Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ryan Wessels
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apology appreciated. All I am trying to say is that we should remember that there is a real person at the other end of the computer who - by posting here - is trying to learn and improve. Let's strive to give them the benefit of the doubt and be more careful with our tones to encourage participation and grow the game we all enjoy.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Martin - With all due respect, I continue to object to your criticisms. I am very grateful for the ability to learn from great players on BW and in no way intended to waste anyone's time with my original post. I had thought that by inserting the word “generally” and specifically noting the omission of the hand/bidding, I might get comments/votes along the lines of “I would generally play the 8, but there may be reasons I would deviate and play the 9.” As I explicitly stated above, I was mistaken.

Rather than showing a “lack of respect for the BW users and their time and attention” I think the fact that prior to yesterday's postings, I had only made 8 posts in my 9 years of active BW usage, shows that I immensely value the time of the BW community.

Unfortunately, it is comments like these that intimidate more timid members from posting as they worry about getting criticized for their post. I have seen comments (not specifically from you) criticizing posters because, among other reasons, the answer to their question is obvious, there was a similar question posed previously and they failed to search through the archives, they omitted key information they didn't realize was relevant, they failed to use hand diagrams, they failed to make it a bidding poll, and their phrasing of the question was ambiguous.

Rather than make assumptions and jump to criticisms, I think a more inclusive response would be to politely point these out when it would be useful for the poster to know. Of course, this is just my opinion and I appreciate your generally insightful comments.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How’s this to help your imagination: the first post was made from a cell phone under time pressure after partners agreed to post to BW. The second post was made when at a computer when there was time and ability to post the full hand. I was hoping the comments on the first post could provide some clarity notwithstanding the lack of the full hand/auction. I was mistaken.

(I also appreciate you toning down your initial criticism/assumption)..
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suit
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess a better question is whether a 2 bid here as natural and regressive is “expert standard.”
July 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that both STRENGTH and SHAPE have been codified, I'd be interested in one more poll as to which system one would prefer to play.
March 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I don't know what the proper ruling should be, I am VERY sympathetic to the E-W pair.

As a younger player myself, the vast majority of bridge I have played has been online. Of the live bridge I have played, the vast majority has been at (U.S.) club games.

When I play online with pickup partners, the opponents virtually always play a strong NT. Moreover, the opponents rarely announce their strong NT bids. When I play at the club, the opponents virtually always play a strong NT. Moreover, the opponents occasionally forget to announce their strong NT bids.

In my short bridge experience, I have never had an opponent fail to announce a weak no trump bid, but have had plenty of opponents forget to announce their strong no trump bids (i.e. there's a high correlation between failing to announce a NT range and playing a strong NT).

As a result, I subconsciously assume that my opponents are playing a strong 1NT unless told otherwise. Of course, in a knockout match I SHOULD have already looked at the opponents' CC and I SHOULD ask if I'm not sure. But I can easily see myself failing to do so.

As I said earlier, I don't know what the correct ruling is (and it appears from the above posts that the correct ruling is no adjustment). But I am very sympathetic to a junior making this mistake at the (as of now) biggest match of his or her career.
Dec. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No agreements - simply agreed as takeout
April 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe there was a “Ruling the Game” article in the Bridge Bulletin about this a couple of years ago in which the author said this was illegal, but corrected his opinion the next issue.

I have strong opinions about this. I believe that it is not okay to ask SIMPLY in order to deceive the opponents by your asking, but it is okay to ask in order to know how to deceive the opponents in the play (e.g. which of equal honors should I play to be most deceptive?).

It is also okay to ask in order to deduce opener leader's holding and also to figure out the information his partner knows from the opening lead - if it could affect your play in a side suit or your overall plan for the hand (which it virtually always does).

As such, as an opponent of a player who asks, I would not let the question affect my defense and if I did, I would know that I am using it at my own risk.

In other words, I think it could be okay to ask with Axx opposite KQx depending on the rest of the hand.

Of course, the example given was not simply asking, but a big production out of asking which makes me more likely to question the ethics of the asker. However, if the asker simply asked, “leads and carding?” I would never rule against them.
March 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't think the carding was relevant, since I thought it was a suit preference situation, but I edited the post to say normal agreement is upside-down attitude, standard count.
Feb. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-1, 2-2, 3N-P. Need some luck…
Oct. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Michael,

First thank you to you and Debbie for doing an amazing job in the junior training program - it truly is an amazing program. I was wondering what it was like to be married to a professional bridge player. How often do you guys discuss bridge? Are there any downsides?
Aug. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, title corrected
July 29, 2013
XYZ
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where can I find these 3 articles? Are they online somewhere?
April 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the idea of a poll on cue-bidding styles. I would suggest an option that 3S shows spade support and is not a control-showing bid (or removing that question all together).
April 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you'll end up playing in 2S with an expert when you don't have an agreement.
March 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the expert standard agreement is to play support doubles through 2? Am I wrong?
March 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies if the poll is confusing (I can see where the ambiguity arises out of the word “or”), but I meant to lump “GF” and “forcing to 3NT” as one option. If you would have voted for “Game Forcing” had it existed, I would vote for the first option. I will try to change the language to make it more clear.
Feb. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GF and forcing-to-3NT may be totally different beasts, but they are more alike than other poll options. More importantly, differentiating between GF and forcing-to-3NT is not what I am interested in at this time.

I don't understand what is “unfair.” I'm trying to get a good understanding on how most 2/1 players treat the 1D-2C auction…
Feb. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I agree that more choices would be more informative, but it would also make the poll more complicated. For example, there are three ways one could play the sequence 1D-2C - (1) Game forcing (2)Game forcing unless clubs are rebid or (3) Not game-forcing.

I will change the notes of the poll to disregard the 1D-2C sequence.
Feb. 24, 2013
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top