I think it would be useful to include this because of the enhanced flexibility, especially after
1♥-1♠-2♥ where double showing a spade raise would allow a further invitation via 2NT or 3m after a 2 spade sign-off. It would have the further advantage of doing away with ...
Most people play that a responsive double in this sort of auction shows both minors; that one simply bids the unbid major if one has it rather than doubling. If not, a hand such as xx xxx AQ10x K9xx becomes rather difficult to bid after (1H)-dbl-(2H)-?
I hate to say this but I think that there are two different meanings for this delayed double and that which one applies depends on whether one is using the (somewhat) popular treatment of 1♠ over 1♥ as denying spades but promising values. If using this, then the ...
I would be satisfied with using a 3 day RR to get to 4 teams provided that the initial entry was 11 or fewer. That would allow for 120 board semis and finals. With a larger entry than 11, I could see a 2 day RR to reduce to 8.
I agree with Peter. I don't trust the outcomes of round robins sufficiently to think that 9 teams being cut to 4 is better than 9 teams cut to 8. I, too, see no reason not to go to a straight knockout with exactly 8 or 16 entrants
One of the things that bothers me about using the round robin for seeding is that we sometimes have teams with no real chance to win enter the round robin phase just because they want to play against great players but these teams have no realistic chance to compete. When ...
Glenn was a good local bridge player in Houston. He served 15 years in federal prison and was paroled in 1999, when he returned to Houston. He died in 2007. He was not a friend of mine but was more than an acquaintance.
You have not specified (or I have missed) the condition of whether we are playing IMPs or matchpoints. At matchpoints, there could be a considerable premium to playing in hearts At matchpoints, I would bid 3 hearts which I consider virtually forcing, inasmuch as 2 hearts would be very strong ...
I was his teammate for our 1981 Grand National Teams win and our 1987 Men's Teams win (the last one, now the Open Teams). George was a wonderful person and a great teammate. He shall be missed.
I agree with both of Michael's points. It is not sufficient that a committee be unanimous as to the outcome; it should also be united with respect to the "frivolity" of the appeal.
If penalties for frivolous appeals are agreed upon, they should never be imp penalties.