Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If only Ian H realized that…
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know how things work in the EBU

Under ACBL jurisdiction, I would suggest that IF you are making changes to your methods that are sufficiently gross that they would warrant adjusting your disclosure AND these changes are not happening during a round break, then these changes are not permitted.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> As I see it I write 9-17HCP is the range but what hands
> are opened depends on vulnerability and position

As I see it, if your agreements change significantly based on vulnerability and position, that you specifically disclose each of these combinations

It is certainly permissable for you to make significant changes to your methods based on the state of the match, however, this must happen at round breaks. And, if you make such a change then you should adjust your disclosure such that it is consistent with what you are currently playing.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ain't the wayback machine grand…

https://web.archive.org/web/20190609094130/http://bridgeguys.com/
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@marty

Would it be possible to get an ex cathedra version of your interpretation?

I consider this to be interesting / useful, however, a comment on BW is nowhere near as useful as an official document that I can present to a tournament chair.

Perhaps this could be added to the examples at the end of the Convention Charts or some such?
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then this is a great opportunity for them to learn how the game is supposed to be played at top level.

Once again, you shouldn't get to use the excuse “I'm inexperienced” to gain advantage at a game of skill.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“taking into account his level ”

FFS, this took place in a “World Open Championship”

Its fine to enter such an event if you are inexperienced, however, you don't get to use that as protection.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that he is talking about opener who has shown

5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs

Rather than

4 Diamond and 3 Spades
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is that, back before there was dirt, people would open 1 with this pattern if they lacked sufficient strength for a high reverse.

I haven't heard anyone seriously advocate this theory in a very long time…
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid 2 with the original hand and 2 with this
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its never struck me as odd…

its been perfectly obvious that the Committee is biased in favor of methods that they like to play and blatantly discriminates against others. Up until recently, there was neither rhyme nor reason to their decisions, just the naked exercise of power.

For example, transfer Walsh is near identical to MOSCITO type trassfer openings.

One was so benign that you didn't even need a suggested defense. The other is suggested defenses. Guess which one members of the committee liked to play.

Of course, what made this all particular offensive was the inherent dishonesty of the process, where committee members tried running me through a snipe hunt while Meckstroth had no intention of ever allowing these methods to be approved. (If Meckstroth hadn't been careless on a CC: this all would never have been quite so obvious)

FWIW, I consider the recent efforts to be a significant improvement over what went before.
Aug. 24
Richard Willey edited this comment Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Quite so.
> Do you consider that an adequate announcement at the table

Obviously not. What I describe is what I consider best for pedagogical purposes or disclosure in advance of long matches.

Some day, if/when convention cards get replaced by some kind of expert system the idea might have merit for at the table disclosure.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is actually a quite amusing question because there are a lot of different elements at play.

Look at the results of the pool. Almost the entire field is playing for the finesse. In turn, this means that if your goal is to increase your variance without harming your expected value - which is entirely reasonable in a pairs event in which there are big rewards to high scores and no corresponding cost to low scores - then the right strategy is to play for -1.

In turn, this means that playing for the finesse can't be the right strategy for the field.

Too jet lagged to work out the percentages, however, I suspect that this is one of those cases where you have a mixed strategy and you should randomly choose between taking the finesse and playing for down one using some optimal weighting scheme…
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A no trump range is best expressed as a statistically significant corpus of hands that are consistent with a 1NT opening.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> You're sitting at a table in your kitchen with some friends.
> After a long pause, your partner grabs 4♥, thinks for a
> second, then puts it back before switching to 3♥.
> Who cares if that person's partner bids 4♥ since
> they saw he was on the edge of bidding it anyway?

You're absolutely right… I don't care what four random people do in their kitchen.

However, if those four people are ever going to interact with a broader community of bridge players it would probably be useful if they understood the proprieties of the game of bridge.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> many of my beginner students are not ACBL members and
> don't play sanctioned. In that sense, there aren't any laws
> that they really HAVE to follow

The fact that you are not running a sanctioned game means that you are not obligated to follow the ACBL's rules. This is a far cry from claiming there are any laws that your players have to follow. I am concerned that you don't recognize the distinction.

From my own perspective, I think that there is a strong benefit from running your games in a manner that is consistent with the way that the local Zonal Organization operates. This ensures that your players won't have as much of a shock once they start playing bridge.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, at least, the more interesting question is why these events cost so damn much to run.

Perhaps it would be easier to get various NBOs to host these tournaments if the budgetary requirements weren't quite so large. Coupled with this, perhaps more of the costs for hosting the event should be born by the central organization rather than the local org.

For what its worth, I think that it is entirely reasonable that if participants decide that they don't want to compete in China/Turkey/where ever based on the politics of the host country. (I personally have made a decision that I am no longer willing to travel to China because I can't in good conscious make a decision to spend my money supporting a regime that has put millions of people into concentration camps). I think that it is even more reasonable for non Americans to decide that they are willing to boycott events in the United States based on Visa considerations / the behaviour of the current US government
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems inconsistent to be attacking control showing responses because

> you will constantly find yourself at the 3-level with no
> idea whether you have a fit and if so where it is

while lauding

> the cornerstone of RM Precision is the 1H response.
> The most common positive hand Responder will have
> is 8-11 HCP
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preferred strcuture uses

2N+ for various “weird” Game forcing hands
1 for double negatives
1 for most GF hands
The rest for semi positives (

This is for much that same reason that you describe…
Aug. 10
.

Bottom Home Top