Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I couldn't find who their semi and QF oppo were, all I could find was a ranking list…so I know who lost in the QFs and SFs but not which teams were ‘beaten’ by F-N.
Sept. 14, 2015
Mike Bell edited this comment Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please let me know any inaccuracies or inconsistencies, and if anyone can help out with the 2014 Rosenblum that would be appreciated . Would like to include player names rather than just team names but that would make it a pretty huge list, if someone else thinks it's worth doing then feel free to use the above resource. I've not included their 1988 junior silver medal .
Sept. 14, 2015
Mike Bell edited this comment Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Claudio looks quite intently towards that area too
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Higher responses to 1NT -

2N = Meckwell Puppet Stayman, 3D over 3C shows (31)(54)
3C = Diamonds, now 3H/3S/3NT all available to show shortage
3D = NAT INV
3H = 5-5 minors serious slam interest
3S = 5-5 minors without serious slam interest
Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most useful information will vary by situation and by system. For example, if you open 1m playing 2/1, showing whether you are balanced or unbalanced would be very useful. If you open 1M, showing extras would be quite useful. If you are going to be on lead, you'll gain a lot from partner suggesting what lead might be best.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes it's an interesting decision between a diamond and a club IMO, can't understand a spade at all
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to clarify, “4-3 minors” was supposed to mean either way; They also open 1D with three diamonds and four clubs.
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
11.

1H-P-3H-X
4H-5C-P-P
5H-AP

3H was mixed.

You lead a top club from -

Tx xx QTxx AKxxx

Dummy hits with -

xxx KTxxx Ax Jxx

Partner plays the lowest club outstanding playing UDCA.

At T2, you play a spade. This finds partner's AKxx, he gives you a ruff for two off.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anyone know the origin of the Fisher-Schwartz system, i.e. longer minor unless 4-3 in the minors, in which case they open the shorter minor?
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure who you are agreeing with in your first comment, Barry :-)

Are you asking why I don't just play 2D as 5D4M/6D, like a Precision 2C opener? Basically -

a) Like many, I'm not a fan of that 2C opener. It gives you some nasty guesses about whether to stick 2C or look for a major fit. This is an attempt to remove most of the guesswork.

b) Being a step higher (2D instead of 2C) is going to be quite problematic. Assuming 2H is your relay, you've lost whatever your meanings were for 2C:2D, 2H and 2C:2H.
Sept. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah obv it sometimes leads to misfits. I was basically trying to channel Fantunes for the diamond hands, but as you know I think Fantunes 2s are too wide-ranging in terms of shape.

It also kinda appeals to me that doubling our 2C opening risks letting us out in 2C X!
Sept. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. It's a big improvement to the format IMO.

What I didn't understand was the superficially similar Seniors carry-forward. The reason to give 16 to 1st, 14 to 2nd etc in the open is to rule out any advantage of being drawn in a weaker group; There was no such issue in the Seniors swiss, so any carry-forward should have calculated from the team's VP total, not their ranking.
June 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is now, you fish :p
June 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Group B, the teams scored between 110 and 132 out of 180 versus the bottom nine teams; With bonuses on the carryfoward of upto 16 VPs, this meant there wasn't much change to the relative scores. Not so in Group A, where the scores vs the bottom 9 ranged from 150 (Sweden) to 106. Sweden's bonus 16 VPs were poor consolation, dropping them below Ireland, who had been 29 VPs behind.
June 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it because A9x and ATx might put in the nine or ten to induce you to play them for Q9 or QT doubleton? Thus, if they play low, Q9x/QTx is more likely than A9x/ATx.
June 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure about that ruling. Take a simple example.

If declarer had a 75% chance of making the contract with the MI, but would have been 100% to make it with the correct information, it is clearly right to adjust to 100% of the contract making, otherwise the offending side potentially gain from their offence.

Similarly, if declarer had a 50% chance of making the contract with the MI, but would have been 75% to make the contract with the correct information, a fair ruling would be 50% of making, 50% of going off.
May 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have experience inverting the 1M responses. I was doing it in the context of opening 1D on all 11-13 NTs, so the raison d'etre was to bid 1D:1H, 1S NF on all 11-13 NTs with 2-3 spades.

a) You should play RRRF (reverse responder's reverse flannery), ie 1D:2H shows 5H4S NF. Now 1D:1H can't be canapé (just start with 1S on the GFs).

b) You are claiming a gain from your multi-meaning 1S rebid. There's no reason you couldn't make 1D:1H, 1S multi-meaning playing natural responses to 1D, so I don't see this as an advantage to the method as a whole.

c) There is a gain, albeit infrequent, from bidding 1D:1H showing spades holding 5-5 in the majors. This makes your flannery bid more specific (playing natural methods, there is good reason to put both 6-4 and 5-5 majors into 1D:2H).

d) There is a loss on the INV flannery hands. Playing natural methods, you can play 1D:1S, 2D:2H can be 5S4H INV+ and 1D:2H as 5S4H weak. If you invert the majors, 5H4S INV is much more problematic.

e) The above points are, I'm afraid, all fairly irrelevant compared with a bigger loss that is often overlooked - you are poorly placed after 4th seat acts. You generally want the overcaller on lead, so an auction like 1D-P-1H-2H; 2S will often wrongside when those playing natural methods have no problem. It was for this reason that I gave up playing transfers over 1D.
May 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I came up with something similar a while back, I think it was after I saw people on BBO playing “Zirconia”, but before Adam posted “Zirconia with Gazzilli” on BBF (although, at that time, I think 2D showed a good raise of spades).

1H:1S -
1N = diamonds, or 16+ with clubs
2C = natural 11-15
2D = 3 spades, weak or strong

1H:1S, 1N -
2C = weak or GF; now 2D = H+D 11-17(18), 2H = H+C 16-18, higher = GF
2D/H/S = natural opposite reds, enough for game opposite 16+ H+C

This gives you a lot more accuracy on the H+C hands than Adam's full method; Whether it is worth the trade-off, I don't know.

I found this thread through Noble's post in the Rod-Well, so will answer his question here -

I only played this in one partnership, we subsequently moved onto a similar method based on a Kaplan Inversion style 1S that included balanced GFs - I'm not a huge fan of KI in general, but this blows everything else away IMO. The only other pair I've seen play something similar is Hinden/Osborne, half of the second most successful team in England over the past few years, who modified my KI kit.
March 25, 2014
Mike Bell edited this comment May 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, thanks Henry. Encouraging teams to withdraw seems odd to me; If the extra day is such an inconvenience then they should allow more three-ways before switching to the “anti-KO matches” format.
Aug. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry if I'm being dense, but what's the significance of having 66 teams? If it was a case of 64 or 65 teams I'd understand. I think it's clear to follow the more lenient of the bulletin and CoC, regardless of who the team caught out by it was.
Aug. 5, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top