Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for your compliment. My work with Bridgemate would not be possible without your encouragement.

You answered one of my questions about online rules. My other question is about disclosing partnership agreement. Specifically, alerting requirement for online play. The alert requirement for face to face is well known. For playing with screens it is also well understood for players at that level. Online play is different, BBO requires players to alert their own bids. This has some advantages over screen play since both opponent could get same explanation. On the other hand, online game (especially speedball) is very fast. It is often not possible to ask opponent for full explanation. Most players don't alert very common bids like transfer after NT open. So my question is if there should be a set of special rules for alerting in online game.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jay,

You have been a proponent for online bridge. Online play is different from face to face game. It won't have problems like bid out of turn and revoke. On the other hand, it has some of its own problems like how to disclose partnership agreement and information security. Current bridge laws do not have anything specific for online game. Do you think ACBL should have some special rules for online play?
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that is evaluated at 7 tricks in my model as well. I only count 4 card suit as 1/3 trick. AK is 6.75, converted to 2.25 tricks.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See my comments below.

I would announce my 1NT open as a balanced hand with 5-6 playing tricks.
Feb. 26, 2018
Ping Hu edited this comment Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a problem in ACBL's rule that should be changed.

The last time they changed the rule on 1NT open is to allow hands with singleton honor to be able to open NT. By definition a hand with singleton is an unbalanced hand. If an unbalanced hand could open NT, why shouldn't the HCP count off by one be allowed to open? Which one is more important? I happen to think shape is more important than HCP range.
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also like trick counting, but I convert them to points at
1 trick = 3 points.

Each honor has ability to win a trick by itself or combined with partner to win tricks. For single honor holding
Ax = 3.7
Kx = 2.7
Qxx = 1.65

However when you have combined holding of multiple honors their values changes:
AKx = 6.75

So in above example, hand one has 13.5 points. Hand 2 only has 12.1 points (Qx might need devalue more).

In addition to honors, long suit could also win tricks. A 5 card suit is valued at 3.95 points. So above hand total points are valued at 17.45 (hand 1) and 16.05.

In order to make 3NT, you need 27 points, 4H/S needs 30.
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I could agree SA evolved into 2/1. In analogy to chess opening, SA could be considered as Classical Variation, 2/1 is Modern Variation. As more and more players play it, Modern Variation has become main line.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be the time for bridge world to define what is system. In chess there are openings and variations. What are the equivalent in Bridge? I would think Standard American, Strong Club, Polish Club are definitely a system because each one has its own set of opening bids and response. We might be able to go down one level to distinguish Blue Club, Precision, K-S etc.

Is 2/1 a system or just a “variation” of Standard American? This is not entirely clear.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SAYC is also 5 card major and strong NT. It could be played with additional gadgets and agreements. It could be called a system. In this context, I would consider 2/1 as a patch to SAYC, not a new system by itself.
Feb. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you read BOD motion for Philly, more gold points will be given away.
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For regular club game overall award is only available for game with 16 tables or more, or with two sections.
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a limit of 1.5 that correspond to 15 tables. So you would want to split if it is more than 15 tables. However if you run special game, there is no such limit.
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The following link has club MP chart. You should be able to find your answer.
http://www.acbl.org/clubs_page/club-administration/resources-and-forms/masterpoint-awards-chart/
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have tried the following system in the past. It might be just what you wanted.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/BlueClubCalgaryKnox.pdf
Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, all players need to agree. Here is the text.

(b) upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue
subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then
proceeds as in (a) above.

(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16
and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.
Feb. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the new rule, player could request to play out after a claim and play should continue.
Feb. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The revoke was not established when you made claim. NS should reveal it and call director. The result should be making 4.
Jan. 31, 2018
Ping Hu edited this comment Jan. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is completely different. Weak and strong NT with different range could not be comparable. Here both overcall and opening are not limited (to a degree) so they are comparable.
Jan. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are the definition of comparable call.

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if
it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the
withdrawn call.

Comparable call is the one satisfies any one of above. 1 overcall would be having same/similar meaning as 1 opening. That is my understanding.
Jan. 30, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top