Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for 3 – because it is the bid I would make most often. However, with some p's I would definitely bid 4. The more I do these polls, the more I realize that my p's rather than my cards shade my bidding one way or the other.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never minded kibitzers, they generally want to watch my opponent, but after the post mortem I had with one of my semi-regular partners, I think I would request no kibitzers at our table, when we play together.

Long story short, we were playing in a regional pair game and were N/S. A world class pair came to our table, followed by their entourage (about 4 folks, who were very polite and well behaved – with no noticeable perfume/cologne issues). In any event, I remember opening 2 in 1st chair, white vs red. My p bids 2NT (in our system asking if I have an outside entry – an A or Kxx). I respond 3 (I had the A)…my p bids 3NT and I, of course, pass. 3NT goes down 2….top board is 4 making +1; most of the field is in 3 making +2. I don't remember the 2nd board, but it was a similar poor result. During the post mortem, I ask my p, why did you bid 3NT when you had 3 and enough count to put us in game? I will never forget her response: “there were so many people watching that I wanted to show that I could play too; sorry, I know it was wrong.” My response, no problem partner, but perhaps it would behoove us not to have kibitzers at our table until you feel they really won't make a difference in our bidding or play."

I truly think that for some folks, kibitzers add pressure – even when they are not kibitzing you or your partner. For me, with this partner, I would ask to ban kibitzers – my p is too nice to say anything, albeit it is she who reacts poorly to them.

Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that deep finesse means nothing here. I agree that the manner in which the auction proceeded at this table, as well as at other tables is important. I do not agree that the results at other tables is irrelevant. From my elementary view, LA is all about what alternative action might have been considered/taken. And if 95% of folks do not pass 3, that is a clear indicator of what is a LA.—regardless of how they got to that point.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I am reading the results correctly, three pairs, playing N/S, out of the 3 sections (48 pairs total), played and made 3 (all in one section , and in 2 of those cases, each time scored 1/2 board). Deep finesse indicates that 3 could be made, as well as 4 but apparently only 3 bid it and made it, Session 2, Board 23; albeit there were a slew of 130 scores (presumably 3 making +1 E/W) as well as other scores. If only 3 out of 48 bid and made 3, I submit that passing 3 was not a logical alternative. Concomitantly it is not surprising that the poll turned out as it did…surprisingly few of the folks in actual competition let 3 play.

If folks want to punish pairs because one of them tanks during the bidding, then pass a law and do so (I'd suggest a procedural penalty). But lets not unduly reward, nor unduly punish folks for taking action that almost the entire field did not let occur. I submit there is little UI information here that suggests bidding on is the proper course of action; rather Ws hand suggests he do so – and @ 95% of the field agreed with him.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting question. It highlights the only adjustment (that p requested and that we received during a regional event in Denver). IIRC, the bidding by opponents, uninterrupted, went 1, 1, 1, 2, 2NT, 3NT. It was my lead. I placed a card, faced down on the table and said…there were no alerts during your bidding, does that mean that all your bidding was natural? Declarer answered yes. I lead the 10 from 10, 9xx, xxx, KqXXX, x). 3NT made on the lead. It goes down 2 on the K lead. My p called the TD and said, opponents indicated that all bids were natural, when in fact dummy held AX, and declarer held xx. If p knew that bid was not natural and lead , then contract goes down 2. Declarer stated that she thought al bids were natural. Dummy said nothing. Opponents cc said that 4 suit was GF. Director adjusted to -2….giving 20/30 MP for the hand.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, I am much more likely to tank than my p. Indeed, as an on-line player, I did not realize how much stock folks attributed to hesitations. I am trying to learn that I must put stock into hesitations and that they do have meaning (other than someone is at the door).

@Steve, I admit that this is a new arena for me. But as an ethical person, (albeit not Caesar's wife) I think I should not be handicapped by items not within my control. At minimum, I think I should be able to describe why I bid on to the TD and let him either decide or poll; I would be satisfied with his decision/result of the poll. I think it is fool-hardy to ascribe motives to the responding player. If we decide to do so, the unethical player would merely tank so his partner could not bid on. This is a double edged sword. In reality, what we really don't want to do is to punish the ethical player.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see….you determined (in first seat) that your hand was not sufficient for an opening call. In 3rd seat, partner preempts. What makes your hand GF now? You don't have 4 pieces – LOTT. You don't have additional HCP. You don't know that P has or that he might interpret your insertion as tolerance/support for . So why exactly are you bidding or raising to 4?
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, it must be HIS bid (her, does not misbid the hand :) Second, 2 is not a misbid; it implies a fit with 14+HCP. And third, estimating trump total and bidding accordingly is neither poor competitive bidding nor taking advantage of UI.
Dec. 9, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a last minute sub in the national swiss pairs that played Barry's team, I can't imagine that I would ever bid 3 after being a passed hand and partner pre-empting at 2. Had I done so, I would attribute the bid to high altitude sickness and would equally assume it was to play.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't E's 1X a 3 suit take-out? If so, my 1 bid, which only promised 4 pieces, and 0 HCP, but was nonetheless raised by E, indicates we have at least 9. Further, opponents rate to have at least 8 (or maybe 9-10). Estimating the trump total to be 17-19, it seems to be the percentage play to bid on, given equal vulnerability.

It also seems clear that I would prefer to play in 2X then 3. That, to me, explains the pass. If I was going to bid 3 without partner tanking, I think it quite ethical to bid 3 despite his tanking. Changing my bid because of his action/non-action at the table, I think is the unethical behavior.
Dec. 9, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I normally play reverse bergen 3 (4 and 9-11 HCP) adequately describes the hand. If p mistakes it for a mini-splinter, no harm no foul. If p has a nice hand, he will inquire further. Since I am at the top of my range for the rev bergen call, I would be very tempted to bid 4, if p decided to sign off at 3.
Dec. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I thought I posted this in the intermediate forum.
Nov. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW Kitty, congrats on a good run in the Senior KO. It is most difficult having to play the defending champs after they have had a sit out, and you only have 4 on your team. I enjoyed watching your team; you 4 gave a good run for the first 2 rounds…and I hope you are as proud of your finish as I was watching you!
Nov. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just listened to Roland's commentary on the Senior KO. His microphone is SOOOO much better now that I don't need to plug in my earphones to hear him! Yeah!!! While I think there are many good vugraph commentators I particularly enjoy listening to Roland's perspective because it is very explanatory and he has shown a willingness to answer simple questions (which are not simple to me, or else I would not have asked). I hope all commentators are given– find similar fixes – for microphones.
Nov. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I just downloaded the app from the ITunes store.

Edited to add: Its easiest to register via acbl.org. Its listed under member benefits.
Nov. 30, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Nov. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I looked at the pics ACBL posted on Facebook of various players to get an idea how warm folks were dressed. Imagine my surprise to see some in T-shirts, others in heavy sweaters, some with scarves around their neck…all in the same playing area!!! I guess I will just pack layers of clothes to assure some level of comfort.
Nov. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the vugraph experience has been much enhanced with the addition of voice commentary. Only problem, it generally is only at 1 or 2 tables….and often not at the table I wish to watch. I wish the voice commentary could be spread to all the tables playing.
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find the lighting arrangements – particularly at tournaments – rather insufficient and leading to unnecessary errors (e.g., Chicago in the basement – need I say more?). Besides, I am older and not accustomed to seeing the boards in live action as opposed to on-line If arrangements could be made to lower the incident of “unforced errors”, like vulnerability inserts, I think it most advisable. In particular, since the cost of the games at NABC events is more than at other tournaments, I see little reason for them not to be used. In light of the aging population, and what I hope is an explosion of players from the on-line world, this proposal seems very easy to accept.
Nov. 25, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on the vulnerability, I selected 3 here. Red vs White in first seat, I want my p to trust that my opening meets the rule of 20 with 2 quick tricks. Since this hand does not (albeit it is close enough to somewhat fudge) I ruled out 1. The 7th makes the hand too strong for a 2 call. If the game is ours, I am confident p will bid the 4, there is no reason for me to take that chance here at this vulnerability.
Nov. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seriously?

What was the purpose of the video? To convince those who have already seen some of the evidence that they are mistaken in their belief that cheating occurred? To garner support from those who have not seen some of the evidence? To scare others from forming opinions, lest they be found to have committed a punishable infraction?

Gossip runs amok on the internet. It seems foolhardy to think that one could somehow try to stifle it. What is certain is that none of the gossip will serve to have the suspected cheaters suspended. The NBOs will do that – notwithstanding the gossip.
Nov. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top