Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or players with $$$ and an ability which might score a 40-something in a pair event, can hire top pros to play with on a 6 person team to gather master points – and a national championship to boot. Either way, master points are being sold.

For some reason (not too hard to fathom) the sponsors get a pass and the average bridge player is looked upon with scorn – heaven forbid the gold rush. Selling is selling….and it happens on both end the spectrum.

BTW, I don't think that all sponsors are 40-something percent players, but enough of them are.
Oct. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I don’t agree with your initial premise that the NABC has as its purpose to highlight its premier events. Sure, I think it is great that the best players in the world can gather and play at NABCs. But I don’t think that’s the purpose of having a “Championship”. I see the purpose of having the North American Bridge Championship as a vehicle for letting the ACBL members get together 3 times a year to enjoy some bridge and camaraderie with folks across the nation of similar skills and ability, with the added bonus that folks have the opportunity to play with those of greater experience and ability should they elect.

Less than 1%, approximately 1,400 ACBL members, have over 7000 MP. (Not that I agree that MP holdings are equivalent measures of ability, but that is the only measurable indicia currently available.) Even if 100% of those 1400 attended the NABC (a very unlikely event), it would not be sufficient to sustain a national event. Likewise, even if 75% of those with over 3000 MP attended (approximately 4% of ACBL members, less than 7,000 members) there would not be sufficient participation to sustain a national event. Like it or not, the core ACBL membership is not the elite player. Indeed, more than 80% of ACBL members have less than 1000 MP.

It is foolhardy, IMHO, to suggest that the NABC schedule should cater to the top 1-2% of players. It is the 98% of players that permit the 1% to get together at the NABCs. There are events for the top players in the USA, they are called team trials. (I believe there were all of 15 teams competing this year).

I particularly take issue with the suggestion that the BR Pairs should get the least desirable starting time because too many folks qualify to participate through numerous regional events. That more folks qualify to participate should be a reason to highlight the event, not diminish it.

In any event, I like Martel’s suggestion presented in another article that the ACBL should conduct a survey to see what its members want and adjust the schedule accordingly.
Oct. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I miss the issue here. Why bid 2 when p only promises 4? If p has 5 (and 8+ HCP), surely he will bid 2 asking whether I have 3 or 4. The only potential problem is playing 1NT with 2 little . P is likely to have ….and in any event, lead is unlikely with my 1NT bid…I anticipate a lead…just what I want.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok p….what 'ya got? 4NT…cause we are playing in 5 or 6 or 6NT (7 is out cause p does not have 3s)
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am confident that p will reopen. The real question is whether I leave his double in. Alternatively, I will convert his 3 to 3NT and give him the choice.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a major difference, I think, between giving p a choice of games and inviting p to slam. 1NT- 2-2- 3NT says…p I have 5 and 10+ HCP…choose the game.

1NT-2-(4)-2 (4)-4NT- says p I have 6+ 15+HCP. My hand is shapely for slam in depending on your holding, please describe. If I have 5 and 16+ HCP, I just bid 4NT immediately and ask p if he is at the top of his range for slam.

Note, with some partners I would bid 3 puppet following the 1NT and depending on the response would have a clearer picture for follow up.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I want it quantitative, why not just bid 4NT immediately? What purpose does the transfer serve other than to set trump?
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT is not quantitative here following the transfer but RKCB. However, since I have the AKQ of trump, 4 serves the same purpose here (I want to know p's Aces), and is not subject to misinterpretation. Still, I like the 4NT bid because I am confident p will not misinterpret it and will accurately respond.

In a new partnership, surely 4 response is superior.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
P hand is: 6 AJT65 K974 KJ8. Both 6 and 6 are on based on the lie of the cards (N holds AQ72). While 6 scored better, 6 seems to be the much superior bid.

Only 2 out of 12 tables reached slam. At the table that reached 6 the bidding went: 1, 2, 3, 4 (cue), 5, 6. At my table I just blasted away to 6 following the 3 bid – not too good, I know. The query is how to reach 6 based on the bidding to this point. I have not shown my great support or the strength on my hand yet. I ruled out the 4 cue because that would set as trump. Similarly, I ruled out the 4 cue as that also would show first round control, but would not signal the great . I ruled out 4 because I thought that could be interpreted as sign off. I thought seriously about 5, but ruled it out because I was not sure how p would interpret it, but in hindsight I acknowledge it is a superior bid to 6.

My query: once p accepts as trump via a splinter, is it possible (or advisable) to show support? If so, how is it done?

Finally, is 2 really a better bid than 2 here?
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So p sees my splinter and signs off. Normal action is to pass. If this is start of a tournament, or if we are comfortably safe for qualifying, I pass and sign off. If we need good board to qualify, this is a board I'd take a chance on and ask via 4NT – since the hand only needs 1 ace for slam (heck 2 aces and grand slam is in the cards)
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep, my answer would change if all red or all white. In either of those scenarios I would bid 2 instead of passing for penalty
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am more likely to open this hand 3NT (gambling) in second seat than 1. Moreover, I am more likely to open 1NT than 1. (okay, so I fudge a bit). But what I would not do is bid 3NT after 1 and 1 have been bid. No doubt there will be a lead on such bidding and we are down big time.

My philosophy is to either take a chance at the first opportunity, or forget it. I think that plays well here.

BTW, I would never open 2 here with 4-5 losers.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not that I don't want to! It's too bad that lawyers are trained to be adversarial. I spoke up because I did not want the focus to be somehow switched from the top pros. If they want to argue amongst themselves…then fine. It's when the want to bring the rest of us (the 99%) that I feel the need to speak up. :)
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
uh, ok…my saying was don't screw around with the rest of the schedule under the pretense of increasing attendance. And should you be inclined to do so, do some real research before hand.

BTW, I would be delighted to buy your first drink in Denver and discuss this some more.

(edited to add the BTW comment)
Oct. 10, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. But as a grand life master, you should feel confident in knowing that NABC+ events do not drive attendance to Nationals. Then again, perhaps you have forgotten what it was like to be a relatively new comer?
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This proposal was never about attendance. Let's not even kid ourselves about that. The NABC+ events do not drive attendance to the nationals.

As one who will be attending Denver for a mere 5 days this December, I can say with certainty that had the mini-blue ribbon event been moved to start the day after Thanksgiving, I would not be attending at all. To me, family come first – despite my love of bridge. So before the discussion moves to adjusting the 0-10,000 (5,000) player, please do some real research to see what will motivate folks to attend. And whether folks want to stay for the full event. Personally, I'd select the end of the event given the holidays and should a team event be held at the end, I'd just skip it. I have no disillusion that I am somehow unique.
Oct. 10, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top