You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2M would have been natural with extras.
2N would have been 11-15 3=1=4=5 or 1=3=4=5. (1 can be a canapé)

He will be 54+, either minimum opener or extras without a splinter.
May 11
Jon Derrick edited this comment May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play a transfer structure after 1M - (X) from 1N (showing clubs) upwards, so:

1M - (X) - 2M-1 as 3+
1M - (X) - 2M purely pre-emptive
1M - (X) - 2N as 4+
Nov. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 1m - (1NT) we play Asptro:
2: and another, 2 and another

Natural after 1M - (1NT)
Sept. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My intention with this was to produce something that allows a player to analyse where their convention produces gains and where it doesn't, you could argue this might just be results merchanting, but I think it could produce some useful information.

Granted, there are numerous complexities where inferences are able to be made as you mention, Kit. The original intention of this was to have the raw data displayed in an easy to interpret manner so you could say for example “ok, so our strong 2 opening in 1st has a frequency of 1 in every 10000 boards , perhaps we could be making better use of the bid?”. Or, “every time partner opens a multi, we get a bottom board, maybe I should ban him from using it?”

What I originally had in the system was the ability for users to view other player's conventions and results. They could then search perhaps by position to find a more frequent, potentially more useful, replacement. That would of course have to be built on over time, as we'd need a couple of hundred data points to make any assumptions.
Sept. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think simulations are quite important when it comes to choosing a new convention, as our late squad manager always says “I think this is one for the simulation”. I could quite easily implement functionality to generate hands and maybe add the ability to add parameters to measure the frequency of say, a 6 card major in the range 0-9 from a sample set defined by the user.

The original idea was tracking results from at the table, and I think it'd be quite easy to categorise results data by strength of field or potentially end up weighting some results more when they're against higher level opposition when it comes to calculating the averages.

Measuring system abuse/misuse might also be quite useful, and potentially the option of results per partner if your partnership styles vary?
Sept. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is more a sanity check for me regarding what east actually did
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't aware of how popular it proved at Easter, it was more a proposition of moving it to a place more suitable/accessible to the majority - I think perhaps Brighton/Eastbourne has contributed significantly to attracting different juniors based on who can get there and who can't. I'm thinking having it in a more central location would allow for all juniors to be within easy reach of it. I would have attended the event if it were, say, in London for the two days, but travelling from York to Eastbourne is expensive for my student wallet ;(.

That's also potentially skewed with the introduction of the U16 squad recently though, as you've mentioned with the different group of Juniors there this year, how many pairs would there be without that squad doing so well at getting the much younger players at the congresses? We're picking then up maybe 4/5 years before they would have been with the U20s. It's certainly brought an influx of players into the mix, and the picture could perhaps have been a lot bleaker without them.
Aug. 9, 2017
Jon Derrick edited this comment Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm unable to attend this year's event because of other unforeseen commitments, but having experienced the event last year, I was finishing the final weekend already saying I doubt I'd attend for the whole week this year, if any of it.

In terms of from a junior perspective, the turnout at the U26 Pairs last year was significantly underwhelming compared the previous ones. I don't think it should be held at the Summer Meeting, especially if it's going to be over 2 days - Eastbourne is difficult to get to/from and the majority of the juniors ended up staying in a squad member's house about 20 minutes drive away last year, which is fine when we had two cars, but would be impractical with only one. Holding it at the Easter congress would be better, but would remove the ability for us to also play in the regular competitions, so we need to find a venue accessible and at a time it doesn't conflict with our free entries (which we're grateful for) to other, longer, (currently) more intense, competitions.

Even though last year was the 50th meeting, it didn't feel like the publicity apart from saying “we're now in eastbourne, yipeee” celebrated this - I feel like there could have been major reform, perhaps with the introduction of a new, all ages, midweek competition to (as already mentioned by others) replace the one of many seniors congress available all year around. Would opening it up to everyone really put those already playing in the currently seniors only congress off from attending? Especially since younger generations are the future of this game, it's slightly dull to only be playing open pairs all week, with no real sense of competition.

The Open pairs/teams available for free to those on the sunday after the swiss pairs seems like a wasted opportunity. Perhaps, rather than only offering a free game then, there could be an option from say 2/3 open pairs throughout the midweek to choose from - people playing the first & second weekend might come from the thursday then, using a free game they may never have used. I can't imagine everyone having played 3 days straight with potentially a poor weekend of bridge, wanting to solve that by playing yet more bridge a couple of hours later.

Growing up in Brighton, I might just be biased because the event has now moved away, but a lot of squad members seemed to enjoy staying at “Hotel De Errick” and were never more than a 30 minute walk from the venue, there were plenty of local chippies/supermarkets/bars open til late, and leaving the venue at night didn't feel like a ghost town.
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is just Kokish.

I've taken this hand from a Camrose match that was on Vugraph, so it's the player's methods so I'm not 100% sure.

Speaking in terms of my partnership, we generally bid 2 waiting on all negatives/semi-positives. I think control responses whilst useful, take up room which is much more beneficial for opener to be using to describe their hand.
Jan. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 as an artificial general slam try in
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - although it feels wrong to do so I prefer to bid hands of this shape and 6M/4 other by starting with 2 of the 6cM. Although we've discussed this a few times, it seems to be something we disagree upon when it comes to bidding them at the table - as this auction shows.

A few times this has happened recently - especially when 6/4 in hearts and diamonds, bid 2C and I had to pass with something like:

x
xx
xxx
AJTxxxx

2C went off whilst 2H was absolutely cold. It's not consistent if we have to constantly think ‘partner could be 6/4 or 6/5 - I must bid my 2cM!’.

Jan. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
XX denies any sort of 3 card or better holding in diamonds - so shows clubs and hearts. Partner then bids 2H with 5H4S and 2S with 5S4C.

It wasn't a very pretty auction really.
Jan. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, deep finesse says that you can make 7D and 6NT isn't far off.

I think 6D is a fairly sensible contract.
Jan. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 2C, bidding spades would then show the 5 spades 4 hearts hand. Level dependent ofc.

—–

3S in this sequence would show 5 spades and a 4 card minor (diamonds probably!) . Well, it'd more often be some really nice 5/5 or 6/5 hand.

3H here shows this hand - 5 hearts and 4 spades (at least). To me at the table, it seemed clear this was 6/5 in the majors.

—–

As it happens, bidding 3H (which my partner bid at the table - and I agree with) was promptly followed by X and three passes. -800 :(

My Hand:

94
96
T864
Q10764

To be honest, I don't think west really has his first X - Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses. Whether it's T/O of spades, diamonds, or showing diamonds I'd of just bid 3NT:

AQ52
A72
AK952
5

But then, he got a good board so how can I complain? - I guess it'd gone 3NT from him anyway after 3C.
Jan. 7, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top