Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks as though E-W might have a ‘double slam invite’, since 2 already confirmed a non-min for W. Confirming a non-min first via 2 makes the subsequent 4NT less risky. You wont look silly going -1 with 12 vs 15(14+) and some not-so-good luck in a 10-trick contract. Had East responded 2NT to range check, 3NT was it.

Even so, while E has an absolute max, Deep made 6 just 18/100 times on a batch that fixed E/W hands and randomized N/S.

On the other hand, USA-2 knew that they were not getting back into the hunt by pushing 3NT hands. This bid may well have been motivated by the need to start accumulating some VPs. As far as choice of slams, note the good judgment from Rosenberg catering to long clubs. There is no benefit to playing in 6NT. (10 cases where both 6NT & 6 made, 8 case for just 6 and none for just 6NT)

I imagine E/W might have passed on this one except for state of the tourney considerations - sometimes a man has to bid what a man has to bid :) And USA-2 has climbed back into the race.



Sept. 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Missing a choice.

If partner were: AJ9xx / KQ85 / x / Kxx we actually need to shift to a club to beat the contract :)
Sept. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob, the 1NT is certainly spirited :)
Sept. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This used to be a Brad Moss 1NT opening. Nowadays, Fred is likely to be the one who opens 1NT on this hand. Lots of experts might. Grue would. He’d certainly consider it.

The bad luck part is playing this board against this South. But either defender could have gotten it right.

If 4-D @ trick one, then std count. West’s defense appears lazy. 4D from pard @ t1? Count is 2nd highest from 4. So assuming South won 10-D and played 5 underneath, perhaps West might put East on 9432. We know 3 hearts. What is the rest of declarer’s hand? If declarer is Ax(x) / Qxx / AKQJx / xx(x) the club is not going away. There is just no need to take the A-C.

But West should know East cannot have 4 diamonds. Because from 9432 the two would have come back - present count. West did not bother to think about the diamond spots, he has a warning that something is wrong with the picture. Partner’s diamond play is not consistent with declarer having six diamonds. If declarer is Ax / Qxx / AKQJ95 / xx you have to cash A-C. And this looks more like 1D - ?; then 2NT or 3D.

East started off well. The club @ t3 is a good play. Returning the diamond was giving away the contract if the lead was from K98. If South has Qx(x) / Qxx / AQJxx / Ax(x) the club must be played before the diamond. However, E can now cash A-S once K-C holds. How can it hurt?

East knows by inference declarer has Jxx or Qxx. (With QJx he would win likely in hand a finesse hearts - if he did not do that at MP he is a fool, at IMPs he has 10 outside tricks). The question for East is why declarer took an inferior line in the heart suit. So both players had hints something was amiss.

Keep your thinking flexible or your pocket will be picked.
Sept. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps. But I think even Papi stays off a diamond lead with KQ / QJ9xxx / x / xxxx
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So Stayman would be the GI, presumably. Oh well, next time N&S will trade red 3s and 3NT comes home when hearts cannot be continued. Or your partner has Jxx-H and doubler AKxxx.
Cue Joey: ‘NEXT’
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jenni, I can tell you what is missing.

Since the world is going mobile, we need someone to write an ‘Edgar ap’ for the cellphones.

But sadly, that wont be possible.
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of bridge ahead, but rally caps cannot hurt.

If you need them, see Steve W - he always has a wide assortment.
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too bad. Consolation Swiss - here we come!
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FYI: The SIM was specifically stiff K - every other stiff (including A) was excluded.
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other advantage to running the first session as a qualifying event is it would run all day. A 28 bd KO means half the teams are gone looking quickly. There needs to be a consolation event - and people would really rather be in the main event than not.

Though in the KO phase, we could even keep the matches going, not for reparge (though that is possible) but for position. No ties for 5-8, for ex. It would give the KO'd teams something to do and I know I'd rather play good competition than go looking for regional events.

If ‘losers bracket’, a BAM KO is a significant enough event that reparge winner is certainly an accomplishment.

BTW, Henry. Sugar works better because you are a rational creature. It even works on donkeys, too. . . OK, I'll stop myself now :)
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition to Adam, Darwin likes BAM KOs

There were just 42 entries to last year’s Reisinger. The B in BAM is ‘B’ is for ‘brutal’ & ‘best’. A BAM KO is even a tougher test of bridge skill. Not only do I agree with Henri that 28 BAM boards is ~ = to 56 IMP boards in skill, it probably will take just as long to play them.

Moss’s original proposal was essentially a modification of the Fall Schedule. From a “this is what a championship event should look like”, Brad’s proposal makes 100% sense. It also has about 0% chance of even being considered by our ACBL. The ACBL is just ‘different’. Wimbledon does not run a short men’s singles and then a long’s men singles. Then a short men’s doubles and a long men’s double’s. But this is precisely what the ACBL does with the Fall schedule. OpenPr/Blue Ribbon. O-BAM/Resisinger. The ACBL likes to have lots of events and does not care that they water down championships. We now have the Reisinger directly opposite the Swiss. Which is just dumb. They cannot both be ‘championships’. But this is just a precursor to the eventual ACBL plans to introduce RR-Bracket National Championships. Just so everyone can be a winner!

For a BAM KO to work, besides scheduling, we would need to solve two critical issues that have come up in other threads. Seeding & time Considerations.

Getting the seeding right is even more important in a BAM KO. To the extent that the ACBL cannot do that - and because as was previously noted, a play-around can Q any number fairly - I would suggest that is how the event should start off. The top seeds are set by performance and let them pick from the bottom half. Alternatively, the 4 top seeds could be split into qualifying groups and then set the bracket based on results / picks. The later might be best.

Everything in BAM is critical. One spends time thinking about every little detail because you have no idea that your mates went for 800 and it doesn’t matter. In IMPs, it is easy to play catchup. Cannot do that in BAM, everything matters. Better know how the time issues are handled! Pairs has an automatic sort of cattle prod, every couple of boards. Team matches do not.

And those cheap tightwads at the ACBL might need to spend some money on plywood for enough screens. Or maybe they can coast here as I doubt the event will be that popular.

Just worth playing.
Sept. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems they were thinking of bidding. If opener’s 3NT is +18-19 aren’t they in slam range? Unless partner is random, responder was supposed to bid. Isn’t Jx / AKJ10x / AQx / Kxx all thirteen?
Sept. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks David!

Bali is +12hrs to my time - I did not get to kibitz much and this is much better than digging into achieves.
Sept. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love reading old letters to the editor ranting how 1NT - 2 should be natural
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has a count card in clubs. Declarer either unblocked K or has stiff. If it is Kx the x spot will be 4 or 2. Which explains why S might not duck ace first time - he was afraid of stiff K.

If the K-C was unblock, declarer might be hoping to hook J-C and ditch a loser. But the loser S should worry about going away is a heart loser. Therefore a heart cash would be indicated, not a diamond shift. No diamond loser is going away. If S had five diamonds he would have led the 4. Therefore declarer has some diamond length and one diamond pitch diamonds on a club cannot hurt. So it looks like stiff K-C based on diamond shift. Moreover, since S knows declarer cannot get to the board to make a diamond play himself, there is no reason for partner to play diamonds for him from K86(x) / Q86(x).

Assuming partner is defending logically, it looks to me that he wants a diamond ruff. The 6-D will not be a stiff, with 6-6 pointed, W probably would have offered a choice of games (bid 4D). So I duck the J, playing partner for something like Kxx / Kxx / 6x / Axxxx. W should have something like AQJxxxx / - / KQJxx / K

Maybe not definitive and I missed something, but I duck J. Partner will win his trump trick lead a diamond to my ace and get his ruff.
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we blow up the photo and see that Steve is wearing a “bridgewinners.com” cap, do they lose their amateur status?
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Makes me proud to be an American. (Hope I typed that with a straight face)

Good luck guys, and keep up your winning ways!
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All UI cases follow the same logic - whether it is a bidding or a play issue. The question of LA still exists.

However, the difference is that in play, often the layout would be such that just because one might have another play available on defense, it does not necessarily follow that one must take that play right now. Simply because in the play phase, we often get to try for the ruff and if it is not there, we still have a fall back position later during the play - assuming the declarer is not running off with the contract.

In bidding, the LA is always either one choice or the other. In play, we often can try both options. That is naturally what good defenders look for. You do not lose the right to do so just because there is UI. The issue on the hand regarding a LA in the play based on UI is whether the layout is such that a switch must be made now.

In the case of a ruff, obviously that is the option that will disappear. The priority would suggest that option MUST be tried first in any case where a player has a fallback position.

Most defensive layouts would be forgiving of a ‘non-ruff’ by partner. Only if it would not be forgiving would there be a problem.
Sept. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your biological clock? You have an 18 month old kid. Normally your clock should be shot anyway. Must be a wonderful kid, a great wife or both.

Good luck in Bali to you both.
Sept. 16, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top