Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For now, I will set a goal at one Treadwell. 97 years. I will deal with 2542 when it becomes relevant.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed: I am working on immortality.

So far, so good.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First time I ever heard of TV being blamed for the decline of bridge, but it makes sense to me.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find hands with 14 cards to be quite flexible. You can lose a trick and still make a grand slam.

This allows you to make a grand slam on an end-play. Try doing that with only 13 cards.
July 10
Art Korth edited this comment July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy, I am sure you have some skeletons in your closet.

It will take me some time to get over that play.

:-)
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One should never bid Blackwood if 3 is not enough.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Robert. And have a nice day.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who is going to act over 4, and what call will they make?

Maybe South will balance with a double intending to pull 5 to 5, but that is quite a position to take.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Going to be tough. North can't make a TO double with his shape, and South is unlikely to introduce spades.

Besides, Mike is right - West should have opened 4.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South could bid 4. Aggressive but not absurd.

Should have some play opposite most 1 overcalls.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To those who are stating that setting the “X” stratum of the A/X Swiss at a particular level has some positive effect, I want to relate a story.

A week ago, I played in the Valley Forge Regional (technically the location was King of Prussia, and, to the best of my knowledge, none of General Washington's troops was harmed during the tournament).

On Sunday, I played with Mike Shuster and two of his junior acquaintances - Bo Han Zhu and John Dong, both from the Toronto area. I have nearly 10K masterpoints, and Mike has well over 6K, so it never occurred to me that we would be in the “X” stratum. But we were, as Bo and John have very few masterpoints.

If it were not for a truly horrendous play that I made in round 6 (the only match we lost), we would have won the event. As it was, we were second, and we won the “X” stratum.

Bo and John, in addition to being very nice guys, are fine players. I do not know how much Bo and John care about the masterpoints. And they were certainly eligible for the “X” stratum - in fact, it may be that the “X” stratum was designed for players like Bo and John - up and coming young talent. But the impression that I am getting from the discussion in this thread is that the “X” stratum should be designed so that Ma and Pa Kettle, who otherwise would be scared away from playing in the main Swiss event, can get an award by comparing their results solely against others similarly situated.

My team would have played in the event even if there were no “X” stratum. For all intents and purposes, we didn't know that the “X” stratum existed, and we did not care. And Ma and Pa Kettle would not have much of an incentive to play in the A/X Swiss if they knew that teams like mine were going to be included in the “X” stratum.

Should there be some amendment to how inclusion in the “X” stratum works? I am sure that it was never intended that players with my masterpoint total would be included in the “X” stratum.
July 8
Art Korth edited this comment July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a time when ACBL rules required that no event be repeated at a tournament. So, LA Bridge Week would have a variety of events that one did not see at other shorter tournaments.

Of course, there are also some events that are not held anymore - Men's Pairs, Men's Teams, and, to a lesser extent, Mixed Pairs and Unmixed Pairs. I say to a lesser extent because Men's events have been legislated out of existence while Mixed and Unmixed events are merely not held.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is called an entry form.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it just me or is all of the discussion in this thread about masterpoint awards totally irrelevant?

Not to mention incredibly boring.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: I am sure you picked that date at random. It certainly does not have any political content.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hate it when people younger than me think they are old.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember playing in a Regional KO in Atlantic City a number of years ago (a fairly large number). The first round was Monday night. There were 32 teams or thereabout. We won Monday night, and again on Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening. That got us the finals of what was now a Soloway KO, in that our finals opponent was Soloway's team. To my significant displeasure, Soloway's team suggested, and my teammates agreed, to play the finals at 11:30 pm on Tuesday night! I was extremely tired, and I knew that I would not be playing my best, and so it turned out. I know that I gave away double-digit IMPs personally, and it may have cost the match.

In any event, that recollection is not germane to this discussion, but I thought it was an interesting story.

The germane point I want to make is that tournament organizers should include in the tournament advertisements that the format of KO events is subject to change depending on turnout. That might permit the organizers to change the top format into a round-robin rather than combine the top two flights into one flight. The tournament staff should also be more sensitive to the desires of its customers. While in many areas it will be the case that the second flight players will not want to play up that won't be true everywhere. If it is true that the second flight players do not want to play up, the tournament staff should not force them to do so.

This may not be the way that players like Robb (walked in the snow uphill BOTH WAYS) Gordon and I were brought up, but that is the way it is today. Adapt or perish (perhaps both).
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Talk to Mark Antony about honorable people.
July 3
Art Korth edited this comment July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark R: “I absolutely agree, which is why I think there need to be more severe restrictions on psychs. I find it funny that with all the emphasis on catching cheaters, there is so little interest in determining which partnerships regularly psych in certain situations, and how, if at all, they are fielded.”

Mark, you appear to be equating undisclosed partnership agreements and psychs.

Psychs are legal. Undisclosed partnership agreements are not legal. If partner is more likely than the opponents to field a psych, then there may be an undisclosed partnership agreement due to familiarity with the bidder's tendencies (or other reasons).

I am very much opposed to regulation against psychs. However, I am very much in favor of any regulations which promote full disclosure.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, with a qualification.

No.

Yes.

As for #1, it depends what the announced agreement is for the 2 bid. If the agreement is “weak with spades” and nothing more, we would need to go further to determine what is meant by “weak.” Most pairs have an understanding of what the minimum expected values for the bid are. If weak means roughly 5-9 HCP, then this is a psych. If weak means less than 9 with no lower limit, this is not a psych.

I don't see any problem with #2 at all. If anything, the bidders partner is the one who may have the problem.

As for #3, that is a gross deviation from the partnership agreement. Clearly a psych. (And, as for the previous comment that the bid is pointless, I would disagree - it has 7 points (and 3 10's!)). If you want pointless, see #1.
July 2
.

Bottom Home Top