You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the last round, the team that finished second, Wilson, defeated the team that finished first, Demirev, by a VP score of 16.53 to 3.47. The final margin of victory was only 0.79! Meanwhile, the team that finished third, Korbel, lost its last round, winning 5.07 VPs, to finish 0.97 behind the winners.

I can only imagine the thrills and agonies of calculating the scores after the last round!

Congratulations to all.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
19.5 of 27 in last session, I believe, for the winners.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about A, then A? Should Q show, then J, A, 4 more clubs for first eight tricks, leaving dummy with T, K, KJT. Exit a spade.

In the much more likely scenario that Q does not show on first round, doesn't playing A at Trick 3 leave alive the other chances?

As the reader who asked for more declarer play problems, I gave a like to the article. And here is a thank you.
Dec. 8
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, Ken. The team was 3rd seed, based upon original seeding points. Finishing 26th in the Swiss qualifying (where only 32 qualified for KO), they were seeded 20th entering the KO stage.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep these declarer play problems coming! Thank you.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 … and then hold breath, thinking “if I get by this round …”
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My auction start:

1-2 (2/1 gf)
2 (not necessarily promising extras)-3 (not willing to bid 3NT)
3-4
4 (A or K, with extra values)-5 (A or K)
5 (A or K)

After that start, 6 should be easy … but to bid grand is tough. How can responder know that opener has both major suit AK's and how can opener know that responder has all the intermediate diamonds?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would I be correct to assume that the composition of Team Blass has changed from event to event? Otherwise, it seems hard to reconcile their being a 20 seed or so with what Roy Welland reported above (which is same, I think, as Kalita introduction in his recent In the Well). How can one win that often in such a short period and not be close to a 1 seed?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well… what if the balancer who bid 2X had already passed up an opportunity to have bid X?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slippery slope to say “it probably wasn't because of multi”.

Conditions of Contest exist for a reason, and apply to all players.

Listen, I have no reason to believe that the pair was even aware of the violation. And, given the amount by which they happened to win, I suspect that they would have won had they not played multi. Not that they likely value much my congratulations, but I sincerely offer it for their great performance.

That being said, the complaint is a valid one, basically that ignorance of the law is no excuse: why should this pair be allowed to use a convention that other pairs might have liked to use, but chose to refrain from doing so because they knew the rules of the contest?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I refuse to check my judgment at the door to the bridge club. Note the limitations to my proposal: IMPs scoring, enough overall values to have balance of power, not enough overall values to invite game, a poor 5 card suit, values in the other suits.

Although others have said “always transfer”, based upon some long experiences, I seriously doubt that they bifurcated the hands subject to that experience by the limitations I propose above.

I do not mind being +90 or +120 at IMPs and losing to +110 or +140, as much as I mind matching the opponents' -50 or -100 at IMPs when I could have been +90 or +120.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A different view: If I held xxxxx, KJ, Qxx, Jxx, I would not transfer at IMPs. My chances of going plus – which is my main objective – are better at 1NT than at 2 or 3. Passing 1NT avoids risk of playing 2 opposite a doubleton and running into a defense that wins lots of trump tricks.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The theme is more commonly presented when East holds Qxx rather than Kxx.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The flag seems inappropriate. While all congratulations are welcomed on this thread, to me the thread seems an announcement thread and not a congratulations thread. The flagged comments were relevant to the announcement, even if many would rather choose not to share the information that was flagged.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Way to go, Proud Papa!
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, Platnick, you won't get a third chance to insult my math. I get it and like your proposal … except that I would structure so that all of the third day (Wednesday) Soloway teams get to play two sessions in the Soloway event (when there are 32 teams playing on Wednesday, by full day KO match with 16 of 32 advancing to Thursday; when there are 64 teams playing on Wednesday, by full day further Swiss with carryover, with 16 of 64 advancing to Thursday).

Can a seven day what-I-call NABC++ event sandwiched between two 3-day NABC++ events work for all three NABC's? What would be the 9 events?

Here would be my proposal for NABC++ events to be spread among the three NABC’s:
• Days 1-3, 3-day pairs event: Kay Platinum Pairs, von Zedwitz LM Pairs, Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs
• Days 8-10, 3-day teams event: Reisinger BAM, Roth Open Swiss, Keohane NA Swiss
• Days 4-10, 7-day teams event, with Day 8 (when there are 8 teams remaining, thus 4 teams losing) losers dropping in to Day 9 of the above-described 3-day teams event: Vanderbilt KO, Spingold KO, Soloway KO

Around that NABC++ event schedule, here would be my proposal for NABC+ events to be spread among the three NABC’s:
• Days 3-4, 2-day pairs event (among Lebhar IMP Pairs, Silodor Open Pairs, Fast Pairs, Wernher Open Pairs, Nail LM Pairs, Rockwell-Freeman Mixed Pairs)
• Days 6-7, 2-day teams event (among Jacoby Swiss, Mitchell Open BAM, Freeman Mixed BAM)
• Days 9-10, 2-day pairs event (among (remainder of) Lebhar IMP Pairs, Silodor Open Pairs, Fast Pairs, Wernher Open Pairs, Nail LM Pairs, Rockwell-Freeman Mixed Pairs)

GNT and NAOP would have to be inserted somewhere.

Yes, I am proposing to drop all women’s events and all seniors’ events from NABC+ classification. Sue me. One can fit the women’s events, the seniors' events, and the master point exclusion events around the above start.
Dec. 6
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kickback and good/bad 2NT are two very useful conventions that I try to keep as useful in my partnerships by explicitly suggesting the limited situations to which they apply. I aim for less than 100% of the benefits and close to 0% of the disasters.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Danny, do you believe that BOD believes the C&C committee can propose general scheduling principles for NABC+ (and, in my preference, NABC++) events?
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Danny, aren't the NABCs already 11 days? For 2019, 3/21-3/31, 7/18 to 7/28, 11/28 to 12/8, inclusive.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Danny: What I am thinking about is more than just planning the Soloway and its impact on other events in Fall NABC, as noted above. Perhaps all three NABCs should have three NABC++ events with a duration of 3+(7-2 drop-in)+3 for an eleven day schedule? And then a similar standard approach to NABC+ events? Which NABC++ events are in which NABC matters less, I think, so long as there is always a 7 day NABC++ event, and two 3 day NABC++ events, with one of them receiving drop-ins from last two days of the seven day event.

Late edit: for further thoughts, both mine and that of others, see https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/tiers-of-national-championship-events-at-nabcs/
Dec. 5
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Dec. 5
.

Bottom Home Top