Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for voting. At the table, for better or worse, I decided from the auction that it looked like my club values would be wasted in a diamond contract and likewise partner's heart values might not be working, so I bid 3NT. This was not a success when partner held

KQJx Axxx KQxx x
Oct. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL's room rate sold out? I'm surprised there are not more threads congratulating the ACBL for securing such an attractive room rate for its membership.

Anyone who stayed at the Hilton in Hawaii should have gotten a guaranteed room here.
Oct. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not a whole lot. I'm just imagining a hand where partner is not strong enough for 3H, but has long hearts.

-
xxxxxx
Axx
Kxxx

slam is very good for instance (and if they lead a spade I think my worthless spade holding makes it essentially cold on 21 trumps)
Oct. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4H, but we could easily miss a slam here
Oct. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you like to play over an inverted minor raise?

I was not explicit, but with the 11-13 balanced hand I would frequently just bid 2NT even if not everything was stopped.

Agree 3 as an initial splinter would be better (both on this hand and as an agreement in general), but our agreement was somewhere between undiscussed and preemptive.
Oct. 14, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Oct. 10, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gross, I hope LHO got a procedural penalty.
Oct. 5, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top