Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Aker
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is part of a larger issue. The system summary form discloses not only unusual methods, but anything that an opposing pair might reasonably want to know about in advance (I'm working on streamlining it for next year to make this clearer). The two week advance requirement allows those players who care a chance to prepare for all of these things. While I agree that there are circumstances in which a pair can be added late, there's more to consider than just whether they may play unusual methods.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Danny and Adam for the reasons stated.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of Peter's suggestions, I like the 3rd one best. I prefer sanctions that are disciplinary rather than having an effect on the score.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He bid 2s intending it as gf. What he can’t do now is pass once he has UI that partner is willing to play below game opposite a fit jump.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bobby, your input is always welcomed.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Norman Kay
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In contrast, if you had opened 1n with an 11count and partner announcedi15-17 and bid 2h over the double, you should alert, explain as hearts and spades if asked and pass with 3 of each major.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that’s been our policy in the past, but I’ve changed my views.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we should be following WBF rules here. Most of these defenses need to be memorized. For multi you can refer to defense but the opponents don’t need to provide one.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really well-deserved. Congratulations.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For sure we discussed the first one and maybe the second as well. Like so many other areas I don’t think one way is appreciably better, you just want to have an agreement .
Dec. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good. That’s the case I was worried about
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to be sure I’m following does this mean that if the USA 1 winner withdraws that the loser of this match automatically qualifies? This means that if there’s reason to believe that this might happen that this team might have an incentive to lose its next match to a perceived weaker team
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In thinking through the second question there are a number of scenarios in a two winner year. If USA 1 withdraws and the defeated finalist becomes USA 2 then it seems they they take over as USA 1 and the loser of the USA 2 final becomes USA 2. It is when the defeated finalist drops into the USA semis and fails to win that an issue may arise. If they reach the finals then the winner and loser become USA 1 and 2 respectively. It’s not clear what to do if they lose their next match. They can hardly become USA 1 under these circumstances. I’d vote that they should be eliminated. There’s an argument that if they reach the USA 2 final that they become USA 1 as a reward for having reached the main final but then the match wouldn’t need to be played
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It will be interesting to see whether the conflict with the Reisinger affects the strength of the field
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've been told by Anna Gudge at the WBF that multi is not a Brown Sticker convention and thus a written defense is not allowed. Here's the link

http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WBFSystemsPolicy.pdf
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 25 years ago Michael Rosenberg told me that any single instance of a more likely break has a higher probability than that of a less likely break (so here, any single 3-2 break - 109 doubleton- is more likely that a single 4-1, stiff k). No doubt he'll let me know if I got this wrong.
Aug. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i play that leaping Michaels creates a force. Non-leaping Michaels is forcing if the next hand passes, but if that hand bids, we're no longer in a force
July 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard – I believe the quote is from Blaise Pascal.
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 41A, section B – should this be “may” rather than “shall”? Also, how could someone not know that a lead out of turn could constitute an advantage?
Law 20 3 a– may 3rd hand ask for written clarification from either opponent?
Feb. 23, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top