Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ron Lel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the other hand, watching a top notch relay pair quickly relay their way to a good contract is very interesting to me. No doubt people like Marty would think I am joking. I am not.​
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Nigel. Watching certain players on vu graph was incredibly boring over the last two weeks. In some cases minutes before a card is played.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, this is ridiculous.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would definitely have this recorded. Was the director called?
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on the auction.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DS does this all the time. He invents interpretations to match his arguments.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, let us just say that you have an interesting moral compass when you seem to think it is ok for DS to call me a liar when I fairly and accurately quote him.

As an aside, also note the obfuscation when “replying” to Ed's request to point out the rule that requires the bidding side to even explain bids that have not been made.
July 26
Ron Lel edited this comment July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do not be disingenuous. What Ed is asking you to show is the law that says you need to explain bids and sequences that have not been made. Do not make up things.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, the law does not do so. David S frequently makes up things that are not correct.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, why don't you suggest that every table is given the contract and has to play it? That would make your game more enjoyable by dispensing with bidding entirely.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly David Burn.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Easy to backtrack David? Please explain how the quote is out of context. The link is there for anyone to see if they wish to. You could also ask why one version of 5 Card Major Stayman is called Puppet and another is called Muppet. Do you know why? Because hey are not the same. Why is the Mini Multi called by that name and not “Multi”? They are not the same, that is why. Yes, I am completely serious.
July 26
Ron Lel edited this comment July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, I am aware of systems regulations in a number of European countries - they relate primarily to the number of Brown Sticker conventions you can play. This number is limited. I doubt whether Sam's system would exceed any Brown Sticker quota or any complexity limit. Look at what he is playing - a big , weak NT, lobs and a catch all 1C. Hardly rocket Science.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It appears David has forgotten what he has posted.

Direct quotes from the site:
RL: “Answer my question, if I play 1nt 2c as asking for minors, is that still Stayman?”
DS: “Ron Lel Childish questions are pretty silly. Ok, if you take a convention and change it is still the convention.”

Here is the link
https://www.facebook.com/groups/526697871041023/
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“the convention charts committee also could revisit the issue of giving the directors discretion to prohibit a pair from playing any system that IN ITS TOTALITY is too complex for the opponents to grasp, even if each individual part is legal.”

Unbelievable! I knew US system regulations were draconian, but…………………….
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Edgar did you read Marty's post and my reply? “Candidly, unless you develop a written opening bid chart that's truly easy for the opponents to follow, I would change my view and support banning your system.” The system is legal under the current regulations or it is not. How can you change your mind if it is legal? This certainly looks like making things up as you go along to me.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Richard. Clear pass on the first hand - double is a poor call. Double on the second.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, they certainly are responsive to Alexander's points. The information is there and available to him to use. If he can't use it that is hardly the fault of the pair playing the system.
July 25
Ron Lel edited this comment July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like an interesting system Sam. Have fun.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry
These posts about names are the result of a debate on a thread in another forum. My question to David Stevenson was “If I play 1NT 2 as asking for minors, is this still Stayman?” His reply was “Ok, if you take a convention and change it it is still the convention”. I think any reasonable person would agree that 2 over pd's NT asking for minors is NOT Stayman.

My view is that 1N (2x) 3N showing a stopper is in fact reverse lebensohl and should be referred to as such. I am not the only person to state this.
July 25
.

Bottom Home Top