Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is how I have always thought about restricted choice
Dec. 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am also not a bridge expert, so take my opinion for what it is. I think there is some value in accepting some things without understanding them when you are starting out at bridge.

For example, when I first started getting more serious about bridge I did some research and decided Max Hardy's “Modern Bidding for the 21st Century” was a respected title. I read the entire book and essentially memorized everything in it. Since then I've gone back and reread many sections and understand the logic behind a lot of the things he suggests, but I think it was very helpful for my development and allowed me to progress more quickly to just accept at first (without having to understand) that everything Hardy said was “right.”

I think if from the beginning I would have tried harder to understand Hardy's approach (and alternative approaches) I would have got bogged down in the details and it would have taken me a lot longer to become a proficient bidder. I don't think this idea is limited to bridge. As a “retired” mathematician I know a major stumbling block for me in learning mathematics was insistence on understanding every line of every proof. Obviously there is a time and place for this, but frequently it was an impediment and it was better to understand the big picture and only return to the details later.

Of course, I essentially agree with you're saying about it being important to try to understand the “why.”
Oct. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I don't trust my partners enough to actually have a trump stack here.
Oct. 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, the only place I've read about the rule of 15 in print (Hardy's bidding book) I'm pretty sure he described it as a rule to use when deciding whether to open light.

I've also read arguments by good players(I think there was a long BBO thread about this) saying the rule of 15 isn't a very good one to follow as gospel anyway.

Personally I would open this without thinking because that is what I would do in any other seat. Basically I think it is what the field will do (don't most people other than really old ladies open most 12 counts) and I don't trust my judgement enough to override what I think is the “normal/book” action to make an abnormal call (especially if I believe I'm better at playing the cards than the field)

EDITED: In defense of rule of 15, I remember suggesting that I thought most experts wouldn't use such a rule and LLande said the top Italians are proponents (or at least they teach it to their students)
Sept. 26, 2012
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Sept. 26, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rather read a book about how to play bridge better (or actually play bridge) than read the entire book of laws. For the people who have read the rules, what was your motivation?

I would imagine that most participants in (say) most sports (even professionals) are familiar with the rules, but have never read the rulebook. Maybe this is a bit different as bridge players aren't actually watched by an official as they play so perhaps they need to understand intricacies of rules better.
Sept. 25, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the motivation for playing upside down attitude, but standard count? At least for me, I'm used to standard carding, can (smoothly) do upside down carding with a little bit of concentration, but would probably make a lot of mistakes trying to mix the two.
Sept. 16, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because no one would pay?

I would consider paying if I knew the operator would be good and the commentary would be good, but even then not that much. It seems to me like charging people to watch bridge given that it is not all that popular to begin with is a step in the wrong direction.

Also, I think Fred Gitelman has said that broadcasting the VuGraph is bad for BBO's bottom line because of the revenue lost due to players who choose to watch the (free) Vugraph rather than pay to play in a BBO tournament (and it seem unlikely that the amount of money that could be raised by charging to watch would be very high). It seems BBO is already providing a (free) service to the bridge community by by broadcasting VuGraph's and it is probably not in line with their objectives to charge for a VuGraph presentation.
Sept. 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think people have offered suggestions–get experienced operators. Maybe the analogy isn't perfect, but if I turn on the Pro Bowl and the camera man is my next door neighbor, he may be working really hard, but he's still probably doing a bad job.

For what it's worth, I haven't actually watched any of the Buffett cup, so I have no idea how good/bad it is.
Sept. 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The US team does have four of the players on the 2nd place Bermuda bowl team plus Bob Hamman (and the other players aren't exactly scrubs) and the European team has the number one ranked pair in the world on it. Sure, it could be better I guess, but it is still pretty close to the best USA has to offer at least.
Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't the hobgoblin quote missing the word “foolish” (sadly I know this not because I'm literary, but from reading the Python style guide)? Sorry to nitpick, but I spent awhile trying to process if that quote made sense without the word “foolish.”

Also, I'm curious how much of a factor people think tells etc. is in high level bridge? That is, playing against (insert your favorite top pair here) who won't give obvious tells (loud sighs etc.), how much of an edge does a very good reader of tells gain over someone who (say purposely) ignored all tells. I would think the edge is fairly small (but it seems unlikely this is something that could really be settled).
Aug. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably to some degree a self fulfilling prophecy if you do poorly.

More generally, I have to wonder where all of you people work. I start every day at 8 and have to commute an hour. At the NABC the start time is two hours later and there is no commute (if you are staying at host hotel). Even if you are from the West Coast, it still isn't really that early.
July 14, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner might have a place to play if you are in trouble though. Take away the A of diamonds, Q of clubs, and a small spade and give him a small diamond and two small clubs and I don't think you are in that bad of shape playing 2C. Similarly if partner has hearts.

Of course I'm sure you could construct hands where the 1NT overcall is a disaster, but my point is most of the time partner won't be completely broke and even if he is, you still might not go for a number.
July 6, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anyone know if the Washington Standard text is still available anywhere for a reasonable price (I only see used copies being sold online for $40-$50)?
June 13, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps, but if you're an inexperienced player and the director suggests you should withdraw (and even if that wasn't explicitly said, that seems to be the implication) you may not realize that it is perfectly reasonable and within your rights not to withdraw.
June 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you withdraw in the Spingold/Vanderbilt do you save money on the sessions you don't play or do you pay for all 4 sessions ahead of time?
June 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That did the trick!
May 24, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The game worked for me at first, but now if I play there is no sound and nothing happens when I type numbers.

I have adblock disable for bridgewinners and am using firefox 12.0.
May 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a non-expert player playing with non-expert partners, I've found that when there is UI many of my partners (in an attempt to be ethical) go out of there way to make a bid that will essentially guarantee us a bad result. If it is a close call I want my partner to make the bid not suggested by the UI, but if it's not a close call I would prefer my partners not try to come up with reasons why a bid they know won't work out well is a logical alternative. Of course, if our opponents disagree they should call the director.
May 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm hoping the conclusion to all of this is that Victor Jusner and Michael Rosenberg are, in fact, the same person and this is just an elaborate ruse to throw us off the trail :)
May 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If our opponents are less likely to balance after 1S-P-P- because they know we might have this hand, maybe that is a good thing for the times we don't have this hand (assuming opps know our tendencies well).
May 20, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top