Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Weinstein
1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, on #2, once the heart distribution is revealed, there simply isn’t any normal hand for declarer to have. Q ATx AJ9xx T9xx is the closest, and that’s a pretty horrid opening bid! So maybe Ron actually worked out that this hand was likely. He might have been aided by tempo on the 2 bid?

Also NB if Ron believed in declarer’s apparent 1=3=5=4, the K shift at trick 3 would have made a lot of sense. This adds to my sense that he suspected the fishy 2 bid.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi,
I’m glad to see Peter bring this up. I strongly support tiebreaking rather than overtime, for all the reasons already mentioned. Any long match that ends in single digits is essentially a coin flip anyway. (I have also long thought overtime is too long in many sports such as basketball.)

The fact that ties happen with any noticeable frequency is an artifact of the imp scale having integers, and the only purpose I see to that is ease of hand scoring. So why not break ties by recalculating using a fractional (“continuous”) imp scale? Henry Bethe promoted this, and once drew up a scale, I think (it would be easy to replicate.) This could be a transition to using a “continuous” IMP scale all the time, which seems just as natural as the continuous VP scale.

Incidentally, if I understood right, among Peter and Danny’s proposals were the exact opposites of “score before the last segment” and “score in the last segment.” If choosing from these, I would take “before last segment” because last-segment results are often swingier and more random.

Jonathan
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Following the US team trials (USBC) which has had 15-board segments for quite a while.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“BAM movement”=”movement most commonly seen in BAM events”. Not a crazy usage to me at all, and not suggestive of confusion of scoring vs. movement. To be a little more careful one could say “BAM-style movement.”
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds to me like if #1 has more carryover against #3 than #4, they still have a choice.

It’s not an easy call but I don’t think I favor the rule change. Let the RR winner set the bracket how they like.

I generally *am* in favor of reducing carryover by some factor when the team with positive carryover placed behind their opponent in the RR. This was (is?) a Bermuda Bowl provision.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, it's a good format. D13 (Chicago-Milwaukee) does something very similar. And incidentally, 10 teams is amazing! partly thanks to separate weekend from Flight A, I guess.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For completeness, if anyone if still reading, the K is also fatal if North started with KQxxx QJxx xx Jx, and his pitches are certainly consistent with that.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Incidentally, I think Jake did make the percentage play in the ending, but it’s kind of close, because he’s a favorite to survive cashing K even when South has A. For simplicity I’m assuming he knows the shapes.

His play, K, is very simple: succeeds 100% if South has A, 0% if North has it.

If he cashes K, he will ultimately succeed 66% if South has A, 14% if North has it. (The losing case is only when South has A and quack-9-x-x so no endplay is possible.)

So, if you think the bidding (and play) carries no inference about the A, the simple play is right. This depends on whether, over the 2 asking bid, you think North is in a destructive bidding position so the A doesn’t matter.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On Board 22, it was actually excellent *partnership* defense. Michael was careful to come down to 1 club and 4 hearts at the end. If South kept another club, it would have been safe for Jake to try the K before committing himself. But that would be fatal if Michael was down to Q9xx A, so Jake had to pick his poison without cashing any hearts. On Vugraph it appeared Michael took a while for his last pitch…excellent work to envision partner and declarer's problems from the weak hand.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My local club has used a mode where scores start to show only after 4 rounds or so. Clearly a good tweak if you show at all.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An aluminum foil box is vastly superior to any of the many wooden holders I’ve tried. The crucial pro-tip is to keep some foil in the box. Otherwise it tips over much too easily.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For beginners who finished last, poor valuation much more likely than anything sinister.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS could easily make 8 tricks in clubs if they got to lead. Pull three rounds of trumps, then three rounds of diamonds. When EW lead against 2, looks like their play is three rounds of spades, threatening to score the 13th spade or an extra trump trick. The play from there isn’t simple – from DF we know that EW always get a 6th trick, but there are a number of variations. EW’s control of the side suit looks like the key difference between 2 and 2.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Results at http://thecommongame.com/PHPPOSTCGS.php?options=LookupClioBoard&acblno=&date=2017-03-28&board=15&gamemode=

Only about 10% managed to double the 1NT overcall, it appears.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener had QTx in clubs.
It’s a classic Vondracek effect: you have a loser in spades but not clubs, and spades plays better. The phrasing “Vondracek effect works in spades but not clubs” is a bit confusing. The play is indeed worth studying, certainly more complex than the standard Vondracek examples.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would also be normal to make 3nt on a diamond lead. Looks like the normal result after a 2nt opening and transfer auction. Clubs are very random board-by-board, but session results generally pretty just.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Club hook is better than 50%, based on restricted choice on the lead.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In most formats isn't the first stage longer than the second stage, precluding this?
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True Ira, I just wasn't sure that was realistic! But all aspiring high-level players should do at least some reading, I think.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Preparation of these casebooks is a fantastic service to the community. Many thanks to Adam and all the commentators! I am curious as to whether the casebooks are read carefully by all members of the national appeals committee and high-level tournament directors. Ideally they would be read by directors at all levels.
Feb. 21
1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top