Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chip Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree that 3 F is pretty standard and since 6 could well be the spot, really have to bid it (though may be some uncomfortable decisions later if partner bids 3N or 4H next.
Hoping for a 4 bid next as Q-bid raises of spades.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another option related to 4N= minors is that it shows 2 places to play (e.g. 4N-5-5 shows long D's and 3 hearts). Could also bid this way with long clubs and 3 hearts planning to pass 5 and bid 5 over 5.

Also, what you play here should be part of a general rule about 4N over their 4 bid, not this specific auction. I like to play 4N over their 4M is T/O unless i) we have agreed a suit, or ii) we are in a force, or iii) partner already jumped in their suit
In those 3 cases 4N is RKC.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd DBL 5 since could well go down even if partner has no defensive tricks, and could be down 2 or 3 if partner has a little. But pass is reasonable, particularly if W is sound. Bidding looks quite wrong as almost no chance to make 6 and could be down 800 on a bad day, perhaps with them going down (picture xx KJTxxxxx x xx).

Agree with MR's point about 5 instead of 5.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the current 2-1 weighting is sensible. Gives significant weight to the RR, but not as much as to Seeding points which are for many events.
Oct. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I share Debbie's concern about WBF problems. In general I think we should make reasonable accommodations, but spoken answers and even pointing do compromise good disclosure.
Aug. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As noted, we all owe a great debt to Fred for creating BBO in addition to his other excellent software. I would note that BBO is already in the Hall of Fame (as a recent Blackwood award winner), but I'm sure Fred will get in as a player when he reaches 60.

I'd add that Fred (and Sheri) are great people so hopefully we will see more of them at tournaments now that Fred is retired.
July 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Jonathan's comment. It is helpful to both the committee and appellants to know the sort of penalties. One option would allow the committee vote for a warning where having a prior warning within the last X years (3?) would put you at greater risk of a future penalty (whether in imps or barring from a future event).

An imp penalty isn't useful when the appeal is made after a team knows it will lose without the appeal (and those appeals at the end of a match are often the most inconvenient ones). At an earlier point an imp penalty is a good method to deter appeals without merit.

At the end of the match to be effective the penalty would have to be something like barring from a future event (or as above, a warning risking barring if a later bad appeal is made).
June 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done. Some excellent bridge from the winners. Jeff, David and Alan will be defending their world title from 2 years ago.
June 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was (and still somewhat am) an avid reader of bridge books. As others noted, I only read some of Watson's book on play, moving on to better books such as Card play technique by Mollo and Gardener.
Feb. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Works for me too. Thanks!
Feb. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Howie's view completely. In my view if we didn't allow written defenses, we would have to cut back on what we allow to be played. Allowing them with written defenses is fairer to both sides.
Jan. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there should be a distinction between bids that show known 5 (+) card suit(s) and ones that don't. The reason that 2D weak with majors is challenging to defend against is that it really doesn't promise length in ANY known suit (that is, could have 4 cards in either major, so the opposing side has to worry about playing in the suit(s) shown. In contrast, if 3C shows 6+ diamonds that is not an issue.

So I think our rule should be to require an ASF and allow written defenses when the opening is (or could be) weak without promising 5 cards in a known suit.
Jan. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, great to see someone who has contributed such good service to bridge recognized with this prestigious award. Congrats Greg!
Jan. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd suggest we just use VSR seeding points along with perhaps performance in prior senior trials, That should be reasonably accurate and not too much of a hassle to administer.
Jan. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With regard to the earlier play and defense, North had to keep all his spades or declarer could set up the spades with one loser (4 total), but if he throws the good 9, coming down to 4 spades and KT of clubs I don't see any winning route for declarer.

So perhaps keeping the 7 was useful as a pseudo squeeze threat against North.
Nov. 15, 2018
Chip Martel edited this comment Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good catch Peter. Given how the numbers work and and that it is harder to win PPs now, I'm also OK with keeping a 20% bump for all byes.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since replacing a disqualified team can be a mess (see my earlier comment for some bad scenarios), I'd suggest we be conservative in disqualifying a team. Thus I'd be OK with using items 1-4 as proposed.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To give a little background: the USBF PP scale is 100 for Spingold
or Vanderbilt win, 85 for a Reisinger win and there are 51 total PP's available from the
USBC. So the increase of available PPs goes up in a ratio of 3.36 to 4.36, so the new scheme increases the total by not quite a factor of 1.3.

Earlier discussion favored increasing the bye thresholds by less than that, favoring increasing them by 20%. This general seems to lead to sensible results:

For R16 bye need 48 can make it with
3/4 V/S + anything else: 5/8 twice; Win USBC (+ anything if bye to R8)

For R8 bye (72): Semi in V/S + 5/8 (or Reis top 4); 2 R8 in V/S + Reis top 5 (or Reis final + R16).

For semifinal bye a V/S win, a second and a R16 (or Reis final) is not enough. Also winning KO and Reisinger isn’t enough (need 186, get 185).
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, it doesn't conflict with the Reisinger. It ends on Thursday and Reisinger starts on Friday.
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The issue of which team replaces the ineligible team is more complicated. First, we often have two winner trials. Say team A wins the main bracket and defeats team B in the finals. Team C then loses to team B in the repechage final.

After this players drop off team A so it is ineligible and before this, 3 players on team C qualify in a later trials. In this case which team replaces team A? There could be other even more complex scenarios.
Nov. 1, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top