Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Al Hollander
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my recollection of discussions with bigtrain (Walter) is that he thought interference over strong 1 didn't become effective until at least 2

one qualification i would add - if your opponents use a relay structure, then the interference is probably most effective when it is at a level where they no longer relay. That implies that the 2nd hand bids of DBL and 1 cause zero disruption UNLESS partner can help gum up the works. Even then, 3rd hand has already communicated a lot.

sidebar - I did not remember that Kit gets the credit for CRASH
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
to both references saying Card Play Technique is “much better”

i can only say ‘much better’ = huge underbid

I have worn out multiple copies of Card Play Technique
Never have been able to finish reading Watson - or Culbertson's Red Book on Play. But when has Mollo not been magnitudes more readable than almost anyone else
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
having played this format of ‘partner leads next’, i do have one suggestion – DO NOT PLAY IF SOBER

actually it was a blast

never did figure out how to adjust bidding.
keeping track of who was on lead was difficult enough.
Dec. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
just for confirmation:

1) this does NOT apply to players who have qualified for the Bermuda Bowl

1a) BB qualifiers are ineligible to choose another event

1b) i think (keyword) BB qualifiers aren't even eligible to play in subsequent USBCs, so the existing situation still exists where pre-registered teams cannot include BB qualifiers and can optionally drop from the ‘secondary’ USBC with full refund and no repercussions.

2) this poll does NOT differentiate WHEN a player declares which WC event will be played IF multiple USBCs are won. If the current poll goes to option #1, then it is moot point. If #3 prevails then the options for yet another poll seem to be:

2a) when pre-registering for multiple USBCs

2b) before start of subsequent USBC after winning a spot in a different WC event
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if mentioning Kit, we should include the general rule he has posted multiple times on bridgewinners:

if game is still possible, then 2NT=lebensohl
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my guess for survivors in decreasing order of confidence would be:

von Zedwitz
Gruenther
Lightner

yes, i could check to confirm dates, but that would be dishonest
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hypothetical for choice #3:

a player enters 2 USBC events and pre-alerts intention to play in 1st event. what if the rule goes further? instead of allowing a late resignation from event #2, come up with a defined mechanism to minimize the spoiler effect this person can have by -

having won the USBC for the declared WC event, the player(s) who enter subsequent events can play NO MORE than 50% of the boards

perhaps it could be more draconian with the addition of:

the player(s) already committed to play in a different WC event cannot play in subsequent USBC Finals

note: i confess to having trouble understanding how the new options lead to stronger teams, except maybe in the later events. i am also aware of being nearly blinded by the perception that a winner playing in a subsequent event is tainting at least one of the competitions
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“absent multiple ineligibility” is a troubling, hopefully nearly impossible, permutation that may suggest a new option.

* if USA1 loser is eligible, then that team becomes USA1
* if both USA1 finalists are ineligible, then … what?
probably both USA2 finalists going to the WC is easiest to implement rather than trying to figure out who last lost to USA1 winner

this does not take into consideration Jan's arguments from a different thread about the possible randomness of who became USA1 losing finalist (the reason for having a USA2 event). just another possible bandaid
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it seems redundant for 1st & 5th options to even mention 50%. isn't any player who has not played 50% already ineligible?

not sure if i am nit-picking or maybe missing something
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
not at all - i just think that situation is already covered by existing choices

I think the situation of splitting 2 pairs is AT LEAST as bad as 1 pair of hired guns, but not necessarily covered by existing choices

sidebar - the hired gun scenario is just one reason that i still think it is wrong for any USBC winner to enter a different USBC for that same world championship - but the BoD has spoken
Dec. 16, 2018
Al Hollander edited this comment Dec. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR: in the case where 6 becomes 4, I still think it is significantly different when 1 partnership leaves versus 2 partnerships disband. in the latter case, i think the structure of the winning team is completely lost, regardless of % of boards played

i think the same applies when 5-bagger loses a player from the set partnership, but that case is probably made moot via most of the options that look at % of boards played.
Dec. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
mentioned above in a different way

the concept of winning team is already skewed.
it seems to me that referring to % of boards of a player has a different effect on the team than analysis of % played by partnership

in 5-bagger: losing one from the fixed partnership is different from losing 1 from the triad

in 6-bagger: losing a pair is significantly different from 2 players breaking up 2 partnerships


does this suggest a more convoluted determination that any of the current suggestions or the simple 1a where 4 team roster retains 4 orginal members?

IMO the goal of “the best USA team plays in that WC event” has already been corrupted.
so now it is just a question of how far off the mark is acceptable
Dec. 14, 2018
Al Hollander edited this comment Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
should the algorithm that looks at 1 drop vs 2 leaving be further split into 1-pair gone vs 2 pairs disrupted?

i suppose this could also extrapolate to a 5 bagger having won the USBC with 1 pair + 1 3-way. in that case, does it matter if the emmigrating player came from the partnership or the triad?
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in light of Peter's story - during the Scottsdale USBC a few years ago, i gave him a ride on the proviso that there was NO SMOKING.

HE COMPLIED

is this worthy of my induction into some kind of hall of fame?
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With Louk's help, I was able to exchange email with Russ and receive official copies of Ultimate Canape system notes for almost a decade. That information made me look good while I was doing vugraph commentary, but when I tried to thank Russ for all of the information - he would thank ME for the interest in his system.

Last thanks goes where it always belonged – to Russ
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
chronic counter with caveat mentioned above by James

HOWEVER - always below the table since too often i noticed other players flashing the bottom card in whichever stack size was used.

that was also a problem when removing someone else's cards from the board to help a player with hand issues. even worse, when that help included rotating the board before removing the cards

but i digress
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
just to clarify - i said "…cannot enter USBC for same WC event

without that qualifier re: event, i think i would be violating the directive that says a winner can play in subsequent USBCs for different events in the same WC.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
getting dizzier than usual

hypothetical #1: a 4-person team wins in the Rosenblum year.
that team and 2-player augmentation is approved
the following year, 2 of the original 4 enter and win the USBC for a different event. So now USA1 is 2 who won the USBC and 2 who had augmented.

no ‘resignation’ but not sure if USA1 has become ineligible
I think so, but won't bet my own money

hypothetical #2: this time 1 or 2 resign from the approved augmented team. can USA1 become a team of

a) 2 original winners and eventually 4 augmented players
b) 3 original winners and eventually 3 augmented players

Again, i think the answer is no

if i understand correctly - regardless of circumstances, the final makeup of a USA team at the WC includes AT LEAST 4 players who were members of the team that played the USBC event that determined eligibility for the WC.

I think that phrasing includes the teams that are moved up because the original team has become ineligible.

if Jan's wording is already there - sorry about rambling
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter: I absolutely believe your approach is much easier for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the mess it would make to the year-after-Rosenblum USBC schedules.

Just wanted to ensure the nightmare case was addressed.

Easiest is a rule that just says - if you have qualified to play in a specific WC event, there is no circumstance# when you can play in another USBC for that same WC event.

As mentioned, I thought the original verbiage left room for doubt if all or part of that USA1 team dissolved.

SO - if single year USA1 team will not play in the BB:

1) runner-up in the USA1 USBC takes over
*** at this point devil's advocate would ask - what if runner-up is not available

2) no member of the original USA1 team can enter the USBC to become USA2

does that close a potential loophole?

# i know it is very dangerous to say never. even i can come up with what-if sob stories where some might want to reconsider the rule.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
maybe this nightmare scenario falls under “cannot enter USBC for same WC event”, but i don't recall that specifically addressing where a team had withdrawn (as compared to still eligible to play in that WC event unless win later WC for different WC event)
Dec. 8, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
.

Bottom Home Top