Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 37 38 39 40
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My take?

The ACBL is an organization that is having a hard time keeping members. They should bend over backwards in any attempt to do so.

In this case, that suggests the ACBL should look at what happened, and recognize that their policy was misunderstood, possibly due to their own staffer being less than careful 3 years ago. How should they resolve that? By calling Amir on the telephone and agreeing to reinstate the master points in question. Does it really cost them anything to be magnanimous? Are you kidding? That is just a basic way that good customer service should work. And when you have an organization that is based on working with customers who are dropping off the rolls faster than you want, you NEED good customer service.

So what have we seen instead? ACBL employees insulting blanket groups of people online. I'm sorry Paul, but if I was your boss, I would have you fired for those public statements. At the very least, I would insist on a public apology, and demand you get some remedial education on what good customer service entails.

And Paul, you may call me what you will. But don't forget that I am one of the many people who pays your salary, whether you report directly to me or not.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you mixed up the North and South hands. It is North who has the trump AJ, and the diamond sequence. So did you really ntend to say that North is worse, or South?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Worse than 65432? The 54321, of course. ;-)
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is inappropriate, a disservice to dogs everywhere.

Dogs are generally kind animals, who will do anything to serve their masters if treated humanely, with kindness.

The individuals mentioned are ones who from what we have learned are some who have chosen to deliberately act in an anti-social manner. Since they have effectively stolen that which they do not deserve, that puts them on a par with those who have committed serial theft over the course of many years. We can argue if the theft verges into the category of a felony or not, but … worse, they have taken pay for doing so. Being highly paid to commit those actions suggests in my mind something equivalent to grand theft.

All of these actions are reprehensible in the eyes of many bridge players.

Now you would compare them to dogs?
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In either of those cases, they deform the game into not-bridge, a variant like my old favorite - one adjective bridge. Great to play when beer is involved, but you spend more mental energy thinking about what the change introduces and how to use it to your advantage than the bridge itself.

Personally, the second idea seems like it would be more fun, because you can probably come up with some fairly creative ideas on card swaps, and how they would impact the game. Fun? Definitely. And challenging. But not bridge.

If the goal is to have a good game of fairly pure bridge, but with a handicap given to one side over the other in a total points environment, then bid and play as normal. Score it all up as normal. Then just adjust the scoring at the end. Any points scored on your side of the line, reduce by 5%. Any points on their side, increase by 5%. So a non-vul 3NT making would be effectively worth 380 to you, and 420 for them.

The nice thing is, you can easily adjust the handicap here. If 5% each way is found to be insufficient to balance the game, then make it 7%, or 10% each way.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Get one of those ionizers. Put it near his table, asking that he sit N-S,.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Revoking second time in the same suit, may (or may not - not a director, so I don't know) trigger a larger penalty, however it SHOULD trigger a suggestion the person consider taking up a different game than bridge. Or possibly just get new eyeglasses.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But then you have 14 cards. ;-)
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree, because I think you missed my point.

“Thus I don't think the answer to whether advancer should cue bid over 3NT (assuming it actually is a serious slam try) is not so simple. ”

The pertinent point is, IF you have the agreement that you will cue bid over a serious 3NT, then you should. I did NOT claim that this was a good agreement here, that 3NT should be serious. The fact is, they have the agreement that 3NT is serious over a limit raise.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My take is a simple one. IF I am in a bidding sequence where partner is the captain of the auction, then making a demand bid, then I respond truthfully.

For example, if partner bids 4NT, asking for aces, I do not decide that well, I don't like my hand so much, so I'll just show one ace instead of two. That is the end of constructive bidding for your partnership. It tells partner not to trust your bids. (Yes, I saw a pair bid to slam the other day in exactly that sequence. When asked why he bid slam, he said, well, she often miscounts, or just gets it wrong, etc. So he bid a slam that was possibly off two aces. Turns out she did misbid, and it made. Sigh.)

The point is that if you have the agreement that after a limit raise, partner bids 3NT, serious, then you show what you have. You don't know what partner has. If he then bids slam and it fails, then you did what you were supposed to do, but at least partner will still be able to trust your responses. You can decide later if your hand was not validly a limit raise, or if partner should have gone to slam.

My opinion is the hand is not validly a limit raise in the 2NT category as you described it, so you should have chosen a different bid in the first place. But having decided to call it a limit raise, then partner is the captain.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And sadly, reading partner is far easier often than reading your opponents. You know a long time partner's mannerisms, the meaning of any hesitation. Yes, the best, most ethical bridge players will hopefully do their best to ignore any information so gained. But it can be dreadfully difficult to not let that information percolate in.

So +101 likes to Craig's comment from me.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - The logic is simple, and there must be a Mollo character who would agree with me 110%.

I have only 12 high card points, so I cannot bid game. I have a short suit. Therefore I'll make a short suit game try.

In fact, North is to be commended for even making a game try at all with only a 12 count. ;-)
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So anything less than a limit raise is a non-constructive direct raise? So an 8 point hand with 3 cards is what? What are the lower limits on a 3 card limit raise in your approach?
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As soon as you specify anything about the south hand (that of the human player) you make it not truly bridge, though in any case something close. That is true about 13+, or even just a spare ace. Making it slightly closer by some measure? So what? Once you make it not bridge, it is still not bridge, still not the same thing. But, is it really not so?

The difference here is the deal, not that the rules of bridge were fundamentally changed. It is no different from playing a goulash deal. Still bridge, just the the deal algorithm has been modified.

There is still information available to the human player that a good bridge player can take advantage of, while the bots don't get that information. So I would argue that what needs to be changed here is the bots get that piece of information passed to them. At that point it returns to a game of complete information, and THAT is what makes it bridge.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the KJ of spades are any value at all in 5♡, then they will take a trick on defense too. If they are not useful, then I have a balanced 8 count. A mantra that I learned some years ago is “Flat hands defend”.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm slightly confused.

Lets say you continue clubs, hoping for the ruff, not gained. Declarer gets to pitch 3 spades away then, but only 3 cards. He ruffs the spade 10 in hand, so you know not to bother saving any of those worthless AKQ of spades.

In fact, everybody at the table then knows the only suit that matters is diamonds. Will declarer find the double dummy play in diamonds to make 12 tricks? Probably not. Declarer will make 11 tricks.

But suppose you cash the spade, then continue with a spade, or a heart, or even a club? Declarer will make 11 tricks, because now he gets a diamond pitch on the clubs.

So unless declarer had great peripheral vision, he will make 11 tricks on any line of defense. In fact, I'd wonder if declarer was the one who had a wire if he found the double dummy play in diamonds.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a morning contingent member, I do like my Bloody Mary in the am, sans alcohol, of course. I just call it tomato juice.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd respectfully disagree (that there is something amiss.). There is no need for anything to be amiss. In fact, we should expect to see coincidences, at least occasionally. The human eye is very good at seeing patterns. Play enough bridge hands, and there will be pairs of hands that are indeed close. Think birthday paradox.

There are 52 choose 13 = 635013559600 = 6.3501e11 possible hands.

Pick one hand. How many hands are within 4 cards of that hand?

There are 13 cards in the chosen hand, I can choose any 4 of them. 13 choose 4 is 715. I can replace any of those 4 cards with any of the 39 remaining cards, so 82251*715 = 58809465 hands within 4 cards of the indicated hand. (Less, if you require the shape of the hand to stay identical.)

But how many pairs of hands are there? In a session of bridge (typically 27 boards in our games), there are 24*3 = 72 pairs of hands you would see within 4 boards. If you were willing to expand that to any pair of boards in the session, there are 351 such pairs of boards we might compare in a 27 board session.

635013559600/58809465/72 = 149.97

So I might expect to see a similar pair of hands that were within 4 cards of each other, in a set of 27 boards, that fall within any 4 board subsequence roughly once every 150 sessions of bridge.

There are a LOT of people out there, playing a LOT of sessions of bridge. This event is just not that amazing that you will see pairs of hands that are so similar.

It is not even a once in a lifetime event.
July 11
John D'Errico edited this comment July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the event organizers can offer extra points to specific teams as an attractant.

However at least they might have offered free entries for any team that was willing to play up. The ACBL would probably have found a way to make that impossible too.

I was wondering why a handicapped KO was not an option, but it sounds like the rules also forbade that.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a memory? 5-10 years from now, an increasing fraction of the league will be in memory care units. No memories will remain.
July 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 37 38 39 40
.

Bottom Home Top