Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Holmes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love how awful the GCC is. While “#2 ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round; cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.” was apparently amended to kill Breakthrough Club, the term “guarantee” is brilliant for allowing you to cheat your way past it… just make 1NT be “any invite+ hand OR the specific hand 432 432 432 5432”. No longer guarantees game invitational or better values!
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't answer this without knowing what relationship I have with whom I'm facing. There are certain people for whom I'd treat this as a legitimate claim. But given the director call, I guess I have to assume the claimer was not one of these…
April 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting issue with the knockout tournaments they're running:

“If the stage finishes before you've finished playing, the following happens: If you're in the middle of bidding or haven't started a board you'll receive 40% for the board. If you're in the middle of playing the hand, it is finished for you using a double dummy solver and you're scored based on this result.”

So I get to the last board of a round, and I have a two-way guess to make my contract… I just stop and let the double-dummy solver figure it out?
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The incredibly beneficial experience that feels like “being in the bar with a world-class player talking just to you after an event” continues… why you're so generous, Kit, as to do this for all of our benefit, I have no idea.
Nov. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://planetultramarathon.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/the-history-of-the-6-day-race/

Half-way down the page, there's a reference to a Tom O'Reilly, which is almost certainly Tom O'Reilly-Pol http://bridgewinners.com/profile/tom-oreilly-pol/ :)
Oct. 26, 2014
Paul Holmes edited this comment Oct. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would 2 (transferring to clubs) then 3NT have meant for you?
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were Kerri, I would be ecstatic to win again in 2050 :)
Oct. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, so who let's start a competition (at which I know I will be beaten): I played against Adam at the 2006 Spring NABC in Dallas. Don't remember exactly which session, but it was some pairs game. Here's a results sheet with us both on it from that tournament.

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2006/01/results/April9.html

All I remember from the round we played against him was Adam yelling at his Dad. I inferred from this, perhaps incorrectly, that this was a frequent occurrence. (May I note that, having been 25 at the time, I managed to avoid saying “it's so great to see young people playing bridge”… I have since said it in jest to a couple of youth players, just for the laugh… I dread the time when I say it and it's not clear it's for comedic value.)

Okay, so the competition: who played against Adam earlier than I did?
Sept. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zero tolerance PP for unsolicited advice. :)
July 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe East is ultra-ethical, and manages to say the same thing at every trick one when s/he is third to play? It seems like there's not nearly enough information to form a positive or negative opinion of East's actions.
Nov. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're looking for 3NT as something like “8 or 8.5 tricks in an undisclosed major”? I assume this would include some non-solid major openings, like

KQJ106532 A6 5 86

I don't see anything in the General Chart or Mid-Chart that would allow that. It's not solid, so not allowed under the clause Hendrik mentions, as I interpret it. Seems ridiculous, but welcome to the ACBL.
Oct. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure when they became “NABC”s, maybe that was in 1996 hence the dearth of pre-1996 info.

For info on previous Spring Nationals, Summer Nationals, and Fall Championships, maybe check the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge?
Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all, I really appreciate the feedback!
Aug. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was 2013 Fast Pairs, 1st final, board 18:
http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2013/02/hand-records/1308003-08-09-1000-13539-Mast.pdf
Aug. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner shouldn't have a “light shapely double”, since he had 1NT available to show that. Double here ought to be “full-strength”.
Aug. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The majority are voting for (Pass), which surprised me; I guess I must be misunderstanding this sequence. To me, I thought bidding 1 showed only spade preference (between diamonds and spades), and did not show any values. With no preference, I would pass.

Then partner can't act in front of me - for all partner knows, I could have a 4=3=3=3 zero-count. (Not after East's pass, mind, but partner can't know East is passing.) 2 now seems pretty clear; it sounds like there are about 15 tricks in /, and it seems like being doubled in 2 is unlikely.

Please let me know where I'm going wrong.
Aug. 18, 2013
Paul Holmes edited this comment Aug. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we can all agree this would be a terrible meaning for 2NT. My guess is that this is NOT their agreement, that opener had a brain-fart, and now the question is “how would opener have interpreted 3 if his partner hadn't glared at him until he realized 3 was a transfer to spades?” This seems more likely than the parlay of “they actually play this silly agreement” and “they genuinely can't agree on what 3 would mean in this sequence, given that they play this agreement”, doesn't it?

Of course, I've been wrong about the intent of questions before. :)
Aug. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Early in the second round of the qualifying day of the Fast Pairs in Atlanta (a GCC event), we arrived at a table and were pre-alerted that they were playing transfers over 1C. I responded “No, you're not, that's not GCC-legal”. They called the director, and wouldn't believe her when she said I was right. Didn't come up against us.

(1) How on earth did this pair manage to get through 1+ sessions in a national event, 17 pre-alerts, before, someone called them on their illegal methods?

(2) I'm fairly sure this was the pair that was leading after 2 sessions (Jurek Czyzowicz and Dan Jacob). Apologies if I am wrong. So maybe there's something to transfers over 1C being a useful convention. (Last comment is tongue-in-cheek, of course.)
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL Tech Files, distributed with ACBLscore, is a good place too look:

"ALERTS.103 (Page 9)



1C-P-1S-Dbl-Rdbl
If redouble shows three-card spade support rather than a good hand, an Alert is required.



NOTE: A Support Double (or Redouble) showing three-card support for partner's bid suit requires an Alert. The four-card support raise or bids that tend to deny three-card support are not alertable."
July 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 doesn't look like a good choice, but East can bid whatever s/he wants. East has no UI.

West needs to figure out what 3 would have meant if 1NT had been correctly interpreted and explained, and North had still bid 2, meaning whatever it would have meant over 1NT (=+). This is a tough situation, since 2 by North probably has a conventional meaning (cuebid… unusual over unusual?) in the auction that West is obliged to suppose… the fact that 2 is “hearts” looks like UI for West.

May 28, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top