Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think such a proposal is reasonable at the level in which the pros in question play. For practical reasons, pros play for a sponsor. Although I am not privy to their financial arrangements, I dare say that it would be a rather “good paying” sponsor that other pros would be likely to be enticed. Thus, your proposal in essence asks some pros to turn down some rather lucrative offers by well paying sponsors to say I am unwilling to play with those other folks on my team. Casting no aspersions here, I note that Boye did play on a team with the pair in question when hired by a client.

Sponsors dictate the conditions. Yes, folks may decline offers. But the question remains is it “fair” and/or equitable to have some pros refuse to play at a sponsors' request because of the sponsors choice of teammates? Especially when the governing body has made no finding of guilt. Make no mistake, the sponsor will be and is able to find other pros willing to accept the money to play if some folks are so principled. Yet, the question remains is it really fair to request/require some pros to forego such a contract, without some official finding that the pair in question is really a cheat.
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might sometimes fudge a bit and open a 19 HCP hand 2NT, but I would hardly ever bid 2NT with 22+ HCP. There is quite a difference between p needing 2-3 HCP and needing 6 HCP for game.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Martin….too funny!
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On more than a few occasions I have had to say, I believe I (or my partner) still has a bid. Surprisingly, the picking up of the cards without 3 successive passes occurs both when there has been competitive bidding (at least initially) as well as when there has been no intervention. Since the declaration that the bidding may not be over can disclose UI, I think it behooves folks to wait before picking up the bidding cards. OTOH, I cannot see a TD penalizing a pair for UI when opponents did not give the opportunity for the bidding to legally conclude.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoa! What is South's 1NT? I guess its almost as poor as the West's 2 call. Just proves that if you give opponents enough rope to hand themselves and they will do more damage than you possibly could.
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why exactly do I want to push my opponents to their non vulnerable game? Surely they will sacrifice, at this vulnerability, and will most likely make.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm….does the conversation then parallel the present day “controversy” regarding tablets instead of screens? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Soloway Jump Shifts. There are just too many methods – that take up less room, and communicate just as effectively – to convey the hand distribution and type. Besides, it takes away the really weak jump shift (0-6 HCP) that can be crucial to understanding partners hand.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“instantly pulled” by whom? The 3NT bidder or the 3NT bidder's partner. If it was the 3NT bidder, what makes you believe that it would not be pulled by his (obviously a woman wouldn't have had such a BIT ;) ) partner? I find it hard to believe that you would get to play this in 3NTX. It is going to be pulled by one or the other. In any event, what was the final result?
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't a raise to 3 merely the law of total tricks? Partner is not confused, since you did not bid 2 initially.
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, you need a bit more for slam here. I have learned, the hard way, that looking for too many magic cards (generally 3+) may be a losing preposition. Here, we do rank to have game and get an Ave + on the board. slam may be in the cards, but it is too risky. While it may lead to a top board, it is just as likely to lead to a bottom one. An easy Avg + is sometimes a good thing (okay p, see, I learned, I will take the easy 6NT and not go for the find the Q 7)
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that if there is a slam to be found, it would be in . The problem I have with the 3 bid is that it is too ambiguous. Have we settled on as trump and now I am cue bidding? If so, I have denied first round control (which really makes my hand slam orientated). Further, I don't have first or second round control. Assuming p does – he must if slam is in the cards – he is now puzzled what my 3 bids means. Am I bailing out of game? Is it a western cue asking for stopper? I anticipate p will respond 3NT with the stoppers, and we are no further along than before my 3 bid.
Aug. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rescues seldom work….and they usually backfire horribly.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I took 2 as asking partner if he held 3 or 4s. His 2 response told me he held 3. His 1NT bid told me had 12-14 HCP. I will chance missing the 28 HCP slam and go right to game here.
Aug. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partners' 3 bid asked me if I had a stopper in . I don't. I also want to convey that my are strong enough for game without support. 4 gets the point across and does not stop partner from inquiring further – but I don't anticipate he will with the weak 1, 2 bids.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partners' HCP obviously is not in . He knows the vulnerability too. So, I anticipate his limit raise is 10-11 HCP. What do I need for game? MP pass is a given. At IMP perhaps it is worth risking.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-1400 is character building. Since I did not overcall the 1 initially, I am feeling really confident that I did not overbid my hand. P can decide if he overbid bid his. Of course with the anticipated redouble, I will bid 4
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I passed because p's 1NT bid limited his hand to 12-14 HCP with 5. With 22-24 HCP we are more likely to score better in NT – and game is not in the cards.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4 over the 3 bid. P then understands I have good support and can decide whether the sacrifice is worth it.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why not reverse? Generally it is forcing 1 round. Perhaps p will now bid his 4c suit. 2 is selling out awfully cheap with this hand – even if p was a passed hand.
Aug. 20, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top