Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Giesler
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table the bid was 2 showing a balanced invite. Partner held: AJ92 A5 J107 AQ65. So it did not work out well and your analysis was pretty accurate. Would you accept the invite with this hand?
Nov. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the comments. For what it is worth we play Cappelletti (C/1MX) just as he originally described in the booklets mentioned above. Several years ago (before he died and was still playing) I asked him this exact question. His answer was, “play transfers on with their advantages - the opponents will never let you play at the two level anyway.”
Oct. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anybody play opening 3NT showing at least 5-5 in the minors and, say, 5-11 hcp. What are the pros and cons?
Oct. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly determining strength of field (and masterpoint awards) based on number of teams in the bracket makes no sense. Which is the stronger bracket 7 good teams or 7 good teams with two sacrificial lambs thrown in from a lower bracket?

Here is an example at a recent regional. Top bracket has 2 pro teams and 5 good intermediate teams that should be in the top bracket. But two sacrificial lambs have to be moved up from the lower bracket to make the required 9 teams. All three ways. In the first round one intermediate team, say Team I is in a 3-way with a pro team and a weak team. Of course, the weak team is destroyed (as is the other weak team). Team I moves on. In the second round Team I again draws the other pro team and another intermediate team. Team I survives not having to play either pro team in the semis because there are no replays. (I wonder if the two weak teams will want to play in another KO again.)

Having a round robin (in this case with seven teams) with the top four teams moving on to the second day would have solved this problem.
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See LC Standard (2/1) on Larry Cohen's website www.larryco.com.

3 of a lower ranking suit is invitational and 6+ cards.
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had to answer “Tournament Bridge” but I would prefer to play club bridge at a high level, large, well run club.
Oct. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Yes.
July 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,
When we played this board, South opened 1H and West (hand shown above) also did not bid spades. After 2D by North, East (with long diamonds) bid 3D. Strange vul and 2D promised 5+. His partner had no clue. Doubled, it would have gone for 800 but they probably would have run to spades. In any case, we stopped in 4H by South. Opening lead was spade ace, they got their ruff but we got the remaining 11.
March 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max - excellent comment.

It is too bad that many administrators refer to players with fewer masterpoints as novices, babies, guppies, etc. It is rude and demeaning. Many are serious advancing players and are far from novices.

It is also unfortunate that we think we need all of these charts. They are unreadable, complicated, and can never be accurate or without ambiguity. Clearly they are one of the reasons there is a decline of interest in bridge in the U.S. It would be nice to follow a much simpler model.
March 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the follow-up. This was a serious but very friendly team game. At the table, South elected to pass over 1 thinking that since he did not have a two-suit overcall available, he would be able to come in later. The bidding proceeded:
1 (Pass) 2 (Pass)
3 (3NT) Pass ???

2 was inverted (club support, 10+)
3 was minimum opener.

3NT by South was intended as two-places to play but North, with short diamonds, did not get the joke and thought that for some reason South had suppressed his diamonds on the first round.

North hand: AK82 KJ865 84 32

3NT got doubled, South ran and eventually played 5DX-1 when 4 was cold. It is probably obvious that 3NT had to be two places to play but it had not been discussed. It might have been better just bid the suits. (or double instead of 3NT?)
Nov. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the better format - what you played or RR to eliminate one team then four teams play KO the next day?
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 - transfer Lebensohl. Invitational or better. Shows your suit now in case advancer leaps to 4.
May 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall Miles has a very good discussion of three-card raises in his book“Modern Constructive Bidding.” (pg. 70)

We have used his guidelines for sometime and have had very good experience. Probably make three-card raises about 60% of the time. MM discusses several related ideas but basically he says raise with three when you have at least xxx support (prefer Hxx) and a ruffing value that is Jx or less (that is with Qx, rebid 1NT.

(We also use 2NT as an asking bid about opener's raise.)
May 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great comment and poll. Convention Disruption has to be answered with utility theory. It is no fun playing against a pair that either forgets their conventions or has not discussed their agreements and just guess (not talking about novices). I like good scores but would prefer no Convention Disruption no matter how many good scores I give up.
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg,
I passed this out at the club thinking I could never out bid spades (as did several others) but with a do-over I would bid 2.
Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken,
You are right. Here is the whole hand (sorry, could not get the hand editor to work in a comment):
- - - - - - AQ532
- - - - - - Q5
- - - - - - K2
- - - - - - A986
J8 - - - - - - - - - 7
9643 - - - - - - - K1082
J8543 - - - - - - 1076
73 - - - - - - - - - KQJ104
- - - - - - K10964
- - - - - - AJ7
- - - - - - AQ9
- - - - - - 52

The club frequencies were (above average strength):
4+2: 7
6=: 4
3NT+2: 1
Feb. 13, 2016
Mike Giesler edited this comment Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Greg,

I was the one that declared this hand in 4HX-1. For some reason, “East” did not open their 13 HCP count. I opened 2C which LHO doubled. The double was explained as “high cards” so I thought I had a sure thing leading to the SQ. I never would have figured it out at the table placing all of the outside cards in the wrong hand. Thanks for posting.
Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The vugraph overlay on the live video stream was fabulous. Thanks to everyone who helped.
Specific questions (for BAM):
1. Linking the tables was nice but not necessary. Better to have a smooth production with fewer problems to fix. Might be a good software fix for this.
2. Scores - not necessary considering the effort. Especially if you can see both tables.
3. Nice to have the CR scores, but again, probably more effort than it is worth.
General Comments:
A. I am sure the operators like to be oriented “behind” South. It would be nice if the camera was also “behind” South. It was harder to follow the video when North was at the bottom and all of the other displays we are used to, South is at the bottom.
B. I am sure there are lots of little fixes you are aware of. It would be nice if you could see the card played a little better. Maybe different lighting could fix this.
C. (For IMPs). It is so much nicer and a better viewer experience when all of the matches are playing the same boards. I know you have responded with security concerns but I think these could be overcome.
D. I would be glad to pay for a daily ticket to help cover expenses. Thanks again.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny and Art,

The problem is that the Bridgemate percentages are, in fact, a lot different that the old travelers. The travelers do not show percentages. With the Bridgemates, a pair sees 100% and gloats, “we got 100%.” (Even if it is the second round.) If they got a low percentage they are incredulous and start an inane discussion on what happened because they actually do not understand matchpoints. This is even worse at one of our local clubs that only shows the percentages and not the individual board results where you might figure something out.

It is the percentages that cause the problem. I would turn off all of the results, but if you have to do something to appease the club players and make it look like the old travelers, just turn the board results and don't show the percentages. Is this a Bridgemate option?

April 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JoAnn mentions a specific player but this is a common problem. I have talked to and interviewed several who have done the same the same thing. Achieving LM is a reasonable goal but that is not the reason given for dropping out of tournament play. The main reason given is rude players. Others include slow play, other zero tolerance issues, directors that need more training, poor facilities and unwillingness to travel just to endure the negatives. I would also throw in lack of technology which could make tournaments run faster and more smoothly.

The ACBL masterpoint plan hurts the developing tournament player. (We have difficulty getting intermediate flight B teams to come to our tournaments). However, more attention needs to be given to the enjoyment of the game in the areas mentioned above.
Nov. 5, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top