Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Dehlin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have specified that we play Lebensohl over the reverse so responder's method of getting out at 3 is 1-1-2-2N-3-3.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Honestly, a jump after partner's reverse hasn't even been on my radar screen (perhaps showing my inexperience relative to other posters here).

In your preferred methods, how narrow/broad are the specifications for that bid? Great suit, check…but how great? Does it show a solid suit (and if so how long…as extreme a suit as G3NT)? Does the bid show extra strength? Is it denying support for either of reverser's two suits (or is that strain dependent)?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Poker is…a much simpler card game than bridge.”

In bridge terms, I double. In poker terms, I raise.

Poker's complexities are are found in different dimensions (more game theory, psychology, telling a convincing story), which I think makes it very hard to compare. But I would not describe it as simpler.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree the upgrades you mention would be nice…but first I'd like to see some more basic improvements:

1. Identify in the Vugraph lobby (i.e. where one selects which match to watch) whether the match is Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup, etc. without requiring viewers to have foreknowledge or to recognize the players' names.

2. Idenitfy in the Vugraph lobby which tables currently have active voice commentary.

Then if you really want to get fancy, I'd like to have an option for one or more written commentators to restrict her/himself to seeing ONE hand only, and permitting viewers to subscribe to ONLY those commentators' discussion. I think putting yourself in a player's single-dummy shoes would be much more challenging and interesting, especially if you had the commentators taking the same approach. Currently viewers can arrange to view only one hand, but you then need to ignore all commentary if you want the true single-dummy experience.

If there is a fear that this will result in highlighting too many hands that are boring on a single-dummy basis, maybe there can be an algorithm (hopefully one less transparent than the “best hand” algorithm in robot tournaments) that assigns the single-hand commentators to the hand that the algorithm suggests is LIKELY to be more interesting.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Path dependence applies. If you're starting from scratch, I agree basic 2-way is simpler. But if you're building on a NMF base and you're dealing with intermediates, I suspect that changes the conclusion.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re: the Butler scores from the round robin…

http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/tourn/wuhan.19/microSite/ButlerBB.htm

…I recall reading skepticism about the value or accuracy of Butler scores as a measure of the “best” pairs. But the only specific concerns I can remember are sample size and variable quality of competition faced.

What does this expert group think…is there any signal in this noise? Is the sample of 200+ hands adequate? Is the quality of competition faced by different pairs over those boards likely to vary enough to meaningfully skew the results?
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recommendation for BridgeWinners management: the World Championships should have their own “Featured Article” thread just like all NABCs.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love my bridge, but I honestly wish that those involved in governance would find better things to do with their time than focus on this, or other, feel-good but substance-free gestures.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The uncharitable view of someone who doesn't want to hear advice from qualified opponents is that they are close-minded or hubristic.

A charitable view is that they are following Bob Hamman's advice to mentally move onto the next hand, and want to leave ANY post-mortem until later. Another is that they already recognize their mistake.

Until you land in situations in life where you are specifically engaged or identified as a mentor/coach/advisor/manager, recommend that you simply never offer unsolicited advice in competitive or professional situations; it will rarely be well-received. Don't try to understand it (your attitude is far healthier), just accept that is how most people are and don't risk offending.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Richard R…2 is most definitely forcing. For one round.

@ Richard F… by immediately raising 2 to 3 arent you risking losing a 44 heart fit?
Aug. 25
Barry Dehlin edited this comment Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real competition in these events are the other humans sitting in your seat with your cards playing the bots at their table.

From that perspective, the 55% tournaments mentioned in the OP are not “clubbing baby seals”; there are decent players in this flavor of tournament, or at least much better players than in other types of BBO robot tournaments.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other – I sometimes have no strong feelings, but want to see how experts I respect have voted. I can't see the names of who responded how unless I vote or abstain.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
7-player teams?
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also want to know how light we will overcall. Would something like xxx AQxxx xx xxx bid 1H here?
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“As they apply it, they will learn when the rule works and when it does not…”

Pretty sure this is empirically wrong for the vast majority.

I agree with using rules as starting points, but the problem is that too many teachers (maybe including Colchamiro?) stop at the rule and don't even try to give students the more complicated tools or thought process to eventually transcend the rule.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd support Michael's idea if and only if each team can pre-specify the ensuing KO event(s) for which they want to be eligible. Lower-point teams should have the right to say they are NOT candidates for the open KO field. I do not want to see a lower-point team – who may be targeting a deep run in the “Mini” – tank late in the Swiss if they're on track to qualify “too high.”
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the back story on why Robb Gordon asked to be briefed on this system?
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't make crappy two-suited bids on nothing that paint a picture for the opponents' play of the hand when we have little hope to win the auction except in misfits.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was the bidder Richard cites from the other thread. While I'm not entirely convinced I was right there, the bid was made in 4th seat over a 3rd-seat opener on a deal that was almost certainly a part-score battle. So I think it's a different situation than we see in this thread.
July 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top