Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kamil
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks once again for all of the nice thoughts. I'm really overwhelmed by the honor. As for Boye's double Roland, I think it was pure genius. As far as I can tell, 7H is only down 3 on best play. Why settle for a paltry 300 when 1700 is available.

All of my Mom's answers to such silly “why” questions, began with “I just KNEW….”. Boye obviously just KNEW his partner had the club ace, etc. etc. :)
Jan. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks so much for the kind comments. I'm really overwhelmed and surprised to have been chosen. It's truly an honor.

(and Jill…on a side note…thanks a lot for the plug, but let's save that for when the ACBL institutes the Sense of Humor award)
Jan. 18, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to Joel…he had a great year. As for Levin, we all know he's well past it by now. I mean he's got to be well over 40 and the guy hasn't won anything in who knows how long. I even hear he's been traded to another team. That's life though, I suppose it happens to everyone….
Dec. 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, I suspect you're right. We can likely tie in the voice commentary to what the written commentators are saying. However, on my first time around I was pretty much divorced from the writing on the screen. I probably saw about a quarter of the comments and had almost no focus toward them. I'm interested to see if I'm more capable of the integration next time.
Sept. 19, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to USA 2 - a very well played match by you, very few errors and some excellent bidding judgment. Let's hope for a rematch in the BB semi-finals.

Henry, I found it interesting to be an oral commentator for the first time. It takes a bit of time to get used to it. One has to listen to the other commentators (and be careful not to speak “over” them), concentrate on the hand, consider questions, etc. That made integration into written commentary very difficult.

In fact I had several people speaking to me privately which I found difficult to handle this time around. I'm pretty sure it's just because I'm not use to it yet, but it may be that it requires a fair amount of practice to comment in both manners at the same time.

To be blunt, I'm not even sure how the commentary sounds to the general public. I'd be interested in (honest, even if it hurts) everyone's assessment. :)

In any case, it was a privilege to play in this event. I hope to participate many times in the future. :)
Sept. 19, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best of luck to Steve and Bobby. A great addition to the Nickell squad. They will be sorely missed in some quarters. :)
July 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Brad…couldn't resist writing about this one as it was so fascinating. This hand was in fact a perfect example of the spectator's curse of seeing all the hands. It's all soooo obvious when we all 4 hands are on view. In real life of course there's a lot more to think about (as you just outlined). I think we'd all say you shouldn't lose any sleep - seems clear that you made the “right” play. :)
June 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to the Bathurst team! And a great effort in the end by the Diamond squad against a team who had played terrifically for 8 straight days against the stiffest competition. It was really a pleasure to watch. :)
May 18, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry all - should have put this in earlier. Partner's hand was 32 J6 AT72 KQ762. It turns out that all games make. Hearts are 5-3 and one diamond honor is onside. However in theory 3N is best as hearts could be be 6-2.
April 28, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The people on this website are just too darned smart…I can't get away with anything!! :)
April 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peggy, For purposes of this discussion let's assume that 1C was natural…in that case I would have thought double at the 5 level would be used for those 5530 strong types, with 5 as the 6-6 hand. Just my view, but I certainly understand the other side.
April 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Peggy…

If you held a 5530 (or a strange 4540) hand good enough to bid vul. vs. not at the 5 level, wouldn't you be inclined to double? I think that's the argument for 5 rather than 5.
April 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the latter part of this discussion (and my thoughts at the time)…I DID want to bid 7S over 5D. I think part of the problem is that my concept of the 4D bid was a far cry from Marty's. At the time we were not quite as practiced as now, thus not as aware of each other's “bridge” personalities.

In an effort to give Marty a bit of room with his bid, I did choose 5N pick-a-slam thinking that Marty would not bid 6C without 6. I don't say that this is correct thinking on my part, but felt instinctively that most hands with a poorish 5 card club suit would bid 6S (or 6H?) as Mike Rosenberg suggests. Incidentally, my knowledge of the opponent's tendencies had a bit to do with my considerations on this deal, too. It was a moral certainty that they had 10 diamonds on their bidding.
April 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry - Actually, Geoff made his slam by wisely ducking the opening heart lead. I guess I can still learn a thing or two from my opponents. :)
March 29, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peggy, This whole issue is quite easy to fix. Just play my version of 2 way drury. When partner thinks you might pass his drury bid, he makes sure to respond in his long minor. Simplicity itself. :)
March 26, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder what 4 would have meant over 2. Marty and I actually play that's 5-2-4-2 slammish. One could argue that it takes up too much space, however with a narrow enough range it might have saved all of this angst. Of course I would expect you fellows to find your way to 7 anyway, as apparently that was the mystical inevitability attached to this hand. :)
March 25, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it will be long before Mr. Grue and company will chalk up a Vanderbilt and/or a Spingold (Joe and Curtis already have a Reisinger to their credit if I'm not mistaken). Their whole team was made up of great players and tough competitors. It was a real privilege to play in such an exciting match…obviously could have gone either way.

What I can't really understand is how Joe always seems to end up with a double set of bidding cards while I have nothing but 72 green pass cards in my bidding box.
March 22, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I couldn't agree more that this tournament shows just how deep the younger talent pool is right now. The list above has so many great players.

Since Henry and Jordan are discussing various “historical” occurrences way back in the 80's, I just wanted to share a funny little tidbit. While standing in the bar after the event finished, I happened to ask Lew Stansby how many times he'd won the Vanderbilt (FYI, I believe it's 7 now!). He began to answer, “Well, let's see…there was 1967, then…” I stopped him there as I laughed, thinking, “Boy, and my teacher wouldn't even let us bring a deck of cards into my first grade class”. :)
March 22, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a quick comment from a player's perspective regarding vugraph.

My view is somewhere between David's and Jan's. I don't mind at all if the commentator confirms the contract at the end of the bidding, or the number of tricks taken at the end of the play. However, while I agree that “balance is the key”, it's nearly impossible for a player to be focussed on the bridge and “being clear with the claims” or “not ripping the bidding cards” away. The problem is that we're not always on vugraph and the quick claims, etc. are what a player does normally in everyday play. Hard to change the habits of a lifetime and I'm pretty certain it would take away from the concentration on the game itself.

Since I agree with David that we should present and promote, perhaps we there could be a set break here or there just to clarify things for the vugraph operator (and the audience). Wouldn't have to be more than a moment or two. Of course some might say that he whole thing takes too long as it is. Now if only everyone played as quickly as I do…. :)

On a side note - it was a great pleasure to be part of such an exciting final. The Grue team played great throughout the week and in the final itself - note how low the score was in total. Really too bad there had to be a winner and a loser in this one.



March 22, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry

I'm not exactly the person to ask about this one (the methods being culled from the ideas of Martel/Stansby). I do know that in your last example: 1-(2)-3-4 we would have taken up considerable space prior to slam investigation.

I'm not even sure that one couldn't get overboard if opener were to accept the “limit raise” with some close hands…just the type of situation that wouldn't occur over a direct 4 slammish game force where auctions could continue with 4-4-4-Pass.

But, as I say, I'm not a particularly strong theoretician, so….

:)
March 2, 2011
.

Bottom Home Top