Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I find hands with 14 cards to be quite flexible. You can lose a trick and still make a grand slam.”

Or you could have been defending 7X and not set it holding the A, even though no one revoked. See the Tale of the Queen of Hearts in Right Through the Pack by Darvas.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, this is a really nice article and major discussion item.
I too have the feeling that the current BoD is not in favor of the 9 member BoD and 50 member Senate proposal. At least I know our DD voiced that opinion.

You did talk about growth. While that is generally a desirable goal, the demographics point to an aging membership, to the point where the membership will envitably decline if we do not a drastic turnaround. Such a turnaround is very uhlikely given that efforts to improve membership have uniformly been ineffective.

Perhaps that is because most young people would rather not hang around with very old people. Even if we attract retirees, attendance at tournaments will decline rapidly in the next 5-10 years. 85 yr old might still be able to play bridge and still belong to the ACBL, but they definitely do not travel much.

No one has yet accepted another option, however unpopular: let the membership dwindle to the point where the younger or middle-aged players are once again a dominant force. Then perhaps they will be able to attract their peers into the game without the stigma of it being an octogenarian's game.

Perhaps we should be looking to other countries such as the Netherlands and China to see why they have a younger demographic that we do.

Having said that, do we want the ACBL to have a young peron's tilt? THe US Chess Federation does, but it's membership is so young, they drop out quick once they go to college or work.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to have merit, especially for units with more than one club facility of decent size.

Our unit also has a problem in finding a facility for our sectional at a reasonable price. We were kicked out of the community college we used for quite a few years after the college administration decided that the campus facilities were to be used for student activities only. That was 1 1/2 years ago and we have been struggling to find a substitute.

We have only 1 club facility in our unit; it holds 22 tables. We did get 60+ tables in use in our most recent sectional.

There are high schools and Jr. high schools that are sometimes available, but many if not most are rented on Sundays to church groups. Same applies to churches with meeting halls - they are in use on Sundays.

One useful amendment to your proposal would be to delete the requirement in the Codification 10.1.3 that requires sectionals to be 2 to 5 days in duration (with the exception of Limited or Junior sectionals). That way units could run a sectional on two consecutive Saturdays, for example. Or they could run a Flt A on 1 Sat. and a B/C/D on the next Sat.

Make Open sectionals and Limited/Junior sectionals have the same criteria of 1 to 5 days in duration, without changing the “no limit to the number of sectionals per year” (at least for Open). This would allow more flexibility in scheduling facilities that are available only on 1 day of a weekend.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 2nd diagram on page 2 has the clubs wrong between East and West. Made it difficult to follow until I saw the 3rd diagram.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik, even if you are not required to explain your agreements over a natural 1, is there any reason that you should not do so here?
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few years ago I had a similar post on BW. The opps, whom we had never seen before, opened 1, which they promptly alerted. Partner did not ask and bid 2. They asked the meaning of 2 and I had to asked what 1 was. It was strong, artificial and forcing.

The concensus of the BW posters back then was that I should explain my partner's bid based on what it meant over a “strong, artificial and forcing” 1. That would mean 2 should be natural per our agreements.

Also, partner's failure to ask constitutes UI, so I would have to assume he knew what their 1 meant even though it was a near certainty he didn't. And my explanation is UI to partner, so he also has to avoid using my statement that 2 is natural.

There was no concensus as to whether partner is entitled to know the meaning of 1 after the opps explain it. After all, he was woken up to the meaning based on my query of 1.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are obligated to give the opps your agreements, plural, not just one agreement. The revelant information they are entitled to includes other agreements that might apply to similar auctions.
So I would provide both agreements of 2 and let the opps decide for themselves what your partner's 2 meant to him.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Getting to slam is not so obvious, even if there is no 3 call.
Let's say your opps pass throughout. In normal 2/1 it might go:

1-2;3-3;3N-?

Partner might try 4 for a slam try, but it sure looks like a misfit and signing off at 3N is certainly reasonable. You might have held: xx,AKxxx,x,AQxxx
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some years ago, a local bridge player now in his ‘70s, let’s call him DT, saw George at a local San Jose sectional. DT walked up to him and said “I want to thank you.” George said: “For what?” DT responded: “The sixties.”
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take longer to sort my hand for two reasons. One, I already know before sorting what my hand is, but don't want to pass too fast if is a bust hand.
Two, I almost always try to find the shortest sorting method before physically arranging my hand into ordered suits of alternating colors. It's a nice diversion while waiting for other to bid.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I count the HCP as I spread my hand out from right to left (playing left handed); it is just simple arithmetic after all. Then I scan the spread hand to get the distribution. After being statisfied there is a valid distribution, I bid. When there is a lull, I sort my hand because it is easier to play that way and 1/4 of the time it has to go down as dummhy.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to follow up: I have heard that this proposal is not dead, but was just not ready to put together as a motion for Las Vegas. It would seem prudent to have enough preliminary acceptance from a majority or near majority of the full BoD before making a motion that is sure to have many points of contention once all the details are written into the motion.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is nothing in this journal regarding a change in the strtucture of the BoD and BoG.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer said words to the effect: You get just the K. At this point it has been too many days for me to remember the exact statement, but that captures the gist of it.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That somebody was me; I was dummy at the table, and was quoting my partner.

OK, Ed, I've been hoping to see your response, so what would your ruling be?
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, 1/2 sec (OK maybe it was one full sec) to Ron Anderson was a hitch.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago in a Swiss team event, my partner and I were playing Vigne(?) parity signals -showing if you started with 1 or 3 odd length suits when declarer led trump. Against Ron Anderson, no less, I hitched for about 1/2 sec holding 3 small trump as I decided which card indicated my parity. Ron made the comment: No one hitches with Qxx and dropped my partners Qx of trump.

Ironically, I did have a legitimate bridge reason to hitch and it backfired. I wonder if I held Qxx and hitched for the same reason if Ron would have called the TD.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By always playing the K, East has given you no new information - other than that West does not have the K. If he had played the Q, then you would know for sure that West held the K, and would have no guess.

Even without any new info, the percentage play is to finesse East for the Q.
June 18
Stu Goodgold edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Please don't tell me that I have ”an obligation to the field“ to enforce it. That's utter nonsense.”

Not only that, but if declarer is allowed to win the last 3 tricks (negating his concession), then he would have gotten a tied top instead of an above average for making 4.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe, declarer did later say that he knew he had the ace and assumed it was played earlier since it wasn't in his hand (and he obviously knew the K was still outstanding).
June 18
.

Bottom Home Top