Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Chen
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's possible that younger generation will feel tablets are more social than cards… But the question is still valid: what's the advantage of tablets when everyone is sitting at same table face-to-face?
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. I can see the argument that raising partner's major may be more urgent/frequent, so a partnership might choose to give up showing an invitational hand with a long minor. But that is different from saying that you are not giving up anything.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also very useful when it doesn't occur. For example when you bid 3m after first responding 1NT, partner knows you don't have an invitational hand.

The invitational hand is hard to show otherwise, unless you are willing to play “2/1 GF except rebidding your suit” etc.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about having those running scores in 3-day pairs final, or Swiss/BAM finals then? Or at least for quarterfinals (and beyond) in Venderbilt/Spingold? It doesn't have to apply to every stage of every event.
Oct. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure what that means. Are we saying that WBF is not effectively dealing with cheats because they didn't catch any?
Oct. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really like the “Running Scores” section, which gives most up-to-date results and what happened on board-by-board basis. How can we make that happen at NABCs as well?
Oct. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think that to be the case, so you always get “running overall rank”, which is nice.
Oct. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would anyone not want to play 1/3 of the boards though? I mean, if someone truly just wants the title without playing, he/she could just sponsor a team and become the NPC…
Oct. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I guess they could've put the schedule info on the result page. It will come up eventually I think.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where can I find the complete schedule of events? On the official web site, it lists participants, results, and running scores, which is great. But I cannot find schedule for upcoming events (e.g. mixed pairs).
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This happened in women's pairs final as well. But, a 2-pair drop is at least better than 1-pair drop…
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many players play that cuebid response to negative double is game-forcing, so the difference between 3 and 3 is not just flexibility in places to play. This is not necessarily optimal, but it is popular…
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I missed that. Then it seems more natural that first double is “lead a spade” and second double is “interested in sac”. Without specific discussion, why would anyone take the second double as “I do NOT want to sac”?
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First double is lead directing (asking partner to lead a spade)? Why would you want to do that?

The meaning of second double depends on the first double. But since the first double doesn't make much sense, the second one can hardly do. But, lack of anything else, I go with “suggesting sac”, a somewhat natural meaning.
Sept. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little off topic: the expert standard in my area is for the double of splinter to ask for lead of the lower of unbid suits (unless non-vul against vul, in which case it suggests sac). Is there any rational reason for the double to show higher or lower of the unbid suits? Seems experts from two geographic regions cannot agree with each other…
Sept. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's also possible that after the tactical action backfires, there is no way to salvage. It doesn't necessarily mean the tactic action is wrong, but this is part of the calculated risk that one takes by doing it. You gambled, you lost, just take your zero and move on.
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With massive spade-diamond 2-suiter, partner shouldn't bid 3 earlier. That bid shows a single-suited hand. Given that bid, I don't expect 5+ diamond length in partner's hand (most likely not even a good 4-card), so I am hugely optimistic on my hand.
Sept. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, let's say that both pass and 2 are logical alternatives. If partner hesitates, the UI suggests action (bidding 2). So if North would have bid 2 without hesitation, he should probably pass now. But if North would have passed, then the hesitation just gave a stronger reason to pass now (since pass is the call that is not suggested by UI). In no case would North be required to bid 2 with UI present.
Sept. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would those answered with Pass now bid 2?
Sept. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, thanks for the enlightenment.
Sept. 5, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top