Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If all we do when a pair revokes is restore equity, it seems that then the rules essentially incentive revokes because if I'm caught revoking, frequently I will not lose, but if I am not, I may gain a trick. This does not sit well with me because it rewards the sloppy and/or malicious players. Do we now have to start filing recorder forms every time a pair revokes and would have gained had it gone unnoticed?

That said, I agree that I do not want MY side to gain because an opponent made a meaningless revoke, I just do not think the other side should go unpenalized.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I hate the revoke rule and its random effects, and would far prefer to play in a game where we simply restore the equity that existed before the revoke”

I think this makes sense in a strong game where a revoke is likely to get noticed, but less so the more likely opponents will not notice. I remember a pair revoking against me in a club game on a hand that I had worked out, so I immediately noticed. Giving me the extra trick I lost back restored equity for me, but not for the field if some of the time the revoking pairs gets away with it.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And would anybody ever give that player the light of day if they actually cared about rankings and stuff”

Sure, why not? Presumably this lady would have a low rating. I think what a rating system cannot capture though is that since bridge is a partnership game some element of your skill is lost when playing with a bad partner. It's possible in some sense I am a stronger player than you, but you are better at getting good results with a poor player (I guess this and what you said are all just arguments to emphasize partnership ratings not individual ones)
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get that a player who does well in a hard event is likely to do even better in a small club game (and to some degree vice versa), but it does still strike me as a little silly to say player A and player B both have rating X if player A plays exclusively in small club games and player B plays exclusively in NABC+ events. I also get that on some superficial level “degree of difficulty” handles this, but I would need some more convincing to buy that the degree of difficulty accurately handles this.

That said, it depends on what the purpose of the rating system is. If it is to get a rough idea of player's skill level to allow better seeding of events, I am all for it. If it is supposed to have any deeper meaning, I am not really sold.

It may make things more complicated, but I think it might make sense to either exclude club games from any rating system or have a separate “club rating”. Club bridge (for me and I suspect many) is a social event and more like exhibition bridge (for me) than a tournament. I would be worried about anything that discouraged playing bridge in a less serious setting because people are worried about their rating (e.g. most of the club games I play are evening games after a 10+ hour work day. It seems bad for bridge if I ever decide not to go to one of these games because I'm worried I will play poorly because I'm tired and it will affect my rating etc.)
Oct. 10
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think any decent rating system would account for this (it will not be a “good” result if you get a 70% playing with Rodwell against 0-49 players)
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, it really seems like this problem completely depends on what your partner's standards are to bid here.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lead a spade still, if partner has something like K109xx of spades and a minor suit stopper is he really gong to double 3NT here?
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gross, I hope LHO got a procedural penalty.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On this sequence, it really looks like partner wants to know about the club control, so why not bid 5H that feels logically (to me) to confirm a club control but an unwillingness to bid a slam?
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“1C-1S-1N-3S and 1C-1S-1N-2D-2N-3S”

I thought typically one of the sequences shows a slam try with essentially self-sufficient trumps and the other shows a slam try where some help is needed filling in the trump suit (no idea whether or not you consider this “sensible”).
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For sure, but I think the bigger loss of rebidding 1NT with (1-3)=4=5 is not hiding the second four card suit, but the fact that now my 1NT does not promise 2 cards in partner's suit. I have been coming around to the style that responder almost always responds to 1m with a 5 card major and it seems that this works better if with a really weak hand responder can rebid 2M and know it is at least a 52 fit (but I have no dogma about this and happy to be convinced to rebid 1NT with a singleton)
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“hough losing by RKC battle to that hideous 1430 that everyone wants to play but can't do right”

Curious if you could elaborate on what you mean by this?
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There have been a recent series of articles in the Bridge World called Einar's advice that I likely need to reread before I can internalize in any practical way (I think broadly it suggests in some situations taking early tricks in your known long suit and/or leading your known long fit rather than making a more obvious lead in a side suit). The theme of leading hearts instead of diamonds (although the fits are the same here, you do not know it) reminded me of those articles. I would be curious if someone who has internalized the theme of those articles could 1. help me understand it better 2. tell me if the fact that leading your known fit here works better is in any way relevant to the theme or if I am just seeing connections where there are none :)
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner might care if you rebid 1NT with a singleton in his suit.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“From my own experience, in casual club partnerships, Two Way is too complicated.”

Why? I get that 2-way is often presented as a more advanced convention, but to me it seems conceptually easier as long as you remember meanings to 2/2. After that you may not know what you're doing (but neither do the one-way NMF pairs), but seems less likely you'll have a major accident.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The other advantage of 2-way is avoiding ambiguity about whether Responder's third bid is forcing.”

I think playing at the club-level, this is a HUGE win for 2-way NMF!
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it would be better to teach newer players two-way NMF and not bother with one-way because it is easier, especially with shaky agreements (because you establish immediately if you are in a game-force).

I think there are lots of auctions in one-way NMF that most advancing players do not understand. Off of the top of my head

1. Is (say) 1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 forcing? If it is not, how do you find the heart fit and make a slam try?
2. Assuming opener jumps with extras, what is (say) 1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 - 3 - 4m? Is it agreeing hearts or making a minor suit slam try?
3. 1 - 1 - 1nt - 2 - 2 - 4nt? This sequence came up for me and I passed thinking that 4NT was quant, +520 did not compare well against +1520 . . .
4. Do they even know 1-way NMF shows invitational values? I got a bad board on the auction 1m - 1M - 1NT - 2om - 3NT because my partner bid NMF with an 8-9 count hoping to improve the contract in a 53 major suit (but willing to play 2nt)

So, yes, I agree with Billy Miller if he is advocating 2-way NMF.
Sept. 28
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except (see upthread) there are LOTS of people who do this!
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ One cannot appropriate a time-honored term”

Do you any have evidence that this is the case? Briefly looking on the internet I see

1. Larry Cohen suggests xxx is a HSGT, see https://www.bridgewebs.com/northbay/BB10%20-%20Larry%20Cohens%2012.pdf
2. The first hit when googling BridgeBum says that xxx is a HSGT https://www.bridgebum.com/help_suit_game_try.php
3. John Adams, who does not strike me as a confused noob based on his posts thinks that HSGT specifically means a suit like xxx (see below)
4. Players I have encountered in real life that know what they are doing (e.g. Grand Life Master) have described xxx as a typical holding for what they call a HSGT.

I also see people who call Barry's approach a HSGT (Karen Walker: http://kwbridge.com/gametry.htm, a pamphlet by Patty Tucker).

I am still not convinced that “help suit game try” means the same thing to everyone (and for this reason, I always clarify when it comes up in real life) and think that Barry and those applauding his methods are missing the point.
Sept. 28
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is there anyone who doesn't see why it's important for a game try to be unambiguous?”

No.
Sept. 28
.

Bottom Home Top