Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 75 76 77 78
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well yeah, the purple Advanced Bidding for the 21st Century book pushes Hardy Raises et al on the reader (and I admit that for a while, I found them fascinating. I wish there was a way to include a mixed raise into them). The Green book though (Standard Bidding for the 21st Century) I think is epic, while the only part of the Purple book that I think is required is the section on inverted minors but you can find that elsewhere.
Sept. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Positive. I was the declarer. I was reacting to seeing the dummy. It was a gesture instead of a pro-forma, “Thank you partner, that's lovely”.

No way I'd ever make such a reaction or comment on defense. If someone does, the director should be called immediately, not after play was over like it was here.
Sept. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same opinion. I thought it was well presented but and a good introductory text to the subject, but while reading through it, I had many “How do you handle this?!” moments that I found it was silent on.

One student of mine had said he did not like it, and I suggested my go-to 2/1 book, Max Hardy's “Standard Bidding for the 21st Century”.

It's dry, but it's much more thorough.
Sept. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. I suppose that is is why I generally don't say stuff like that. You can never tell how it will be perceived. I once got a rho mad by giving partner an enthusiastic thumbs up gesture once I saw the dummy. I was simply happy I interpreted the auction correctly. They thought I was gloating. Never occurred to me that gloating was a possibility before one delivered on the good result.

What bothered me about Michael's comment wasn't the attempt to be helpful. Just that the intent on that count was anything but clear.
Sept. 8, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your question was, at best, inappropriate. You made a faux pas, but I don't think you had any ill intent. You might even have gotten away with phrasing it differently. See my comment above.

I think the “someone like you” comment that got directed at you was way over the top and likely an indicator something else was going on. This person thinks they are a better bridge player than you, or cannot handle the idea that isn't true (and how dare you imply that's not the case!).

You don't want to interact with people like that anyway. Change how you go about asking/offering this, and you might be able to have the conversation where it's harmless and avoid it where the landmines are active.
Sept. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You probably could have got away with it if you had phrased it differently.

“Why didn't you try the finesse?
”I didn't want to risk down 2“
”Don't blame you there but there wasn't any risk. I was marked with the King"

Then it's up to the opp if they want your help.

The way you phrased it assumed that you were the better bridge player and that for the opp to find out the answer from you, they had to stipulate to that. Which shouldn't have been required.
Sept. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South just had an overly optimistic picture of what North had.

Which bid was the flawed one? Can't tell.

4N's heart control could have been an ace, king or singleton, right? So north didn't misstate his holdings and South, upon hearing what they were, booked them for failure. So it's easy to assign blame, but at what point should it be assigned? Not sure.
Sept. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or this:

We normally play A, and you play X
But if you play X, we would play B.
But because we play B, now you'll play Y.
So now you want to play Y, so we'll play A…

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I believe there is a rule to determine who gets to make which decision first. I just don't know what it is.
Sept. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “Dangerfield Double” is an optional double that encourages P to pass it based on how little respect he has for the opponents.
Sept. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, I didn't say I *agreed* with them. I'm just trying to figure out why they think they were wronged and am legitimately curious what would have happened without the hand-by-hand evidence.
Sept. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your system has variations depending on what system the opponents play. This was a case of playing entirely different system depending on fixed game elements like vulnerability and dealer.

I'm pretty sure that needing two convention cards to play with one opponent in one event is crossing some line.
Sept. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty sure that, if you were to use the ACBL Card, and you resort to using the word “OR” in the “General Approach” box (ex: Precision or 2/1, depending on vulnerability"), you're probably guilty of the violating the CoC as described.
Sept. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose it was fortunate that there was video evidence.

What would have happened if it was determined that yes, the systemic agreement was illegal, but there was no way to determine when the illegality occurred?

Maybe that's the threat? That they got a sanction that no other pair *could* have gotten for the same offense, whether or not it was fair.
Sept. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a blind partner when I first started, and when I was dummy and and had a void in my hand, I'd put the cards down and tell him, “The hearts you can see for yourself…”
Sept. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once the heart void in the north hand is exposed, that's criminal not to exploit. That's almost worth flunking South right there.

Want to argue that south should have been able to divine the heart void in north's hand himself before that? I won't argue, but my uncertainty about that is why I only gave south a D.

I also wouldn't argue if someone that means we need an F as well as a rating even worse, because a borderline failure is still a failure.
Sept. 1, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Sept. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And since they used a proxy to hide their identity, that's another layer of red tape to fight. First you have to compel the proxy company to spill who the squatter is even before you can try to go after them.
Aug. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an aside, if you play non-promissory stayman, what are the standard follow ups after this auction

1n - (p) - 2 - (2)
?

What do most use the double and pass to show?
Aug. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MP just described my card.

At one point I added my own addition to the 1N-2 agreement because I was playing in a Flight-C NAP Qualifier and didn't trust my opponents to bid 1NT with 5332 shape with a major and get lucky enough to fix us on that hand. I didn't want to concede the 3NT vs 4M when the major contract was better. Gadget is still on the card, but I've never ever had it come up, hence it's name, “NUTS” for “NEVER USE THIS S**T”.

Say responder has the balanced invite without the major hand.

1N-2 (15-17) (Clubs or a balanced invite)
3 -3 (I want to go to 3NT if you have the balanced invite) (NUTS)

3 == I had the invite, but you didn't happen to bid 1NT with a 5 card major did you? If so, bid it now or sign off in 3N.

The massive problem with this agreement is not only are you likely to get to the same 3NT contract you were getting to anyway, but now you've told the opps where all the majors are…or more importantly are not (at most 3 in either, opposite at most 4 in either).

So the opp on lead will always choose really wisely, because you've just told him about his P's holding in the majors. You can't do this if that could be a problem in 3NT.

Note that while I've not used it myself, at least one person I've told about it has used it against me.
Aug. 26, 2019
Joe Hertz edited this comment Aug. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Harry Lampert's book also taught Strong 2 openings, IIRC.

It's a great read for new players, and it was aided by the fact he was an awesome comic book artist (I want to say he eother created or co-created The Flash), but this book isn't exactly what anyone should consider to be a modern strategy reference guide.
Aug. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is many high level pairs have situations where it's plain blackwood, which would make it not an either/or answer.
Aug. 25, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 75 76 77 78
.

Bottom Home Top