Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am really curious if it was the same world class partnership who psyched against me. One by artificial 1 (precision) opening, second by artificial response on that opening. By the way, I did not filed out form for recorder. What about you?
Aug. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mine very typical conversation with relatives and friends.
- How did you do?
- We won 2 session Swiss.
- Congratulation! Could I see your prize?
- Err… They gave us certificate for one session entry fee and I used it the next day.
- You mean you traveled for 4 hours, paid entry fee for 2 sessions, won, and as a result got the right to play the next tournament for a half price?
- Yes.
- And what was the point of spending all these time, efforts and money?
- I just enjoy the game.
- Pity you are not enjoying something else there you can actually win stuff. Did you think about poker?
Aug. 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My favourite partner has a very solid style of pre-empting. I will not be too surprised to find him with the full opener hand after his pre-empt. Once I saw him pre-empting with a hand I would consider as a possible (15-17) 1NT opening! (I am not joking, he once opened 3 clubs holding something like:
s. xx
h. xx
d. Axx
c. AKQ10xx )

My other partner is a big believer in 2-3-4 rule.
With another guy we have discussed never pre-empt with H-x-x in other major.
With forth partner we have discussed to pre-empt very aggressively. Pre-emptive bids for us strictly deny outside Aces or Kings.
Sure if I will play with any of these 4 partner and opponents will ask me about our pre-empting style I will let them know whatever we discussed or know from experience.
If I am playing with somebody else I will reply “did not discuss”.
I will never reply “normal” because I have no ideas what world “normal” means.
Aug. 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If during the bidding your partner gave some explanation about your agreements that is different from actual agreements and you became a declarer, it is your duty to correct partner’s misexplanation before the lead.
For example, if you don’t have an agreement (explicit or implicit) about certain bridge situation and partner explained like you have some agreement (said something like “I expect her to have 3 hearts” in situation than his expectation based on his bidding understanding, but not on actual agreements), after bidding completed and you or your partner became declarer, you have to say something like “We did not discuss with partner if I have to hold 3 cards hearts support in that bidding.”
Of course I don’t know, but it is possible that your opps had problem with some of your partner’s explanation earlier in match and they decided to ask to give you opportunity to correct. I don’t know how legal is it, but honestly I don’t see much of the problem. If explanations much agreements I would just reply “My partner correctly explained our agreements.”
Aug. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a little confused here. Pass was game forcing originally or pass became GF after West confirmed by 3 that his 3 cue-bid was done with spades support?(sorry if this question was answered earlier, discussion became too long and easy to miss something.)
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This topic remind me two incidents I was involved.
In 2004 during the national in NY in the middle of the board I was asked the same question. I honestly reply that never saw partner passing my No Trump with 9 points. As at happened in that particular board partner did pass with 9 points. Opponent misguessed, became very agree, called me liar and asked TD. (TD was on top of situation. She had no problem with my explanation but had problem with his behavior.)

Another situation happened during some regional couple of years ago. I decided to experiment with high level pre-empt with 5 cards suit only. At some moment declarer (much more experienced compare to the opponent in first case) asked my partner if I could pre-empt with 5 cards suit. Partner replied something like “He should not”, then look at his own hand and added something like “but who knows, he could.” No surprise, declarer guessed distribution correctly. I know it will not work against players like Kit Woolsey, but for lesser players questions like that could be used to provoke readable reaction.
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure about parallel universe but in published ACBL case books, name of Bobby Levin mentioned (unless I am mistaken) in 14 cases. He won 4 times, lost 10 times.
Aug. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree in terms that we could not accept beneficial for hesitators bidding treatments unless they can prove their agreements. Not very probable, but I saw some people with almost 200 pages system notes; if they could bring their notes and show that agreement in the similar situation is written there …
As for difference between “encouraging” and “accepting” it is not always easy to describe agreement in complex situation by few words and without knowledge of future problems people could choose not the best explanation for future self-defense. Real agreement about pass could be something like (I have no actual information, just speculating) “We should play game if partner has spade support and should try to look for other possible game if he does not.”
Saying that if EW cannot prove they have an agreement like I stated before (and I am afraid it is the case) they are out of luck. 1 minute hesitation in that bidding is a bad thing.
Aug. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if 3 was invitational and East's pass accepted the invitation that they are in GF action and 3 is a slam invitational (better than direct 4). We need to know more about methods in use.
Aug. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About teams bracketing.
In St. Louse I played in the same team with my friend from Russia, who came to USA for a business (actually a science research) trip and took couple of day to play bridge. He is not any kind of bridge pro just a reasonable bridge player. Because he is not ACBL member and have no masterpoints I asked the head TD how many we should count for him for bracketed KO. Answer was 10000 (Ten thousands). I found it very useful to have non-acbl member in team in order to get into the good bracket. :)
June 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With my favorite partner we have explicable agreement for this vulnerability only that 1 major - (preempt) - 4 major creates forcing pass situation.
April 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Shan,
You well may be right. I know they play preemptive, but have no ideas what they have checked in their convention cards. I have no problem to believe they marked it wrong. I am sometimes not sure what is the correct box to check in ACBL convention card too. It looks easy, but simplicity sometimes is very deceptive. For example, speaking of checkbox for jump overcalls, I would prefer to have other options: forcing, constructive not forcing, preemptive, destructive, convention. It would give people opportunities to better describe their agreements. Probably (I don't know, just speculating now) my friend wanted to say that they preempting aggressively non-vul, but right in the middle (“not crazy”, as they said) if vul.

If they checked it wrong it can cause you think you got missinformed, but, if they said 3 was preempt it is what they play. I am sorry for miscommunication and bad feeling it caused, but bridgewise there were no MI (even if my friend could have a problem to prove it).
April 1, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top