 1x-1y-1NT-pass.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John, I somewhat sympathise with the match points argument and there will be hands that are helped by the approach you suggest. However, regardless of the merits of forcing versus not at particular forms of scoring, the thing which tips the balance in favour of forcing, for me, is that it is usually best to drop misfits as soon as possible.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were West, South would have had reason to ask as I've been known to play inverted majors over 1
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know. I wish it was clear what the law intended in the first place. I might then have an idea of how to improve them. As it is I don't really understand what is wanted. It is easy to say that you must not choose from alternatives that are suggested by the UI. Determining what is suggested or otherwise is a guessing game. Explaining and potentially justifying to someone else (i.e. the TD and other players) what you think is nothing but a source of argument and (very) bad feeling when they disagree (and they *do* disagree - witness this and other threads here and elsewhere on the net). Discharging this ethical duty in any sort of sensible time frame without the benefit of counsel is impossible.

What I do know is that I read these threads to try to better understand something I confusing and unclear in the first place and wind up even more confused.

And if I find it confusing, what do you think LOLs and beginners think!
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Maybe read Law 73C?

Many of us here have read the laws. We still don't agree amongst ourselves. Worse, many of us who are perfectly intelligent individuals, try to understand and follow them and still feel unable to know what is right.

The law sucks Ed. There is no getting around it.
April 15, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top