Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
1 2 3 4 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand your argument. Money has value, thus you believe it makes sense not to increase the prize money for teams of 5-6. But MP have no value you state, thus, you see no reason not to increase them for teams of 5-6. If MP have no value, what's the difference in not increasing them? Obviously they have value. Sponsors spends 100K's on pro's to win. If the sponsors do not care about the MP, what exactly is the problem? If they do care about them, why should ACBL sell them?
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hmmmm, your surmise is surprising, especially since S opened the bidding in first seat. Yeah, in 2nd seat – maybe in 2nd or 3rd seat, I could see your point. But in first seat, N anticipates, that her partner opens in first seat with, at minimum, 12 HCP, and after the second bid…with at least 12 HCP and 6…for the 3 bid….now N can anticipate that p has at least 7 and 14 HCP.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On second thought, , X shows …at least 3 pieces…and 8-10 HCP. It still says “do something intelligent partner.”
April 21, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very enjoyable story. Thanks for sharing. If anything, it teaches us that today is not as bad as it seems!
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought 4 was a shut off bid; effectively ending the auction. I didn't want to end the auction at 4, so I did not bid it. Given the alternative, that 3 could be passed out, maybe settling for game is sufficient. It would give average score.
April 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Solowly jump shifts have not been discussed. Generally, all our jump shifts have been weak.
April 19, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment April 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While your p's 3 is reasonable as blocking, I know that my preferred p would not make such a move (his 3 would show values as well as long ). Thus while I would definitely support my p's bid rather than double, if I knew my p's bid was not necessarily strong or long, I can see no reason to double.
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming that 2 is waiting and not showing controls, why not show your hand with 3 now? It won't be passed out; you still have an opportunity to support when p bids 3NT and should p support your , well then its a cakewalk….even with your 3 HCP.
April 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you don't have sufficient values to reverse to show your should opponents enter the bidding. You can mislead about shape or mislead about HCP, but never both.
April 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer 2 to your snapdragon double; you have sufficient values for a 2 level bid. However, since you did not show your values to partner, and he went to 3 without your support, surely you can show your support now.
April 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's only a 7 loser hand. If I have devalued it enough to preempt in first seat, I've adequately described the hand. The hand has not gotten any better with the passes. If I want to rebid, then I open 1. There is little reason to reopen a preempt. Either value your hand originally or don't. How can partner determine your hand, when you can't?
March 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual hand can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/pxuv7ur

The hand is cold for 6 and in actual play, almost all pairs made 7, albeit only 1 pair bid the small slam. My p suggested that if I bid 4 it would have alerted him that I considered the hand slavish. I thought a reverse opposite an opening hand said that.
March 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No agreement; but I do think 2NT would have been a better call :)
March 28, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment March 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pair is playing Namyats, why would W open 4 instead of 3? Surely when opener sees the 4 bid by his p, he is reminded that they are playing Namyats whether P alerts or not. In which case, he would not pass, but bid 5! immediately to say “I goofed” 100% wrong to leave P on the hook for your own mistake.
March 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rescues seldom work. Since partner insists he wants to keep digging, it is strictly on him. But given partners follow-up to your preempt, I'd be very much less likely to preempt with him again.
March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual hand was:
http://tinyurl.com/kke2lmj

The folks who bid 6 were rewarded( only 3 pairs', others scored average minus. I was the only one bidding 5. I thought it told my p, with 2+ controls take us to slam. I guess it didn't as she had controls and just passed us out, leading to 5+2….like most of the rest of the field in 4+3. What have I learned? In for an ounce, in for a pound.,,,bid the slam, even vulnerable with a 2 loser hand.
March 24, 2015
Sabrina Miles edited this comment March 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I was but a gleam in my daddy's eye in 1957 and have little knowledge about how bridge was played then, my perspective is purely of late. I subscribe to Occam's Razor theorem – all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Here, 1 is natural and forcing Quite candidly, I am perplexed why so many choose to obfuscate the bidding. Is the purpose to confuse the defenders – or your p? Of course, some may understand and be completely comfortable playing with long time partner, but doesn't that limit playing the best with newer partnerships? In any event, 1 seems too evident for this to be a quiz. But then again, I am here to learn.
March 10, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top