Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That table demonstrates the absurdity of removing results from matches played - you can't downgrade someone's medal for this, and you couldn't rescind their Bermuda Bowl invite if a team dropped from 6th to 7th.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it's acceptable to suggest that Monaco would be particularly likely to have that pair on their team.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are in the same position as you - if the match results are deleted then they get leap-frogged by Norway
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Tony. There's discussion buried in the other thread that South was doing stuff visible to their partner to communicate - e.g. putting down pen/scorecard on the side-table to show a relatively short suit, most powerfully a 5-card suit for a 2X opening. Nunes looks intently at what Fantoni is doing, and Roy Welland pointed out that Nunes actually moved the side-table there for Fantoni before the set began.

Stuff with bidding card placement is possible but unlikely IMO. It's pretty blatant, and what can you do if your screenmate insists on tidying up your bids before the tray is pushed through, just loudly complain each time he does it so your partner knows you're now giving the “wrong signal”? I don't think they would have got away with that for thirteen years.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Elsewhere, “Roth-Stonish EHAA” was suggested, but you could probably get away with “EHAA with five-card majors”
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, David, and apologies Geoff.
Sept. 14, 2015
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
.

Bottom Home Top