Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 60 61 62 63
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BridgeMaster <http://bbi.bridgebase.com/software/bmdesc.html> is a great way to test & improve your declarer play.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Tom. I’ve been wondering about that! Anyone else have an opinion?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish you were right, but as I understand it, each of 3300 or so players paid $30 to the ACBL. 20% ($6 per player) will be distributed to ACBL Districts. The remainder, after credit card fees, will be distributed to the USBF, CBF & MBF. That sounds like about $75,000 will be distributed to the NBO's. When we find out how much the USBF gets, we will definitely disclose it, either here or somewhere else.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ai-Tai, I knew there were only 2 days this year, just meant that in the past I thought there were three, so the entry fee was for at least 3 days of play. I think in the past they've cut to 32, this year they're cutting to 64, which is why they only have 2 days for the Swiss qualifying. Perhaps they didn't give as much thought to the entry fee as they should have.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Max: in prior years, the Pairs had two entry fees - the first one covered the qualifying and semi-finals, the second was for the Finals. I realize that does not seem to be what's being done here, but I wonder whether they just copied the entry fee numbers from prior years and that's why there is such a disparity between teams and pairs (I also think, but am not sure) that the first phase of the teams was 3 days, not 2).
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered “other,” partly because our agreement is none of the ones you list (we play it's a good suit, suggesting 3NT as contract), but mainly because this is one of those auctions where there isn't a “right” answer - 3 means what you and your partner have agreed that it means. It doesn't make sense to bid it if you haven't discussed it..
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Board 4 Bidding:
P 1 P 1
DBL P 2 P
2 P 4 all pass
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Board 3 Bidding:
1 P 1 P
3 P 3 P
3NT all pass
Feb. 8
Jan Martel edited this comment Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Board 2 Bidding (I'm afraid I don't seem to be able to get good spacing, sorry):
P 1NT DBL 2*
P 2NT** P 3
3 P P 3
P 3NT all pass
* Range ask or clubs
** Minimum
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Board 1 - auction by Chip & Marty:
P 1 1 P
2 2 3 DBL
P P 4 all pass

Analysis:
North might open 3♦, but the spots are poor and side four card spade suit is a defect. If North passes, East could reasonably open 1♠ or 1♣. If 1♠, South has a heavy 2♥ overcall, West a raise and North can now chime in with 3♦ (expecting some diamond support as South is presumably short in spades). East now might bid 3 or 4♠ with his shapely hand. If he did jump to 4♠, would likely push South into bidding 5♦ (or perhaps 4NT if that would be takeout, to offer a choice between diamonds and hearts).

5♦ is an excellent contract, but beaten by the bad break (and those poor diamond spots we mentioned earlier).

Note that 4♠X can held to 7 tricks (so beaten 500), but the defense has to be a little careful. They have to tap declarer to kill the club suit, but also have to play one round of trumps one of the 3 times they are in with club tricks. Otherwise declarer can cross-ruff 8 tricks.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, but in Oakland and Berkeley, 580 West and 80 East are the same road :-), and it's going pretty much N/S.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order to show the bidding on hands without analysis, TCG made it look as if there was analysis on all of the hands - thanks to them for doing that! The hands that have analysis in addition to bidding are 1, 8, 10, 15, and 28. If you're interested in who held which hands, Chip was North & East, Marty was South & West.

The auctions on boards 1 through 4 are not the auctions that Chip & Marty had on those boards. They were apparently proposed by Kenny Horneman, who analyzed the first 4 boards for The Common Game - on TCG's website, both Chip & Marty's auctions and Kenny Horneman's auctions appear, but for some reason what is posted here has only Horneman's. I'll post comments here with Chip & Marty's auctions and their analysis of Board 1.
Feb. 7
Jan Martel edited this comment Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ai Tai is correct; no one was paid for doing this. And Debbie is right that Bobby & Steve were extremely generous in analyzing all 36 hands.
For this event, I recruited 4 World Class pairs, and 3 future stars (our USA1 team for the World Junior Championship) and asked them to bid all of the hands, using simple 2/1 methods, not their usual complex agreements, and to analyze 5 or more interesting hands from the 36 they bid (the Juniors bid 12 hands per pair).
Bobby & Steve not only analyzed all 36 hands, they recruited Eugene to transcribe their bids and analysis into Bridge Composer, which The Common Game uses to produce their handouts and online posts.
The other pairs weren’t as ambitious, but all of them bid all 36 hands and commented on at least 5 of them. They sent their bids and analysis to me and I put them into Bridge Composer (so I’m to blame for any typos!).
I’m grateful to all 7 pairs for taking several hours out of their busy days to do this, and I hope that their approach to the hands and analysis made the event more interesting for some of the participants.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because the local District and Unit didn’t want to run a Regional in conjunction with the World Championship. Perhaps a result of what is often discussed here: there are just too many Regionals.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once played a Regional session by candlelight :-).
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you carefully schedule your wedding opposite Bridge Week, because “they'll never have the GNT Zonals the same weekend as Bridge Week,” and then have to leave your reception a little early to catch the last plane to LA for the GNT Zonals, which of course had been scheduled opposite Bridge Week. Then one of your new husband's teammates says “I was never so happy to see someone get on a plane :-)”
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry if my timing was bad, but the pressure to change from ACBL as the Zone 2 Zonal Authority has been going on for years, it isn't anything new. It's just gotten to the point where it is probably going to be implemented.
In truth, we in Zone 2 have a better situation than those in other Zones - in a very real sense, we get to have our cake and eat it too. ACBL isn't going to become Olympic compliant. So ACBL can continue to deal appropriately with cheaters (long bans, including for life) without review by CAS. All of us who play bridge in Zone 2 are protected by that. At the same time, all of us can continue to compete in World Championships. We may have to set up an essentially meaningless organization to be our Zonal Organization, but that's a fairly small price to pay. In Zones where there is a more “traditional” Zonal Organization, CAS and World Championship competition go hand in hand.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve: Not sure what you mean by “it” but if what you mean is not having ACBL officially serve as the Zone 2 Zonal Organization, I'd guess the answer is “none.”
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have the timing wrong. I mentioned this after the CAS decision, but the WBF request that Zone 2 form a new Zonal Organization was made well before that decision was announced, and has been floating around for years, based on complaints by an NBO representative who has consistently taken the position that ACBL cannot be the Zonal Organization, for reasons I confess I do not fully understand; but if you repeat something often enough others accept it, and WBF has always been unhappy that ACBL would not adopt the “Olympic dream.”
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not everyone can read the BOG Forum, so I suppose it makes sense for there to be duplication between posts there and posts that people who can read that Forum think should be seen by everyone.
Feb. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 60 61 62 63
.

Bottom Home Top