Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why exactly do I want to push my opponents to their non vulnerable game? Surely they will sacrifice, at this vulnerability, and will most likely make.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm….does the conversation then parallel the present day “controversy” regarding tablets instead of screens? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Soloway Jump Shifts. There are just too many methods – that take up less room, and communicate just as effectively – to convey the hand distribution and type. Besides, it takes away the really weak jump shift (0-6 HCP) that can be crucial to understanding partners hand.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“instantly pulled” by whom? The 3NT bidder or the 3NT bidder's partner. If it was the 3NT bidder, what makes you believe that it would not be pulled by his (obviously a woman wouldn't have had such a BIT ;) ) partner? I find it hard to believe that you would get to play this in 3NTX. It is going to be pulled by one or the other. In any event, what was the final result?
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't a raise to 3 merely the law of total tricks? Partner is not confused, since you did not bid 2 initially.
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, you need a bit more for slam here. I have learned, the hard way, that looking for too many magic cards (generally 3+) may be a losing preposition. Here, we do rank to have game and get an Ave + on the board. slam may be in the cards, but it is too risky. While it may lead to a top board, it is just as likely to lead to a bottom one. An easy Avg + is sometimes a good thing (okay p, see, I learned, I will take the easy 6NT and not go for the find the Q 7)
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that if there is a slam to be found, it would be in . The problem I have with the 3 bid is that it is too ambiguous. Have we settled on as trump and now I am cue bidding? If so, I have denied first round control (which really makes my hand slam orientated). Further, I don't have first or second round control. Assuming p does – he must if slam is in the cards – he is now puzzled what my 3 bids means. Am I bailing out of game? Is it a western cue asking for stopper? I anticipate p will respond 3NT with the stoppers, and we are no further along than before my 3 bid.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rescues seldom work….and they usually backfire horribly.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I took 2 as asking partner if he held 3 or 4s. His 2 response told me he held 3. His 1NT bid told me had 12-14 HCP. I will chance missing the 28 HCP slam and go right to game here.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partners' 3 bid asked me if I had a stopper in . I don't. I also want to convey that my are strong enough for game without support. 4 gets the point across and does not stop partner from inquiring further – but I don't anticipate he will with the weak 1, 2 bids.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partners' HCP obviously is not in . He knows the vulnerability too. So, I anticipate his limit raise is 10-11 HCP. What do I need for game? MP pass is a given. At IMP perhaps it is worth risking.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-1400 is character building. Since I did not overcall the 1 initially, I am feeling really confident that I did not overbid my hand. P can decide if he overbid bid his. Of course with the anticipated redouble, I will bid 4
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I passed because p's 1NT bid limited his hand to 12-14 HCP with 5. With 22-24 HCP we are more likely to score better in NT – and game is not in the cards.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4 over the 3 bid. P then understands I have good support and can decide whether the sacrifice is worth it.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why not reverse? Generally it is forcing 1 round. Perhaps p will now bid his 4c suit. 2 is selling out awfully cheap with this hand – even if p was a passed hand.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't like the idea that some folks, based on their “celebrity status” would be treated differently than others. If the purpose of punishment is to discourage repeat offenses by the offender and simulteanously inform the masses of potential consequences of their own actions, then full disclosure of all disciplinary actions would seem the wiser course. Indeed, I think folks can learn as much – if not more – from the discipline of joe six pack, who they are more akin to than from learning what happened at the upper echelon of the bridge world.

I don't think many, if any, folks would disagree with a cry for more transparency. At the same time, one must acknowledge that for the good of the organization sometimes transparency is not the be all and end all.

What I learned from the threads regarding MP (both of them) is that: 1) folks tend to jump to conclusions without considering the other side (I guess I have always known this, but I must admit that it continues to astound me each time I encounter it from rather sophisticated folks, e.g., bridge players ); and 2) folks tend to have an abject mistrust of the ACBL and its decisions. I really don't know why folks mistrust the ACBL. Might transparency alleviate some of the mistrust? Perhaps. However, the depth of the mistrust, the level of resentment/thoughts of ineptitude are far greater than one would anticipate seeing from members who are part of an organization. As a relatively new member of ACBL, I feel most comfortable questioning my representatives. I have yet to not get an answer to my queries. I trust that my representatives interest is in ensuring that good bridge is provided for and to me. I have not always been in lockstep with the answers to my queries, but I feel confident that my concerns have been heard, and passed on where necessary. What more could I ask from my ACBL reps? Further, I trust that the questions/inquiries are passed up the line and addressed. So, I guess, I just don't understand the cynicism. I don't think that transparency alone will address this seemingly deep-seated cynicism. But I am not sure what will.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An apology is an acknowledgment of an offense or failure. Here, you seem content to pass the whole thing off on the ACBL publication (which, to my reading did not say that Mike cheated). It seems you still refuse to acknowledge that you grotesquely jumped off the ledge, whatever the impetus. And, to me, that is no apology at all. But then again, you don't owe the apology to me, maybe Mike is fine with you passing the buck.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did not know that etiquette required one to play with his/her partner for the duration of an event – albeit they did not qualify to go on in the event. Who made that rule? Is it common? What's wrong with “thanks for the games, sorry we didn't do better, I'm going to try my hand at the regionals….hope you have a good day”?

In the matter here, I don't understand your partner stating that he wanted to play with you and then leaving you. That, in my opinion is a breach of protocol. When he said lets go play a regional, he is then obligated not to leave you at the desk….it's most akin to dancing with the one who brought you.

But this is a good thing to highlight. I will make sure I discuss it with potential partners before the inevitable occurs.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I think your conjecture that EW were using the rules to their advantage is unfounded.” First, please read what I wrote. Although I did not state that this EW used the rules to their advantage, it clearly is my belief that more experienced pairs do so. In this case, it is my opinion that there would be little reason to call the TD as soon as dummy came down if EW did not have reason to believe that N might not have a 4cM.

“Attributing malice to EW is unduly harsh, and IMHO, not at all justified.” The attribution of malice is wholly on you, not me or my comments. I do not believe that using the rules to get the best possible result for your team is malice. The rules have a purpose. And as long as the rules are in place, folks are entitled to whatever redress they might provide. My insinuation regarding the utilization of the rules by the more experienced players was more a query whether the rules should be changed so that actual damage need to be shown before a penalty is imposed. I suggest that a pair playing 4-way transfers with 20K master points between them is not damaged by the failure to alert. They know better. And I dare say, the rule regarding alerts was not put in place to protect them. Yes, I know it is a slippery slope to put such rulings in place. But it is food for thought. Nonetheless, as long as the rules read as they do, then NS had an obligation to alert and EW were entitled to take advantage of the rules – as I believe they did.
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it interesting that E did not open the hand. I also think it interesting that E-W believed they were damaged by the non-alert. How many playing the Senior Swiss do not play 4-way transfers? In 4-way transfers the 2NT bid always suggests that responder may not have a 4cM. It surprises me that the more folks know about bridge, the more they use the rules to their advantage to penalize opponents for trivial matters that truly do not make a difference.
Aug. 18, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top