Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tomas Brenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fellow Swede, and eternal junior, Hans Göthe once showed me the light playing matchpoints. Still my favourite system. No forcing opening bids. Preempt a lot. Lots of 3N rebids by opener.

1x = 4+ or whatever suits you best
1N = 15-17
2x = 5+, weak
2N = 21-23
3N = Really strong, to play

Take it from there. Add gadgets of your preference to the continued bidding if you feel you need it. Exceptionally fun to play. Those who have theoretical objections have never tried freestyle bridge in matchpoints. You win some, you lose some, but overall, you win more.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
42
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Swedish pronunciation of “Morath” ignores the “h”, thus pronounced “morat”. The very similar Swedish word “morot” translates into English “carrot”. So there are two reasons to the name “Carrot Club”.
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I have always used the beer card is that I as a partner have to pay for the beer. This makes it obvious to try to stop partner from winning the beer. I may of course not throw away any tricks in the process.
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Cross-imps are I know flawed, but they are what we have and so I have decided to work with them. One issue with cross-imps (and one that affects the Ranked Master's Pairs for example) is that a freak result on one board can have a major impact on the final IMP total. This is compounded when a one-winner result is required. To mitigate this effect I propose that the cross-imp total is converted to Victory Points at the end of each stanza; with the VP total alone being carried forward.

Here's my five cents:

This is a myth that should be buried. Every five years or so the Swedish federation decides to waste a lot of time to manually convert cross-imps to VPs because everybod “knows” that cross-imps is completely random.

Every time I recalculate the event using x-imps, butler, matchpoints and VPs, the end-result is that you could have chosen either method and arrived at pretty much the same result. The winner is normally the same and two or four pairs switch ranks. The most dramatic I have ever seen was #5 in one method actually falling to #7; normally the change in ranks is at most one step up or down.

The current captain is the first one that has been open about it. His response was the following:

“I know it doesn't matter what scoring method we use, but as long as the players believe that one is better or worse than the other, we will continue wasting time on the VP conversion.”

Just saying…
March 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There has to be a difference between British English and American English on this, or maybe something has changed lately. I'm Swedish, so there is no way for me to know for sure.

Ten years ago I noticed a change in adding possessive s to words ending with s and asked a 80+ year old well-versed Brit about it (specifically if it would be Tomas's instead of Tomas' as I thought I was taught in Swedish school 30 year before that). He hadn't heard of it, and his reply indicated that he thought it was an abomination.

The Chicago Manual of Style seems to give a slightly different set of rules than Oxford Dictionaries. Anybody who feels like adding some insight in the matter. David Burn, maybe?
Sept. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There has to be a catch, because I don't see the problem.

After all the diamonds, dummy has Qxx / 9 / - / K, and declarer has won 6 tricks. Why don't I just keep Ax / T / - / Qx and see what declarer does?

Partner has encouraged in spades on the first discard, so he should have the king. Even if declarer has the king, declarer should be down to a stiff king by now so partner's Jxx will defeat the contract.
June 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris: I merely referred to you saying the revoke happening during the run of the spades, which it didn't.

As for down 1 or down 2, it boils down to a) equity being restored, or b) n tricks being transferred. I must confess I have no idea how the law is written or interpreted. Let's look at two different cases:

1. New case: West did not revoke on the first club trick. However, West revoked the next spade trick but not the next after that. Now there is an automatic 1-trick transfer making it down 1.

2. Current case. West revoked the first club, thus establishing an extra trick for the defenders. Now the TD has to _first_ transfer a trick and _then_ if necessary restore equity which in this case means down 2.

Isn't the timing of the revoke interesting? Seems a little illogical.

I might be stuck in the idea of having to penalize opps for the revoke whereas the more recent laws are more focused on making sure declarer gets _at_least_ what he would have gotten without the revoke.

Could somebody confirm this way of thinking?
Dec. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The revoke happened the first time the clubs were played, not during the run of the spades, so the revoke did cause more damage as it established an extra trick for West.

Down 1.
Dec. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, former WBF President Nils Jensen donated his Hammond table to the largest bridge club in Sweden, BK S:t Erik. It has been treated badly over the years, and lately I have no idea what happened to it. Last time I saw it was about ten years ago.

I have used it for show a few times, but it was a long time ago. There were three things that stood out when using the table:

1. The seemingly original electrical fittings were in need of an upgrade. Using the table felt like playing with fire in oh so many ways.
2. My recollection says that ear protections should have been included in the purchase. I like the fact that the promo video is without sound. The alternative would probably not have boosted the sales.
3. Nailing the table to the floor would have been a good idea. The movement of the arm and the forces that came from it was so strong that the table walked around a little.

I don't know if those of you who own one have the same experience as I do, but I'm pretty sure that is how this particular table acted up. Of course, don't let facts get in the way of a good story…
Nov. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andreas: Sometimes… I believe the rules behind the report specifies that if there are multiple results of one strain declared by one direction and exactly one result of the same strain declared by the other direction, then the single result is considered suspicious. However, 2+ by each side does not trigger any reaction.

As for the second report I mentioned, there might be a validation of the lead vs. the hand record, but I'm not sure of this. Poor memory and no documentation at hand. Can be found somewhere in the documentation or the change log.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andreas: The scoring software you use in Austria has a report called Suspicious results that will do the checking for you. There is also another report called Incorrect Bridgemate results (or something like that) that does the same thing.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5-10 years ago the Polish Bridge Federation “invented” this new schedule. The reason, to my best knowledge, was to accommodate smokers by giving them slightly longer breaks every 10 boards rather than having them run out from the plying area between all rounds. Since then, the WBF and EBL have adopted the schedule for the same reason, with penalties for smoking within sessions.

I believe Philadelphia 2010 was the last time the WBF ran a 2x24/26 schedule. At that time it was possible (not allowed, though) to use the fire-escape stairs centrally located in the hotel for smoking, which many smokers did to the hotel's annoyance.

Smokers like the 5 sessions per day. Non-smokers, and probably also scoring staff, do not. As easy as that. I do not have any good suggestion how to solve it.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The WBF and EBL rules (in World or European championships) specify that a team that has already won before the last match will not play that match, no matter if there are odd or even number of teams.
Aug. 22, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top