Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Rasmussen
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shortness + singleton or void.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East played what looked like an encouraging spade at Trick 1 in reasonable tempo (I took 30-40 seconds before playing from dummy.)
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East will cover the K with the ace.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Each defender will play a small trump in tempo.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was involved in a somewhat similar incident during the Master Mixed BAM teams in Chicago this summer. At the conclusion of the second qualifying session my team was on the bubble to make it to the second day. The recap sheet had a Q by our team name, but on the overall sheet we were 45th (top 44 teams qualified). I asked the Director-in-Charge which one to believe and he said to check the Bulletin in the morning. The next day the Bulletin had us qualifying, but just to make sure I went to the playing site an hour before game time to confirm that we had qualified. I was told that we had and I picked up our team entry and table assignment at that time. One minute before game time the Director approached me and apologetically said that a mistake had been made and that in fact we had not qualified. Since my teammates wanted to play in the A/X Swiss if that was the case and the BAM was about to start, I did not have time to follow up about what had happened at that time.
A friend spoke to a member of the qualifying team (a sponsored team) about what had happened and he was told that one of their pairs doesn’t keep a scorecard and that they only found the scoring mistake much later when they were going over the hands. The next day I repeated this conversation to the BAM DIC and asked for details of the scoring correction(s). He would only state that a number of scoring corrections had come in “late at night” and that had altered the position of several of the teams, but he wasn’t forthcoming with any of the details. Probably it was obvious that there had been a mistake and nothing untoward happened. However, since I could not get any information about the nature of this team’s scoring correction, which team it was against, and if, when and how the correction was confirmed, particularly since no scorecard had been maintained, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. I recorded this incident and received the following ambiguous response from the ACBL Recorder “I find it troubling that you believe something nefarious may have occurred.”
In fact I have no reason to believe that something nefarious occurred, but as Brad suggested above “improvements need to be made to avoid even the appearance of Impropriety”.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that is a very murky area of the bridge laws. Some top pairs in the US play “We signal whatever we think partner needs to know”. See for example Justin Lall's interview on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUG9vfHN3so
around 20-22 minutes
and some of the SSF forms from the US Team Trials http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_entries&event=39&task=list
Is declarer supposed to be able to figure out what it is that the defender's partner needs to know on his own? Or can he ask what it is that defender's partner usually needs to know? And what if in the interests of full disclosure a well intentioned answer is wrong and leads declarer astray - is he entitled to redress?
Oct. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that 3 and 4 appear to be switched. I observed 5 fingers on at 1:08:22 for 13 and it looks like B twice is showing 5-5 for 26, once before Z touches his lead (19:35) and once after (19:50).
Oct. 17, 2015
Jim Rasmussen edited this comment Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please bring back the Grossacks - very entertaining
May 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played in three of the first four trials held by the USBF. These were among the most enjoyable bridge events in which I have participated in spite of being humbled by the top-rate opposition. The events were very well run and the quality of bridge was very high. Over the years the Conditions of Contest have been changed to favor the more fancied teams - both with regard to the awarding of byes and requiring the lower ranked teams to play into the main KO event. This occurred after several of the favored teams were knocked out in the round robin stage -perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not.

Now with higher entry fees and facing the prospect that a significant percentage of the teams without a lot of seeding points will never have the opportunity to play against any of the top teams, the event is not nearly as attractive.
April 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the past year my partner and I have been playing that 1M - 2C is either GF with clubs or invitational in one of the four suits. Partner asks with 2D or makes a natural bid if highly distributional. Although not perfect, it allows Bergen raises while still providing a method to show an invitational hand. One additional advantage is that it allows making a limit raise at the two level
Jan. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually responder had 2!! The double was by the opponent with 6 hearts and 1 spade.
May 30, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually it is an MI problem. A player in a Flt A Swiss chose option b, was doubled in 4S and went down two. During the play declarer discovered that the opponents' actual agreement was that 2C showed a three card constructive raise. Should the contract be rolled back to 4H down one or the table result allowed to stand?
May 29, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top