Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about uchicago club game which is free for students and something like three dollars for outsiders (or have they raised prices since I left?)
Jan. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hate 1S much more than x. Happy with x if partner doesn't get too excited but would generally expect more hcp for x (not counting qh for too much)
Dec. 30, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not consider bidding over 4H, but I also would pass this over 1H.

Why would you guys double 1H? Does vul/scoring/opps system matter?
Dec. 29, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the replies–very helpful. I admit I was in the minority who thought this would be forcing without discussion–glad the sequence didn't actually come up at the table.

There wasn't much discussion about the structure over 1D-2C-X

In particular, I'm curious what hands will bid 3C and what the followups are (in particular 3H versus 4H)? Do GF hands with 4 hearts bid an immediate 4H over the X? Does 3C say anything about a stopper? In particular, what happens after the auction starts

1D-2C-X-P
3C-P-3M-P

I suspect at the table I would not bid these sequences optimally.
Dec. 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know we've talked about this one offline, but I'm not convinced this one is the “harder question” (for me at least).
Dec. 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner bids 3S instead of 2S, then this hand bids 4H and presumably partner is not allowed to bid 4S over the negative double?
Dec. 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To flesh out your argument, a good hand with hearts would bid an immediate 2H, therefore 3H can't be that hand, therefore it isn't forcing?
Dec. 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't believe anything Marilyn Vos Savant (regarding what readers had to say) has to say as I think she has an ego even bigger than her (supposed) IQ . . .

Maybe I'm biased though because I'm unable to get over the awful (and insulting) book she wrote on Fermat's Last Theorem . . .
Dec. 2, 2012
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
.

Bottom Home Top