Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 170 171 172 173
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid 3C and pass any response. If my simulation doesn't support this at matchpoints (which I have yet to do) then something is probably wrong with my software.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the circumstance is that the original post/thread is somehow embedded in my computer but inaccessible to others since it now appears to have been totally removed.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
??? Odd. Works on my computer.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 4th chair's double was Rosenkrantz (a surrogate of sorts for a 2S bid with a top honor) then the opener-responder were perhaps fortunate if their support double agreement was through 2H rather than higher.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry,I thought it was one.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Slam suitable” from MR has a lot of likes which I, too, like.
Somewhat enigmatic, but my take is you'll know when you see it.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we should care if we want the League to flourish.

In my view, it is a sinking ship that is also rowing against the tide.

But, even if so, that doesn't mean that we can't keep face-to-face a delightful endeavor for a few more years.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Frances and Doug.

Obviously I can't speak for LC but I can see why he chose to view the situation as one (as a practical matter) of ethics rather than legalities.

(Sometimes, at the club, I politely bring up the “isolation booth” or behind screens scenario as an effort to “educate.” Sometimes, a light bulb occurs, often a blind stare.)

Here, fwiw, is the ACBL definition of Active Ethics:

http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/ethics-and-discipline/active-ethics/
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, yep – 160,070.
I guess what we don't know is how this number is defined and at what specific time. Thanks for following up.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Current Membership is 160,070, apparently down from the 165,000+ of recent years?”

Hmmmn.

I had been seduced into thinking that membership numbers were holding their own in recent years (about 165,000).

Former CEO made a practice of reporting membership numbers in exhibits accompanying board member reports.

Current CEO made no such report in concert with San Diego board report.

However, this squib was included under strengths in the report filed in concert with Toronto meetings.

“~170,000 intelligent members who
love bridge”

Gary or others, can you explain/elucidate?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray,

My question is a broad one. and my own views parallel those of Jeff Lehman.

At the club, I now let many things go – I'm weary of trying to educate, which often leads to ill-will. Like politics :)

At tournaments, on occasion, I ask the floor director to review his ruling with others.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An Afterwood:

My Premise:

Only the most expert of partnerships should seek penalties after partner opens 1m and 2nd seat doubles – give it up and use transfer advances.

A number of commenters appear to agree and so play, probably with a variety of understandings. Some methods are undoubtedly on BW.

For those who are not so playing and wish to consider, here's a link to a method suggested by Robert Todd, a teaching professional who presents a lucid dissertation.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5127d3d2e4b0b304f0b6db24/t/574469bcf699bbfae405c1fe/1464101309139/157+Adv+Comp+Bidding+-+1m+X+Transfers.pdf
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 2/1 auctions, it would seem “slam suitable” would include an appraisal of length of fit (possibly only 8 vs 9+) and the quick-taking strength of the fit.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True (as well as other transfers).

Also:

1NT is 15- to 17+
We open 11 or 12 BAL, and 10-11 Unbal (system notes)
After a minor opening:
2NT is 13-15
3NT is 15-17

Those are adjustments to 1996 WS. Presumably, they would be included in any WS 2018, edition 3.

My point remains that WS is played by Robinson with his best partners, and is not simply recommended for casual partnerships.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, however unusual, I don't think you got this one quite right :)

Here is a link to recent Robinson-Boyd ACBL and WBF convention cards plus System Summary Form.

http://usbf.org/team-profiles-2016-open-usbc/2016-usbc-robinson-team-robinson-boyd-stewart-woolsey.

Essentially, their agreements closely follow those of SR's Washington Standard 1996 (which, unlike the first edition, includes Advanced Concepts and Understandings).

In the interim since some 20 years ago, a few tweaks have been added. These include transfers over 1m-(Dbl) rather than Redbl. I know that recent tweak include 3-level “switches” after 2C-2M, Control Responses. It looks like two-tier splinters to 1M have been dropped. The response structure to 1NT (15- to 17+) has been altered. The tweak (?), now BWS, to 2S as a range ask has not been added. Whatever, their methods disclosed in the link parallel those of WS.

It seems to me that any pair that can “master” SR/WS can hold his own – in the bidding department – against most of the very best.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does an agreement that such a splinter should be pure (in the OP example, promises a 1st or 2nd round control in Clubs)? Or would that be too restrictive?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to all for input.

“On further review” I've concluded that the criticisms here outweigh the possible gains from my suggestion.

And I like the following from Frances Hinden:

“It's vanishingly rare to want to penalise the opponents at the 1-level particularly if you are going to be bidding a decent suit.

So we play transfers: 1C x xx = diamonds, 1D = hearts, 1H = spades, 1S = constructive club raise or better, 1NT = natural, 2 level = weak long suit and so forth.”

Steve Robinson's “Washington Standard” (1996), recommends methods which are closely related to BWS 2017, and in some instances, further amplified.

I also checked out the late Marshall Miles' “Stronger Competitive Bidding” (1992). (An outstanding book but, imo, the format/layouts make it difficult reading.)

The chapter on Doubles and Redoubles runs some 90 pages.

The section on redoubles or not after partner's opening one-bid consists of about 15 pages. Any partnership that can internalize and successfully play these intricacies should forget Bridge Winners reading and get ready for World Championship play :)
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite so, Steve. Some, I believe, play as much as twice a day, 3-5 times per week.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were young enough to start over, I certainly would espouse something akin to what Mike Summers-Smith proposes.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we know how LC would vote (don't know about Marty).
Jan. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 170 171 172 173
.

Bottom Home Top