Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One way is to have some simple agreement with your partner. For example double an artificial bid always show that suit. Against transfer bid, you used this principle and could add cuebid their suit is take out in other two suits. Then you could play the same agreement over suction. You might need some more complicated agreement against Polish 1 and multi but that's homework. You could also have some general agreement against bids that shows two suiters. There is no guarantee that every time you could get a right counter measure. Just like in chess “surprise move” could help to win some games. But this is what help to develop the game and make it more interesting. After all both chess and bridge are intellectual games.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see bridge is much different from chess in this aspect. In chess, time is more important. If you encounter an unfamiliar opening you have to spend time to think about best move. However this gives chess players the incentive to study opening and do their homework.

If a bridge partnership want to compete at highest level, they need to do their homework and have some basic understanding about their bidding as well. Blame opponent is not the right solution.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, I take a different point of view on this. The reason US players are not familiar with them is because they are banned here. If there is no restrictions, US players would have been exposed to these “different methods” early and not having a disadvantage to face them ONLY at NABC.

Bridge is a global game now. If you play on BBO you could face all kinds of system. HUM is not fool proof. Just like in chess playing an unusual opening does not guarantee a win. To counter an unusual open, player just have to play based on sound principles like control center and develop quickly. As long as you make sound bidding and play, strong players will come ahead eventually.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,

In file NAP-A-B-entrants.ods Flight B tab seemed to have a lot of A players (maybe all).

Ping
March 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,

Could you provide me the data files you used to do your analysis/making your list?

Ping
March 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
New York is the state with the best chess program for kids. There is a very good video called Brooklyn Castle. It is about chess program in middle school. We need something like that for bridge.
Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, my son started to play chess from 2006 or 2007. We are in Chicago area. I think online entry just started around that time but pairing were still all in paper posted online. You live in west coast where it might adapt technologies faster. The experience about crowd was from one early Illinois state championship tournament. It got improved very quickly after iPhone came out. I think after 2009 most of the tournaments at national and state level all have pairing online at real time. By the way, chess is little different from bridge. The local organizer has more controls. So you probably could have online pairing if the local organizer adapted it early. However I think they did a good job in adapting new technologies and it spread out very quickly.
Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is more about leadership's ability to adapt than culture. When my son started to play chess tournament 8 years ago, it was in the same state as bridge today. You have to buy entry at the door. It took a long time to get first round started because TD needs to do pairing by putting all information into computer. Then pairing was printed out and posted on the wall. In a state tournament where 200-300 kids in play, you have all the kids running around, trying to find their pairing and find the table. As internet developed and handheld device becomes popular, chess organizers started to make everything online. You could get an entry online, pay up front and get a discount on entry fee. They even post the pairing during the game so players could get their next round pairing using their handheld device in waiting room. No more problem with crowded waiting for next round assignment. We still have this problem in national Swiss team when it has hundred of teams in play. These changes also benefit the organizers and allowed them to know how many players would show up and better prepared. It is a win-win for every one.
Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a way to look up a player's name and find his masterpoints from Chris Champion's Power Rating website. However not all players are included.
Feb. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recently found a new feature in ACBL partnership desk. When you click on a player's name, it shows the player's total master points, the breakdown of points by color and the ribbon qualifications. So ACBL should be able to do this for all players.
Feb. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This tells the need to register the entry online before the game starts. If we are selling entries online and player enter they name and ACBL number like BW did for some NABC event, the scoring program could automatically read them and create brackets. We could start every event on time.
Feb. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just bid 1 to show balanced GF as if there was no interference.
Feb. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'System on' just meant the bid has the same meaning as if there is no interference. I play transfer after strong 1 open. So 1 - 1 shows without interference. 1 (1) 1 still show with interference.
Feb. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my current Precision we play “system on” for overcall up to 1. So first pass by responder would show 0-7. The opener pass of 2 should show a balanced minimum of 17-19. With your hand like that it is clear opponents had at least an 8 card fit in . Pass before they find it!
Feb. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks to me this is a lot of changes for average SA or 2/1 players. If I want to make these changes I'd rather play a better system like Precision so I avoid these problem altogether (I DO like to play Precision).

For average SA and 2/1 players I suggest a simple fix. The problem you described is before there are two bids 1 and 1 that do not guarantee length.

The simple fix is just making one of them ambiguous.
Let's make 1 guarantee 4+ and denies 4 card majors. Everything else start with 1. Now the responder also makes an adjustment that any direct 1M after 1 and 1 shows 5+. Since opener could only have 4 card major with 1 open, responder with only 4 card major could bid 1 to ask opener to show 4 card major. All these are within GCC and the change is minimum.
Feb. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think ACBL needs a CTO in charge of long term technology related issues. One committee lasted for a couple years is not going to solve the problem. Putting the critical decision on CEO certainly has not worked.
Feb. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After you fill the top 3/4 seats, let's say you fill the rest randomly. There is a chance several weak pairs could sit in the same section in the same direction. Let's say they all scored 30%. This does not affect on pairs in th same direction. However it affects players in opposite directions. The paies in the same section would have an advantage over other sections because they received these gifts. So the how these weak pairs sit is just as important as the strong pairs.
Feb. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would suggest 1 denies 4 card major, but 1 does not guarantee it. So after 1, responder 1M shows 5 card major.

After 1, 1 is 1 round forcing to ask opener show his major, direct 1M shows 5 card major.
Feb. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play this way with a twist. 1 guarantees unbalanced hand. I prefer Polish Club 2, 2 and 2 but it needs Mid Chart.
Feb. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I had one such case in NAP district final a few years ago. There were 14 tables. One pair were very weak and just played one session of 30%, did not play 2nd (final) session. I was in the opposite direction and was the only pair who did not play against this pair. Even we had 2nd best in our section, it was low compare with other top scores and we did not make up that deficit in the final session.
Feb. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top