Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd anticipate p holding length in , shortage in and without 4 It would not surprise me if p's shape was 3-3-5-2 (6-10 HCP) or 4-3-5-1 (>6 HCP).
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great article. What I find fascinating is your initial decision to let them play. Knowing that your side has the balance of strength, with equal vulnerability, you decide to let them play. Your article states that “experience has shown that in this type of situation it is best to let them play….far more often one or more contract will be going down.”

Can you expand upon this statement? How and when should the side holding the balance of strength decide to “let them play.”
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With most of my p's, double of 4 opening preempt is for penalty, and 4NT is conventional takeout for 2-3 suits. 5 forces slam, but I am not sure it's there. I am confident p will respond with his best suit after my 4NT or perhaps pass with 2 stoppers in .
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players with less than stellar skills get titles all the time; they buy them.
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because the purpose of the proposal was for an amateur championship, i.e., by definition, not professional. Geez, a proposal that pros be not allowed to enter 1 event out of the 11 days of events draws this much push back. Why is that? No one is suggesting that the weak sponsor could not go out and find friends who are not professional, and who are quite strong, who might want to form a team with him/her. The only request is that the amateur title not be for sale. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve, in your example, I would dare say you are far less likely to find 3 good non-pro players playing with a weaker player for giggles. Indeed, most players tend to play with their peers when they are not being hired (or teaching their students).

Whereas, it has been demonstrated, time and again, that with sufficient funds, folks can buy master points and nationals championships, with less than stellar bridge skills by hiring the 3 pro players.

While I have no insight into this particular proposal, it seemed to me that the proposal was saying that it didn't want sponsors buying the amateur titles too. Sure, 3 good players (more likely 5) might carry a weaker one and not be professionals, but I have not heard anyone complain about that happening, yet.
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Oren, I am sure you are aware that the rule was not made for the exceptions. :)
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those that can, do; those who can't, teach. (Albeit, I think there are some great teachers who are also great players).

A non-professional playing teacher would not be considered a professional. IMHO, the distinction between who is professional and who is not would be rather easy to monitor. If it was labelled “cheating” to enter an amateur event as a professional, I dare say the vast majority of bridge players are ethical enough not to enter, the remainder would be foolish enough to be caught. The distinction between the two is a red herring for purposes of determining whether a national amateur championship should be considered.
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a minimum opener red vs white. I know that p does not have 3 and 5+ hcp, so why am I going to risk reopening? For a +90 or 120 max? Seriously? When the downside is -200 (easily) and perhaps more.

Opps look to score +110 - +200 (about the same as me going down 2.) Perhaps p has the and we can hold them to 110. In any event, lets not let the powerhouse bid again and get to game. I know they have the balance of points, why test them?
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kieran,…..did you mean by your comment that only professional players are good players? Did you really mean that you can't envision a good player who did not work full-time at the game? Just who is fooling who here?
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and comments like this is why there is such dissension between the ranks. While I have a rather thick skin, I do find it insulting that someone might suggest that winning the BR Pairs is a joke and not worthy of a NABC title. Sure, I'd like to laugh it off (after kicking them in the balls) but it would bother me that my accomplishment had been downgraded. Then again, I remember what my momma told me: “if you haven't nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.”

Thus, for momma (may she rest in peace) I say nothing. For those still clamoring, I take my dad's side of things, “kick them in the balls, slaughter them at their game, and then laugh.”

My parents were a very carding playing pair…although at the time, it was pinnacle.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Peg, I only hope that the powers that be realize that the non-expert crowd is significantly more than the expert crowd and thus decides in my favor :) Okay, my p said I should not do that, but I am who I am….and I do that.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg, as much as I disagree with your original article, I agree in spirit with your suggestion. I think that folks should be encourage/required to play up! Perhaps that is because I never was permitted to play in a gold rush event (and thus have skin in the game). Or perhaps it is because the club that I regularly play at has at least 3 grand life masters, 2 diamond life master and 3 emerald life masters playing regularly that I don't think about “playing up” Heck every tourney out of my home club is much easier to gain MP.

But as a relatively newcomer to live face-to-face bridge…I take exception to moving the things that I am eligible to play in to the least desirable times. I had a heck of a time finding someone to accompany me to Denver. In the end, I decided that I wanted go and I had a partner to play the BR pairs with me, so I elected to go alone. I would never have made that decision if the BR pairs had been moved the day following Thanksgiving. I do, after all,have to think of family. SO yes, lets give the experts their due, but please do not forget about us, those that want to playing “expert” events – and let us have a time that is convenient and fun too.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@phil, okay, please tell me if your suggestion of opening 1 is real.. Granted such opening solves problems down the line (if p has a great hand–and creates problems down the line if partner does not). But are you really going to open with 6 HCP…1?
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@jack, while I agree that many play 1 love 1 denies 3 (definitely 4) card support, how else is there to show a 7 card suit? Do you think support is more important that showing a 7 card suit? Does your partner?
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kieran, for me, opening 3 denies 4 cards ,,,,which we have here. Immediately raising denies my 7 card . The devil is in the details.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is also a shut off bid. 1 bid is not.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all for your comments. It is ironic that this hand would present itself in a new partnership. I showed it to all my regular partners, and still most were stymied how we would bid it.

FYI – the corresponding hand was: KQ AK972 AQ6 J54. I bid 4 after 2NT and p passed. Both 6 and 6 are cold on the lay out. The hand was played at 38 tables on BBO. Only 1 pair reached slam – 6. Their bidding went-p-1-p-1-(2)-3-6-X (E held 5-5 minors, but generally was silent in the majority of the boards).

Thanks to the comments, I am reading up now on jump fi scenarios.

I really do not like the opening of 1 on these cards – although it solves potential problems up the line, it is not representative of the cards I held. I try as much as possible to give partner a view of my hand. There is something magical about the dance – the show and the tell.

Since I normally play a preempt in first or second seat promises 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5, and denies 4 of the other major, the preempt was immediately ruled out for me on this hand. I thought about 2 over 1…but that bid generally shows 6+and 0-4 HCP.

I am definitely going to learn more about methods by a passed hand. Any direction appreciated.
Oct. 22, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmmm……you are not going to show your 7card suit? Tell me your bidding sequence.
Oct. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess that option never occurred to me. Why would you open 1? The hand does not meet the rule of 20. You are not at favorable vulnerability, thus inclined to stretch the truth. Why would you want to misrepresent your hand with a new partner with whom you might wish to establish a longer lasting partnership?

In any event, how about 6NT if you would open this hand 1.
Oct. 21, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top