bill1157

the standard is what some reasonable players might do, not "you look like an idiot so i won't let you make the obvious bid"...

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also agree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump. You would need a better hand to come over the mini-NT directly, but in balancing seat? Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper. Bill there is no guarantee that the director in question has a reasonable judgment at bridge. The fact that they deem the call "reasonable" carries very little weight. Ok, but somebody has to make a decision or else you will swamp the comittees. Bill

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also agree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump. You would need a better hand to come over the mini-NT directly, but in balancing seat? Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper. Bill

No, not quite: this would be a money game so: each player buys in for say $5 (+.025 for the site), and in a 1 table sng play starts as soon as 4 players sign up. 4 deals, then partners change, 4 deals, then partners change again so each player has played with each of the other 3 once and against each twice. At the end, the scores are summed and the prize pool is paid out. This would be an alternative to the money games where robots are currently playing 2 or 3 of the 4 compass positions. My suggestion on the score is that vulnerability be dropped, since it doesn't serve a purpose in 4 deal bridge anyway (or at least not a necessary purpose), also if you don't score overtricks, for example, it greatly speeds up the play. Bill

I recognize that the concept might not be appropriate for this forum, nevertheless I had hoped for some intelligent feedback. The concept is probably more appropriate for one of the poker online sites, where lagging interest in poker might spark interest in a form of bridge that would be amenable to the same "sit and go" format that has been so sucessful in poker. A problem you have trying to run a bridge game where partnerships change is that you need a simple system: you can't have a long discussion every 15 minutes when you change partners. Also, my idea is an extension of mini-bridge (which with the addition of simple bidding would be a great game, in my opinion.) Bill

If you look at it that way, matchpoints isn't bridge either since it isn't the original game.

Would it be possible to have sit and go tournaments (tournament starts as soon as 4 player sit [or 8 or 12 etc]. players rotate partners every 4 hands, maybe simplified scoring (i.e. no overtricks, only 1 undertrick unless doubled/redoubled) perhaps do away with vulnerability and artificial conventions? This would be a fun way to play money bridge. Bill

I wouldn't take any of these bids as forcing, let alone game forcing. 2nt and 3♦ could come close to being forcing Bill

1♣followed by a minimum rebid in ♦ if below the 5 level Bill

Couldn't you pass and bid hearts on the next round? 3♥ looks ok with a conservative partner, but it looks like 4♥ might get you to a grand off 3 or 4 aces (depending on what form of blackwood is played). Bill

Actually this gets to another thread, i.e. what do you consider a weak 2. If it is 6 card suit exactly with 2/top 3 or 3/top 5, then no, it doesn't come up that much. Change it to include good 5 card suits and the frequency goes up greatly. You mentioned opening 2C versus having to open 3C.. the best way for you to really see the frequency is to try it out yourself. For me the frequency of weak 2C is high, and the bid works well. Bill

The crux of the issue here is: do you play for fun or for a living? If you play for a living, a forcing opening is necessary simply because your clients aren't going to accept that you missed a game/slam because you lacked a forcing opening period. Even if the system works much better. If you play for fun, and understand the slight risk (and your partner/teammates do[es] too) then it is very fun and workable to play without a forcing opening. BTW, someone said that at the beginning a forcing opening was not used. I don't think this is true, if you count the beginning as the introduction of contract bridge. The Vanderbilt club was there in the 1920's, as was culbertson. Bill P.S. anyone intermediate+ who wants to play with no forcing opening please email me! bill_sharp@mail.com

I like the idea (i think from EHAA) of playing 10-13 1nt opening. that way the 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2 can be opened 1nt rather thatn with a weak 2.

I very much like weak 2's with a good 5 card suit (important to have some shape, not 5-3-3-2 and probably not 5-4-2-2) with those restrictions, it greatly increases the frequency of opening the weak 2 which is a real plus. Maybe the mixed pairs is a different deal...

You may recall that in 2006 at the world championships Karen McCallum and Matt Grannovetter played 5 card suit weak 2 bids in the mixed pairs (some pretty awful suits too) and won, largely because of these bids. So perhaps 5 card suit weak 2 bids work well at the club and world championships, but badly at NABC's? Bill

100 % penalty, nothing else makes sense Bill

I don't see the problem with opening 2S at any seat/vulnerability. Maybe the question is: do you open a weak 2 with a side 4 card suit? Anyway, I say yes, always. Bill

The problem here is that you should have opened 1 spade. In any case, double is right now, whether you are a passed hand or not. Bill

i think the standard for sayc now is: sayc + capp and 1430 Bill

I think it is ok to raise the requirements for lm. Taking my own case, after i made LM i stopped playing much duplicate for about 20 yrs. I have recently gotten back into it, but i think many curtail their tournament playing after they make LM, so why not make them keep trying for it a little longer? The inflation of MP's is ok, because having special club game that award more points increases attendance. For me 1st/6 tables is more exciting than 1st/3 tables! LM needs to be attainable, but not too easy.. it still has to have some appearance of being an achievement. Bill

I played a single raise of the major as forcing some years ago and it worked very well. I have always hated the Jacoby 2NT, and found it doesn't come up too often anyway. Also, reverse the meaning of the negative X/free bids (ie.free bid 9-11 pts, make a neg X with more) and it works a whole lot better. Bill

I read "Picture Bidding" and still have it. Roth tends to create hands as examples to make his system look good, i.e. bid it his way and get to a 15 pt grand slam, or stay out of a bad 29 pt game. I think alot of bidding theorists do that... Bill

Finding "Every Hand an Adventure" I contacted Eric and he said even he has no more copies of the book "Evry Hand an Adventure", but that Baronbarclay had right to publish it and might if there was enough interest. I have emailed Baronbarclay about it, anyone else who is interested in this book might do the same... Bill

I read an interesting article in the bulletin for the youth NABC. The writer was talking about teaching children to play bridge but what he said could serve most of the people like me and those i play with: play strong NT, all 2 bids weak (including 2 clubs and with side 4 card majors and voids ok). Overcall 11+ weaker at 1 level, jump if weaker and you feel you must bid. 3 bids 7 card suit max 11 pts. End of system discussion. This would serve most players fine. Then concentrate on card play which is the real difficult and interesting part of bridge anyway. Bill

many thanks! Bill