Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 78 79 80 81
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is totally wrong. Behind screens it is recommended to pass the tray before asking questions that won't impact your bid.
Nov. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3d is a totally different kind of bad bid than the others. So while S didn't bid perfectly, N gets all the blame
Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West must take a call. East took the low road. 2n is probably smarter, and 3c is fine, but 2c is also a reasonable bid. This is really all on west
Nov. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that is probably what Garozzo meant, but I felt it was important to make the distinction. If that is what Garozzo meant, I personally don't think it's true (more weight should be given to the play imo)
Nov. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think South should open probably, but I find pass of 2s pretty normal. I mean North had this and game still could go off. North should have bid more since they need so little for game. 3s seems right. I don't like opening anything but 1s
Nov. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that people are claiming that there's more randomness in the bidding, which is why they tend to include the high level card play caveat. Either that, or that it's harder to become a proficient bidder.

The second claim might be true I suppose, but the first claim is definitely true. Clearly there is less realistic ability to be accurate in the bidding than in the cardplay, which is why any study based on swings in the bidding vs. Card play will be biased towards the bidding. But this doesn't substantiate the second claim, which is I think clearly the relevant claim to discuss. We should care about relative difficulty to obtain proficiency, which is in our control, not relative impact, which is at least in part bound by the nature of the game
Nov. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mostly North since they have a decent play opposite KQxxxx of spades, I don't see how they can pass a slam try. South might have made the stronger move of 4h, but since Mikael says they couldn't, I don't fault them too much for not bidding above game.
Nov. 7, 2017
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Nov. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd partner didn't have a good slam opposite 4 aces, a 21 count with no jacks, and 3 hearts, they shouldn't have tried for slam. In an auction with little room for error, responder should not try for slams that only make opposite the nuts. Else they will probably go down at the 5 level more than they make at the 6 level
Oct. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There should be something between acceptable and borderline crazy. This is that
Oct. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South was trying to employ a clever tactic of letting east feel like his actions will work, and convincing east to do those actions in the future.

However studies have shown that this is unnecessary. One similar player to e with a 99.99% fail rate for such actions was quoted as blaming partner and the bridge gods for how they never put down good dummies, and insisting that these actions put more pressure on opponents (particularly colorblind opponents, who may have trouble distinguishing the double and pass cards)
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's simpler if after declarer exits a heart to w if w just cashed both hearts, which squeezes declarer, not partner..
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim, I would say at least 1/3 of the Berkeley students i“ve taught have not had the intuition that bidding longer suits is better (as opposed to ones with higher cards), if they've had no previous exposure to bridge-like games.

Every semester I ask, after teaching about trumps, bidding, etc. ”Which is better, to bid long suits, or suits with high cards?". I usually get about 60/40 (40% say high cards)
Oct. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For reference, I teach a bridge class from scratch to Berkeley students, about 45 minutes of new content a week. There are cardplay topics interlaced throughout the plans I describe below, but most of the 45 minutes is usually bidding-related discussion. We also discuss bidding during the 45 minutes of free play

The first week, I don't introduce bidding.

The second week, I introduce the mechanics of bidding (which you don't even mention)

The third week I introduce scoring, the game bonus

It's about a 13 week course. I'm lucky if I get students having an even decent grasp of the material you want to present in 15 minutes, at the end of that course. Now true, most of these students aren't doing much bridge outside of class, but even for the most talented and interested ones, it will take several weeks to get any kind of grasp on this material if they've never played before.

What Michael Bodell layed out above seems like it could be taught reasonably in 1 hr or so (though I wouldn't mention x's and such), maybe less to someone that has played somewhat similar games before.

In summary, I think teaching bridge in the right way, and so that students can attempt to not only understand what their learning, but why they're learning it (and why it makes sense) is one of the most difficult jobs imaginable.

If I had only 15 minutes before a session of bridge to teach a friend (who already knew how the cardplay worked), I would try to introduce the mechanics of bidding, the game bonus, and the notion that they should try to bid if they have a lot of high cards, or if they have a long suit. I'd emphasize that bidding your longest suit tends to work best if you're going to bid.

Even what's above is honestly unrealistic for most people to really be able to understand/apply in 15 minutes, but if I happened to be faced with that situation, it's what I'd attempt. Most importantly, I'd remind them (and myself) before I even started teaching that the point of bridge is to have fun, which we can do even if we don't know the strategy of bidding (as long as they were making mostly legal bids, we'll be ok)
Oct. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
who says I can't find a spade fit?

If opener has 4 spades, they pass. If responder has 4 hearts, they usually double. If they have an invite with 4 spades or an invite with 4 hearts that didn't double (I can't imagine why they wouldn't), they bid 2n. If they have a GF with 4 spades, they bid 3h. If they have a GF with 4 hearts that doesn't want to double (this I can somewhat understand, esp. at unfav), then they bid 3n.

the main downside to this is if responder had a garbage stayman sort of hand with 4351 or something, we must defend 2h instead of finding our spade fit. But compare this where if you play double is takeout, it seems to me however you intend to bid there are clear losses in terms of being able to penalize the opponents (should opener double with 3-2 in the majors?)
Oct. 19, 2017
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
first, what i hold probably shouldn't be given since it shouldn't matter to how our partnership defines double.

Second, it's a meta rule (for most experts I think) that when the ops interfere over stayman, doubles are penalty by both players. I also have the meta-rule that when I say “Systems-on”, I mean all our agreements are the same. So if double is stayman, then act as though the auction went 1n p 2c (2h) p p x. Since this double is pen, then we have that the other double is pen.
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Oren and others says above, 3nt is really the bid that caused the issue, 4c much better
Oct. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't exactly understand why the hand isn't worth last train. Will partner drive to slam with AQxx Axxx Kxxx x? Maybe, there is a decent case for it. But still last train feels almost exactly right to me.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if partner has “better spades than normal” (3+?) and “a good hand”, seems like they might have tried 3nt.
Oct. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South shouldn't bid imo, but if they do we should still stop in and make 5h
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may depend how the auction develops. Certainly it can work better to pass then bid, if you get to show a maximum passed hand. This can get you closer to describing your hand then if you basically have to just preempt and shut up.

Of course, if partner will never expect you to pass with in-between hands, then it won't work as well. But if partner knows that you do, then on the auctions where you get to show a max passed hand, partner will probably play you for one of those in-between hands

That said, I sympathize a lot with the sort of style where passing b) doesn't exist. Most of the sorts of hands I pass at the table are flawed in some other way. For me though, my 2-bids aren't so wide ranging, so I can comfortably preempt 2h on hands like B, but not A (when I'm not playing Ekrens anyway)
Oct. 8, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 78 79 80 81
.

Bottom Home Top