Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the sub-optimal part was that since it was single elimination, we did not necessarily send our two best teams. My outside view (I played in flight A) is that the team that won was the strongest team and that the team is 2nd was not clearly better than some of teams the winning team beat. I am not sure how to fix this though (the event could be made double elimination, but that would add an extra session).

The seeding was determined by a Swiss and everyone knew the conditions, so I do think the event was “fair”.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a pickup partnership, so while I had some ideas of what partner thought 2 meant, I deliberately did not speculate because I'm interested in what people think about this sequence (and it seems like there are a fair number of reasonable options now).
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think they should be vilified, but ignoring the rest of the debacle, if they really only won because a score was misrecorded, it is possible they might want to know.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the team that was declared the winner agree with these facts? It seems like the easiest solution would be for them to step down and let you represent the district. Personally, it would feel like a pretty hollow win if I were to win under these circumstances.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that they qualify two teams in flight B, the format in District 16 (playing a knock out and qualifying the two teams in the final) does not seem 100% optimal. It was known before hand though.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting, I was definitely in the “THIS IS BLASPHEMY” camp too at one point. I'm surprised by the suggestion to bid 3NT with the 1=5=4=3 hand with no club stopper (this still feels a little blasphemous), but I guess I can see how this could work out since if you have no fit, this may be your landing spot anyway.

A similar, but different auction is 1C - 1H - 1S - 2D. Now it seems that if the 4=3=2=4 minimum hand can bid 1S, then 2H could have 3 card support (even more often if the 4=3=1=5 minimum is frequently bidding 1S instead of 2H)

On all of these auctions, I wonder what constitutes the “good” 5431 hand with three card support? On Vugraph today (https://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/MUSBCUSA22019/html/MUSBCUSA22019_F_2_s4.htm#bd24) , both players 1S with J762 AQJ 10 KQ852 although only one of them jumped to 3H over 2D. I guess when the four card suit is spades showing it is a higher priority?
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least in the ACBL, I disagree that there are too many tournaments because of bridge pros. Most of the “bad” regionals I have been to have very few pros and in my experience, the tournaments with the most pros are also typically the best tournaments.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I misread the tone of your and Mike's post then . . .
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a bridge pro and I am unlikely to play in the trials anytime soon (so I do not have a horse in this race), but I do not really understand the problem with bridge pros being able to make a living.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do not disagree, but I do think it is very common especially in pickup partnerships (at least in ACBL land) to play 1-way NMF and jump to show extras. Otherwise I think sequences like 1 - 1 - 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 have to be non-forcing, which makes slam bidding much harder (even when compared to the poll auction I would argue). But, yeah, maybe the takeaway is just that 1-way NMF is not very playable.
May 22
Shawn Drenning edited this comment May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Randy I would be very surprised if most people at the bridge club I play at have any idea about this or anything else happening at the USBF (well Lynn Baker plays at our club sometimes, so maybe they are aware she has done well). Likewise for the recent controversial NABC rulings.

Bridge may have some problems to overcome if it wants to survive, but in my opinion the number of appeals at high level events is very low on the list
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Use professional directors”

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. My impression is that most directors working NABC events are “professionals” in the sense that it is their full-time job. The directors who work the big events at NABCs are (I believe) the most experienced ACBL directors and without having had much interaction with them myself, my belief is the directors in charge of the USBF are well-regarded.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you think the optics would be better if there were more unjust results, but the directors ruling always stood?
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Martin (and others)

I do not really understand what we are trying to accomplish by bidding 4. Are we worried we will miss a game if we bid just 1 or are we just trying to jam their auction (or both)? If partner does not fit spades I'm not sure I want to be playing 4 and if they have a big heart fit they may be guessing, but they likely know they have it.

I agree that there is a good chance that we want to play 4 (and if I had to pick the final contract right now would bid 4), but I do not think that the upside of preempting the opponents outweighs the downsides of not involving partner and potentially getting to an (avoidable) poor contract.
May 20
Shawn Drenning edited this comment May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bill

This was alluded to above by Steve B., but how exactly should pairs disclose varying levels of skills? When I play locally it certainly helps that I know the tendencies and skill levels of all my opponents and this may give me an advantage over my doppelganger who does not have this knowledge, but I do not really see what can be done about it.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we had not seen it happen it seems you and others in this camp would loudly argue that there is no way a top expert like Cheek would ever respond incorrectly to key card, but it happened . . .
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What else other than 1?
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the actions that keep auction lower (maybe 3 is better than my 2nt) better than 4 because over 4 partner will often be bidding 4 and we won't really know whether we want to pass or not. Is partner going to cooperate with (say) Kxxx J10x KJx KQx?
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“One of my points is that now that 15 seconds is enshrined in law”

It would be helpful if you could quote precisely what the law you are referring to says.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be curious if N took this action because super light overcalls are her style or because W gave away that he had a strong hand.

I'm not particularly good at reading people, but at the club I frequently pick up “tells” when a player has a strong hand (and can adjust my actions accordingly).
May 15
.

Bottom Home Top