Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It is really a matter of negotiating. The host hotels will make concessions to get groups”

Sure, but they are only going to make so many concessions and this is not what (in my opinion) we should use our bargaining power for.
Aug. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we choose to hold NABCs in cities like San Francisco, parking will be expensive. The flip side of your question is how many people would we lose if we only held NABCs in places with cheap parking?

Personally, I do not think *most* people really need a car in a big city (I lived in Chicago/NYC for more than ten years without one) and I would actively not want one visiting San Francisco. Furthermore, when I lived in Berkeley, I had no issue getting to/from San Francisco without a car so I am at least somewhat skeptical that the cost of parking will be what stops locals from attending.

It was unclear to me what you think should be done; do you think we should not be holding an NABC in San Francisco? Do you think the ACBL should subsidize the cost of parking? Something else?
Aug. 23, 2019
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Aug. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That makes sense to me, but seems for many not enough to overcome flaws of 2: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-9acc3eionb/
Aug. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had thought too, but a strong player offered that she preferred 2
Aug. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, my point was just that while I agree with what Marty says, in the alternate universe where they do NOT play Texas transfers it's not clear to me whether transferring to 2 and then raising to 4 should be a slam try. So maybe even with the agreements S thought he had, S misbid the hand . . .
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not think it is necessarily a worse story this way since it more closely matches real life.

Personally, I would prefer to bid A10x and keep the bidding at the one level if I'm going to have to bid a 3 card suit.
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a recent Bridgeworld article (the series with arrogant bridge robot) where something like this happened. In the article, they had an overtime where they played some extra boards.
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I wrote this late last night and wanted to finish the story”

I feel part of the story is lost if both N and S are doing silly things.
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The frequency of these holdings, as with almost any specific holding, is low - opener would accept on about 1/70,000 hands.”

I agree that there is not much utility in an invitational sequence that opener will accept 1 in 70,000 times, but I'm suspicious of your math (if I understand what you're claiming to compute). The 1NT opener is going to have (say) the A of your suit and max way more often than that.
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you do not play Texas transfers is that still what that sequence means?
Aug. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If so, why don't I just wait and do so next round?”

Because it might go all pass?
Aug. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you bid 4, do you give up over partner's 5?
Aug. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh, well don't take my word for anything being standard :); I have not seen it in print anywhere either, just heard that by word of mouth.
Aug. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I'd probably upgrade Kxx xx KJTxx Axx
Aug. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should not claim things are “standard” since clearly people disagree on what that means, BUT I always thought it was “standard” against Bergen raises for the double to be takeout if they have shown the mixed raise (or weak raise) and lead directing if they have shown the limit raise.
Aug. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I had thought that doubling would emphasize diamonds too and was surprised that many seemed to disagree with me.
Aug. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would you play a double of 2 here versus passing and then doubling 2?

I think people are more likely to abstain when they hate their choice in problem. Here most have no problem with pass, so they vote for it even if they do not like passing 2?
Aug. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Typically undiscussed, I would assume it is “standard” for 2S - 3C; 3M to show shortness, so absent an explicit agreement, I would be worried partner and I are not on the same page if I bid 3D intending it as showing 65.
Aug. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sarah: I'm curious what your response would be if the director were a highly desirable (whatever that means to you) man in his early 20s? That is, is your primary objection that a bridge director is (possibly) hitting on your daughter or that an older man is (possibly) hitting on your daughter?
Aug. 10, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top