Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 75 76 77 78
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what about this is rare?
I'm more concerned that an experienced world class pair doesn't know what they are doing.
They surely face Multi where the opening 2 might be an even weaker weak 2.
Surely they know their sequences in response to strong takeouts. I would think that some form of strength clarifying bids are needed. Wouldn't lebensohl come into play here as well?

lebensohl, rubensohl, transfer lebensohl, even Herbert

You can talk, you can bicker.
You can talk, you can bicker.
You can talk, talk, talk, talk
You can bicker, bicker, bicker.
You can talk all you wanna,
But it's different than it was.
CHARLIE:
No, it ain't, but you gotta know the territory.

Music Man - Rock Island Lyrics
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly, from the comments so far, the sequence is not “just bridge” and I didn’t intend the OP to imply this during the appeal
May 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In xfr leb what would 3 followed by 3 imean by West?
What about starting with a 3 qbid (xfr?) then 3N?

If you are playing “trans” leb on FOC is it reasonable to think this partnership never discussed its application over preempts?
May 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If EW are earnest and advancing they will appreciate that opps who are white vs red will often try to muck up opponents who are known to have the BOP.

Woolsey & Bramley suffered a 10 imp loss at the hands of Ginossar and Willenken in their USBC QF with 4 boards to go. They didn't untangle their 16 tricks in the midst of an opponent's WJO and his partner's raise and missed their grand slam. Pairs who had no interference had no trouble reaching a grand.

btw, this was a ‘final straw’ that cost their team (Robinson) the match as Rosenthal won by 3 imps.

I would say something to a less than sporting ‘pro’ who tried these shenanigans against novices who couldn't figure out they were being scammed. But earnest and advancing means taking ‘big boy’ punches and learning to counter them.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe I can lay claim to the worst record possible against Barry. He was late for the first round at a regional around 1985 in the Philadelphia area. Can't recall if it was Cherry Hill or Lancaster. I was playing with my father, a competent player, who wrote a column for the Cleveland Plain Dealer for ~40 years.

I don't think he got to play much, if ever, against Barry. IIRC Barry had a date with Lynn Deas. Anyway, Barry showed up in time to play board 2 in the first round. Dad opens a strong NT and I have a fairly awful hand with 5 or 6 clubs.

1N  P  P  X   Barry doubles in the balancing seat
P P ? I was under 100MPs at the time. I knew who Lynn was
2C X
I thought my clubs might take tricks as trump as they weren't likely to be taking tricks in 1NX.

Well, of course, BC was creating action, and my father never got the opportunity to take his seven tricks in 1NX.

So, I never scored even one matchpoint against him.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BRP Day 3 Carryovers if inserted at 33%


tbls top 54th behind leader
dy3 c/o of78 0 c/o @33%
2017 SD 39 100 14 2.6 2.2
2016 ORL 39 84 15 2.2 1.6
2015 Den 39 89 15.6 2.3 1.9
2014 Prov 36 68 13 1.9 1.6 (48/72)
2013 PHX 39 78 20 2.0 1.5

Even the biggest c/o, in San Diego, was less than 3 boards.

Obviously, all a hypothetical notion… repechage and Day3 drop in.
From my seat offering any more than place above 1/3 of the field is ‘unfair’ to those who've played 2 days to Q for the finals.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of ‘very fine people’ don't make it to day 2 of the BRP. Let's build on Mike Shuster's idea from the poll thread:

Soloway KO QF losers and any of the very fine pairs who didn't Q2 for day two of the BRP can get involved in a 2-day consolation repechage. If you finish in the top 5%? (no more than 4 pairs) you get to ‘buy’ back into day 3 of the BRPs. And those unfortunate Soloway semifinal losers can join in the BRP day 3 also, because they probably would have been there anyway.

The first day of that repechage will be replete with many fine players in a field probably stronger than the BRP SFs. Most of the BRP day 1 nonqualifiers aren't going to want to pay NABC+ entry fees to compete against the 12 Soloway QF losing pairs and the unlucky day 1 BRP non-Qs.

The BRP final will get to add a couple of lucky elite pairs in each direction in each of the three sections to make the last day of the BRP more lustrous. Only the top 66 pairs from the BRP SFs are guaranteed a Q for the final. They won't be competing against drop ins in the SF so its only fair that they need to be close to 52% in the SFs to Q for day 3.

The Thursday repechage field sans the 4 lucky pairs hopping back into the main event will be a very tough event even though it won't pay much in MPs. Soloway SF losers who don't fancy playing in the BRP finals without carryover can compete in day 2 of the consolation.

I suspect I'll be in that cohort and glad of the opportunity.
The league gets a bunch more NABC+ entry fees rather than regional entry fees from losers and non-qualifiers. BRP semifinalists don't have to compete on day 2 against ‘carpetbaggers’. If they survive to the finals they'll be coming up against a couple of extra extra-good opponents on day 3.
April 30
Mike Cassel edited this comment April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies
3 is pure invite
Slammish 1suiter starts with 1m - 2
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My XYZ is an outlier but it IS what it is
There are many many more hands where responder’s clarification with invitational values comes up than secondary jumps asslammish hands
Our 2 over 1minor will disclose those slammish 1 suitors
2 over 1minor is also a strong hand

My Q remains
If, in our construction, the secondary jump is pure invitational and a jump after xyz is more scattered
How do you bid this one?
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener will rebid 3 with 5-6 in spades and diamond
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we allow S.KO QF losers the opportunity to play in the BRP SF what is a fair, if any, carryover?
Are we interested in giving these players two more days of NABC+ competition, giving other BRP qualifiers a better field (event), and/or giving these few elite players a chance to pick up an additional overall NABC+ finish in pursuit of the Goren trophy?
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thirty two teams are competing on Sunday in the first day of S.KOs.
How many of these teams are not playing day 1 of the Mitchell Open BAM? Does the BAM retain its status as a NABC+ event when 20-25% of likely? qualifiers for the BAM final never entered?

Should we let those who played well enough to reach the S.KO's drop into the 2nd day of the BAM? They won't have a Platinum Pt event to play in on Monday.

Eight teams compete in the S.KO on Tuesday. That's going to be more than 20 pairs who won't be starting on day 1 of the BRP. 20 pairs who would be good candidates to be among the 156 surviving pairs to Q for the BRP second day.

A decision was made to weaken the Open BAM and BRP. Adding S.KO QF losers to the field gives these folks two potential days of top flight competition and strengthens the BRP semifinal field. Let them play at 0 or 10% carryover. Their high 50s or better BRP SF percentages will still afford them a spot in the BRP finals.

They can earn their 9/16 (not 5/8) S.KO MPs or BRP overall award whichever is higher, but not both. You don't earn MPs in two different NABC+ events that are occurring simultaneously. You don't receive the MPs for losing on Tuesday in a team event, when you are (unoffically considered to be playing BRPairs day 1) as you drop into the Wednesday of a different NABC+ event.

How many will opt to drop into the BRP when they can win/place in the Wed-Thur KO for 40-55MPs? Will top pairs deign to strengthen the BRP and add luster to the event if their chances for a MP payoff are reduced?

Who and how does a drop-in promote, grow and sustain the game of bridge? I see how it serves the bridge-related interests of a very few members.

It's doable but I think it is ‘bad aji’. Is meeting one extra strength pair in the SF and final sessions of the BRP worth it?
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spock: That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Kirk: Or the one.

With the Enterprise (ship) in imminent danger of destruction, Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s drive so the crew can escape danger. Spock quickly perishes, and, with his final breaths, says to Kirk, “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock replies, “Or the one.” https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey pd
I'd like to talk about that board.
I frequently make light, lead-directing opening bids opposite passed partners.
Taking liberties white against less experienced opponents is one thing, but
what WERE you thinking LOLOL
Yikes
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well of course, if you lose in the QFs of the GNT, you should be able to get placed into the Von Zed. SF. Making day 3 of the GNT confers that status… for sure.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think drop-ins would displace the last 8-12 day 1 qualifiers. Something like that did happen in the WBF Imp Pairs in Philly leading to very hard feelings.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The average entry field, not counting 2018, in the BRP over 15 years is ~158 tables. Let's say 300 pairs. Day 1 of the BRP will have been diluted by the 32 -48 pairs that were playing Soloway R16. A case could certainly be made that allowing the drop ins would only partially restore the number of elite pairs that might well have q'd for day 2.

The decision to initiate the Soloway irrevocably dilutes day 1 of the BRP. If we allowed the 8-12 pairs who were ko'd in the Soloway QF to drop into the BRP it would make the BRP SF a tougher, more elite event.

How much more ‘prestigious’ will it become by allowing drop-ins? How much ill will vs. ‘pride of event’ is going to be generated by a drop-in policy?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I respect the proponents of drop-ins and their logic. Why can't they understand the optics of catering to the elite?

Has Chris analyzed who isn't playing in regionals? In our Spring regional it is the 700MP-1700MP player. Regionals that aren't large enough for viable mid-flight events may be experiencing similar issues.

We no longer exist in an environment where, like me, getting my 50 silver competing against strong sectional fields in Minnesota in the 80s, was a real accomplishment.

I would venture to generalize that it takes more these days to turn recent LMs into aspiring players. They want to continue to experience success and have only a limited tolerance for getting beat up in events they aren't competitive.

I don't think this is the crowd that is going to try the BRPs because they earned a Q at a regional. I'm talking about the more advanced member who has contributed thousands of dollars over the years in entry fees who doesn't want the the playing field tilted further. Maybe their goal is to finally reach the third day of the BRP.

promote, grow and sustain the game of bridge and serve the bridge-related interests of our Members most of whom are NOT Soloway QF losers.

IMO, even if the drop-in idea is right… it's wrong.
April 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment April 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 75 76 77 78
.

Bottom Home Top