Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. There is a place that “could be” used, but there is no specific questions. There were too many instances then people forget to put that information. Better to ask before declarer play started just to make sure.
March 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure if it is easy to detect in CC if codded 10's and 9's used. Is there any special check-box in ACBL CC to indicate it?
I believe it is completely OK for declarer to look at CC for information he could easily see there and ask vocally for other related information.
And, by the way, I don't think declarer is expected to think before move 1 what information he will need in this particular board. Just collect all that could be useful, than start to think about play of this board.
March 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Imps, vulnerable against not. With 8 points, no easy-to-develop suits, passed partner and no clear agreements about possible continuations I decided to enter the bidding after weak no trump opening from the opps… Urgh… Looks like beginning of nightmare. :)
In the nightmare, I would bid 2 and we end up … and we end up… No, probably we will never end up. Bidding will go on and on until alarm clock starts to ring.

If I am sure I am awake I would most probably pass. I don’t think 2 will be story of success but there is no double. I will accept my fault for -300.
If opps will double 2, I'll run to 2.
March 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Minus 90 is better then minus 100. :)
March 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good problem.
1. Pass or bid?
2. If bid, what to bid?

I don’t like my 4 choice, but
- Vulnerable, with partner who was pre-empted, with shortness in opponent’s suit, good own suit and reasonable help if partner has any major. I know I could feel sorry about it, but I’ll take the risk;
- If I would bid double I’ll lose diamonds. Double put much stress on the majors. Partner certainly will bid his major and I’ll pass. There are many problems with that scenario. If partner’s hand is relatively weak there is a huge risk to get doubled, especially if East has opposition in trumps. Even if partner has decent hand with 4-4 in majors, he could choose . After expected bad break, that contract on 4-3 could be very far from success.
- 4 bid looks safer. Quality of my trump make trump opposition less probable. If partner has a relatively weak hand, it will be much harder for East to double partial without any honours in trumps. On the first glance hard to see what I win by bidding not-game contract, but that bid not forcing partner to pass. 4 is a, kind of, “do something smart” bid. Majority of my partners will not pass it (in IMPs) if they have decent hand and a biddable major.
March 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe question is way too common.
I see at least three different kinds of situation with possible violation of partnership agreements with different answers:
1. “Bluffs”. They are never part of partnership agreements and _if_ in certain situations I feel psyche is a way to achieve better result I will do it. There are could be some ethical considerations, but with regular partners, I usually feel that system bid gives me better chances than bluff. With picked up partner chances to get good score by “normal” bidding smaller and psyches became more attractive and more legal at the same time.
2. “Table feels.” System required me to make certain bid but my guts tell me that I should do something else. Partner made “support suit invitation”, I do have support, but somehow I felt that everything is bad for us…should I accept? Partner asked me about aces and, after honest reply, we are too high…should I “miscount”? I don't know. If my feeling deceived me and breaking partnership discipline will cause us a bad result it will be a shame. Unless tournament situation is critical and I am ready to accept full responsibility for result I’ll follow system. I do keep track of situation like that. My guts are right in about 50% of cases. My “table feel” is not good enough to give us advantage on a long run. Accept the critical cases I would prefer to stick the system.
3. “System deviations”. Simplified example. Partner open 1, according agreements my system reply is 1, but structure of my hand advised to hide spade and bid NT first. With the regular partner it is not even deviation, it more like exception. It could cause some problem later if we are playing against lowers (partner not going to alert my bid because he is not expecting any deviations, but will accept that this is one of the possible hand for my bid. Director! Misinformation!) I believe this kind of deviation from partnership agreements with semi-regular partners are OK – it is just a way to make system better.
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't like my 2 bid, but if you forced me to do it, I have to pass now or I will lose my partner.
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The problem is the complaints beginning with the OP and the follow-ups by others are self-contradictory.”

Hi Mike,
I do not think there are any self-contradictions.
Problem is in different definitions. In your world (and ACBL world of course), masterpoints and titles are only marketing tools to force grandmothers to p(l)ay. In this world, all titles should be as much as possible functions of money spent; and other dependencies should be minimized. Dependence between skill level and masterpoints cannot be completely eliminated because it makes the product meaningless, but this dependence should be minimized, stay as much as possible only as an advertisement. That is why on the very top level masterpoint system seems working fine. It is just an advertisement.
Other people would like to treat earned titles as reflection of achievements and would like to see some respect to those achievements. In those definitions, nobble titles for beginners are nonsense. In order to earn titles player should get mature. At first, he (or she) should stop to use privileges of beginners and then try to get some master of title. Nobody wants to force grandmas to play in open events. Grandma could play in beginners’ pool by beginners’ rule as much as she want, but if she think she deserve to have a title she supposed to join the mature players and play by bridge rules. Otherwise there is no respect for title.
There is no self-contradictions in that logic. There are contradiction between this logic and ACBL commercial interests.

“I really don't see what the problem is as long as those who want to play up have the opportunities to do so.”

Problem is following - people who are not good enough to be on the very top level have absolutely no reasons to play often inside ACBL. I don’t need to waste my time and money for title if title I can earn is not respected. Yes, I love the game and sometimes would like to participate in big tournaments to play against the best, but that is it. Middle ages people are minority in ACBL land compare to grandmas but we are supposed to be a link to the new generation. Some people make extraordinary efforts to connect new generation to bridge but they will have only local success if natural link between generations is broken.
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, thanks for advice :)
How would you bid this hand without masterminding?
Feb. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Tom,
Don't worry, he got his fare share of boards to declare ;) (Checked, probably not to fare. He declared only 4 times and I declared 6 times and 15 times we end as defenders). By the way, I open 1nt with 5332 and 5 card majors with any partner. 13 points was overbid of course, but I need to do something to keep our result above 50% :)
Feb. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jim.
On this stage is the only lesson I want him to learn “bridge is game, bridge is fun.” All other lessons became due only after this one will be accepted. Accidentaly, in this particular board he got the second lesson - about importance of partnership trust. I did apologies for not trusting. It is not important for him to know on this stage that nobody will stay double with my hands, but very important to know that partnership damned to lose if there is no complete trust between them.

By the way, out of curiousity, which bid did you regard as “does not resemble bridge”? ;)
How would you bid (under current conditions, of course)?
Feb. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it is exactly there question of trust come from. I should believe he would not double unless he has a DOUBLE!
Partner had:
QJ109x
A
xx
Q1098x

5 doubled was not a success. Spade to the Ace, Ace of trump, trump and down 3. 4 doubled would be much more fun for us.
I don’t think there is any moral in this story, just found it funny.
Feb. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really? No players' history, no questions asked and we are ready to jump into conclusion, adjust scores in give penalty? Oh God…
There are could be several completely legitimate reasons for West to pass 3. Some of these reasons could be wrong in a bridge sense, but “well-established partnership and experienced players” do not necessary indicate good players. In additions it is possible that West made some correct conclusions from opponents tempo/questions or something like that. It is perfectly permitted by bridge rules.
Feb. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean what situation than player has no even theoretical chanses to get prize is more attractable compare with situation than player knows if he will play better he could have a prize?
Or I misreading something?
Nov. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I don’t believe that “bidding v. declarer play” teaching has anything to do with attracting new players. There are a very small number of young players who start to play in ACBL tournaments by the very simple reason - there is absolutely nothing they can get by wasting their time and money playing bridge.
We are fishing in a lake with almost no fish; changing bait is not going to help us.
Nov. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://chessbomb.com/ Live vugraph with computer analysis.
My favorite is http://www.chesspro.ru/, but sometimes they make commentary only in Russian (sometimes both English and Russian.) There is “Live” button on the top right corner to see the game live.
Nov. 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 Michael Kopera:
I believe Chuck means something along this lines:
For example.
Opponent opened multi and I hold “takeout of spades” hand. I choose options 1 and bid double to describe my cards.
The next round.
Opponent opened multi and I hold “balanced 13-15” hand. I choose options 2 and bid double to describe my cards.
The next round.
Opponent opened multi and I hold natural diamonds. I deny to use any of suggested options and bid double to naturaly describe my cards.

I was able to modify my system after I saw my cards to better suits the current holding.
Sept. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Yehudit,
Sure it is ACBL policy, but policies usually created for certain reasons, and, by mine experience, advertised reasons of policy, not always are real reasons. Being I cynic person, if I see the policy that help an organization to save a noticeable amount of money, I don’t feel necessary to carefully study arguments they used to sell that policy to public.
I never suggest anything improper. Situation is very simple. From organizational point of view it is make a perfect sense instead of wasting money by giving them to winners use saved amounts for more important projects, like “Understand why people choose to leave ACBL and identify ways the ACBL can best retain our Members.” (project name copied from ACBL site. ).

Hi Michael,
I absolutely agree that it is impossible in bridge to give 70% of entry fees as prizes and keep the current level of convenience (supply, TD's and freebies). But I still believe that ACBL could afford to use some % of entry fee as prizes.
Aug. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just looked at chess tournament advertisement, for example: http://www.chesstour.com/po13.htm
If I am not mistaken (they have a complicated entry fee policy, depends on players level and on when entry fee paid) average entry fee for main event is $225 for 5 day’s tournament, what is not far away from NABC entry fees. ($20 *2 session per day * 5 day = $200).
Prizes are “$75,000 based on 480 paid entries.”
If I am not mistaken 480 paid entries = $108,000 it means almost 70% of collected entries are goes to prizes.
Looks good, but there is a detail in advertisement that probably explains how they managed to save so much money for prizes: “Bring sets, boards, clocks if possible- none supplied.”
Aug. 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Michael,
I believe we discussed mine board already. On the same board LHO open 1 precision with 1 point in a 1st sit and RHO bid 2, alerted and explained as 5+, 4+ and 6-9 points with completely different hand. Director said “It is just bridge.”
But this is not an issue I would like to discuss. (And director's reply on my question I don't want to discuss now too.)
Issue, as I feel is - I did nor fill out recorder's form. I mean if somewhere documented that player X once “bluff or forget” artificial bid, it will be harder to believe that his second “bluff or forget” is accidental.
Aug. 27, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top