You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From East's perspective, it is unclear whether declarer started with AJ or AJx? Also the 3 is not a 100% guarantee of K, for me it just means please don't lead other suits. If declarer did have AJx, cashing K would cost a trick and I cannot see any urgency for this cash out play.

From West's perspective, it is clear that East has up to 10hcp with K and A. Therefore partner cannot have A. There are two cases that need to be considered:
a) If East has led from 8x and declarer has AKJT + A, the only hope is that East started with two trumps and you can set up a winner before declarer can draw all the trumps and use hearts to discard the losing diamond on the board. In this case if you return a , you lose a tempo. Only return is the winning play (but you can't really set it -2 in this case).
b) If East has led from KT8(x), that means East has no points at all. In this case a return guarantees -1 and it's also the best shot for -2.

I don't think one choice is 100% superior than the other. Line (a) requires the opener to superaccept with a 4-4-(3-2) hand with only 15hcp, plus the assumption that partner is leading from Kx 8x Kxxx(x) Axxx(x). Line (b) covers more distributions such as K(x) KT8(x) xxx(xx) Axx(xx). Based on raw percentage I think it favors (b) but it also depends on your partner's overall leading style (e.g. passive/aggressive).
Aug. 14, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite the issue of who plays whom in the LB, things would get pretty much ad-hoc when symmetry is now followed. Depending on the number of teams to start with, you could end up with 4,5,6,7,… teams fall into the category of “lost once” in the LB final round. You need to design a “fair” way to choose the LB winner out of 4 (we are in good shape! YES!),5 (eh..),6 (seems fine),7 (doesn't look fun),… surviving teams.

Examples:

after round——0—–1—–2—–3—–4—–5
didnt lose——32—-16—–8—–4—–2—–1
lost once——–0—-16—-16—-12—–8—–5
eliminated——-0—–0—–8—-16—-22—-26

after round——0—–1—–2—–3—–4—–5—–6
didnt lose——64—-32—-16—–8—–4—–2—–1
lost once——–0—-32—-32—-24—-16—-10—–6
eliminated——-0—–0—-16—-32—-44—-52—-57

after round——0—–1—–2—–3—–4—–5—–6—–7
didnt lose—–128—-64—-32—-16—–8—–4—–2—–1
lost once——–0—-64—-64—-48—-32—-20—-12—–7
eliminated——-0—–0—-32—-64—-88—104—114—120
Aug. 13, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For standard double elimination, you need two rounds in the loser's bracket for each round played in the winner's bracket to keep the number of survivors equal in each bracket. Essentially you are giving byes to those who just dropped from WB:

Winner's Bracket:
n -> n/2 (internal KO)

Loser's Bracket
n -> n/2 (internal KO) -> n/2 (KO against teams dropped from WB).

The reason behind this is WB does not eliminate any team. For this whole “round” beginning with 2n teams, you need to eliminate n/2 teams twice to keep the KO structure self-similar.
Aug. 13, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not complaining for myself. Actually I took this advantage quite often, but with some guiltiness.

I also enjoy the benefit of entry fee discount as a junior/full time student – but I don't feel even a little guilty for taking that advantage. The league or specifically the district I often play in wants to promote junior bridge population and I did teach and try to attract other juniors into the bridge world.

I just failed to justify the fact that I was offered a (not so small) discount only because I'm on a 6-handed team. Is it just because I “voluntarily” play less boards?

(edited) I'm actually quite happy with the current MP payout plan. To address the pay/award ratio issue, I would vote for increase the pay but not cut the award.
July 27, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This difference could happen in many ways. The size of the largest teams you can ever put together is limited by how much bridge-related resources you have. Imagine if 8-handed or even 12-handed teams are allowed, then who has the best chance of setting a team up? I bet we do not have the equal chance as someone else does.

For those who want to set up 6 handed teams, either you have \$\$ and can hire other people to play with you, or you need to know enough people with similar level as you (and they need to know this fact too!). It's nice if you have such resources and I hope everyone does. But I don't think rewarding that fact with extra 33% discount (in terms of pay/expected MP award ratio) and potential advantages at table is the best way to go.
July 27, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think everyone has the same opportunity to set up a 6 handed team.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I entirely agree your first point.

With that being said, personally I would feel unfair if someone pays 2/3 of regular entry fee and have the equal (if not better) chance to win.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to second Ovunc's post on this. Having played the online qualifying stage for the past 4 years and it has never been a pleasure for me. The ethic problem is really a big issue for the online portion of this tournament. Some team kept beating everyone in the online portion got an average of 2VP out of 20 when they play the final on the table.

We (as UPenn team) have encountered many obvious scenarios where unethical moves happened. Complaints and appeals were made but none of them were taken seriously by ACBL. It is a fail qualifying system if top teams would need (lots of) luck to qualify every year.

ACBL please send some expert to watch the online game next time and hear what they have to say.
Feb. 16, 2014
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Feb. 16, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top