Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68 69 70 71
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LHO doesn't have stiff K when you lead Q and it is not covered.

Percentages are definitely not my strong suit.
I play Ace because

36% 3-3 diamonds works unless LHO has all three hearts and fewer than 4 diamonds.
12.5% K offside stiff
?% either opponent with stiff heart has a doubleton diamond

- % when a defender has one diamond and more than 1 heart.

The last two % are what gets me confused.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I had KQxxx Kx & any combo? at favorable might I not toss in a spade overcall? Seems like the lack of an overcall, let alone a WJO, may lessen the likelihood of the K onside.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the first mistake, 2N, did not irrevocably lead to the final poor contract
the last mistake, bidding 6N, could have been the triumphant slam suggestion of 6.
imo, therefore, East's unilateral 6N gets the lion's share
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frank Abnagale, the Catch Me If You Can con man, became a fraud consultant after some number of years in prison.

There was a damning video of Fisher & Smirnov jousting on the placement of bids in the tray.

Would the willingness of offenders to disclose sources and methods, and assist anti-cheating commissions to better monitor high-level play be a potential mitigating factor in the these matters?
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ty Steve,

How many whys, in your opinion, does it take to get to the root cause of collusive cheating?
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my vapor lock…
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please answer my Q.
In answer to your Q I would make a one-under raise (xfr adv) followed by either 2N with a flat hand or a new suit trial bid if I had game interest.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why, holding a LR in hearts, would LHO roll the dice in 1NXX? At IMPs in a KO match?
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your expected imp odds, over the long haul, favor passing.
This, of course, on this particular hand might lose a game swing. Does your LHO have a long diamond suit or unlikely club length that can establish a seventh trick?

I don't think LHO can be sure at all that they have the tricks. They want you to run in doubt. I won't.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm glad I don't have to hold my breath waiting for a comment by MShuster I don't agree with.

That being said most of my cards show 3N as 15-17.
We use jumps to 2N as 12-14 or 18+ and to 2 for various hands including balanced invitations.

A comment above re. the control rich nature of the hand has me wondering if a revision to my ‘ladder’ is in order.
The immediate 3N reserved for the 15-17hcp that is NOT control rich. Hoping therefore, that my good opening partner WILL bid 2 allowing me to jump to 3N to show the control rich 15-17. If partner bids 2N instead with balanced minimums I can raise. If partner rebids a minor I can cue hearts and head for a minor slam if I hear about a spade control.

Having read upthread can agree that not rebidding 2 with five is in error. Raising clubs on three when 2 could be on four is a waste of space.
Dec. 6
Mike Cassel edited this comment Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the problem???
With no spade lead and the QJ tight and the J coming down doubleton or tripleton the slam is COLD !!!
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought 14 was most interesting. IIRC 1N was the opening bid at 8 of the 10 tables. Five of the eight South's bid 2 for the majors. At two of the other tables North bid 3 over the spade transfer.

In the match I was watching (Kasle vs Blass) both North's bounced to 4. Both contracts failed, one more catastrophically.
The one successful Landy intervention was produced in Lee v. Mittleman. Simon de Wijs, sitting North, advanced with a 2N inquiry, and bought the contract in 3 ending +140. A great result which went for naught when their teammates decided not to sit for 3X, bid 3N, and went -150 to lose the board.

I was going to post a multiple choice bidding poll on this one for South over 1N. Contest conditions: imps, mps, or BAM. and varying vulnerability. I suspect that if partner is a passed hand (not here) very few might compete. It got so complicated in design, and the likelihood of so many complaints in the format of the choices, that I gave up.

  vul   fav     =W   =R   unfav
imps a b c d
mps e f g h
BAM i j k l
How likely would you make a call for majors?
on a scale from 0-3]
0 1 2 3
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l

if anyone wants to format a poll please do so. I was quite surprised at the frequency of the call, but I am neither world class nor attuned to the mindset of where the contestants saw themselves in the competition needing a swing or, conversely, maybe just trying to match what they think their opponent at the other table might be doing.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No surprise for me re. table count. I was in Winnipeg. Not particularly attractive weather-wise for vacationing & bridge.
I was not in Hawaii, not particularly attractive for playing bridge weather-wise when you could be vacationing. Who goes to Hawaii to sit inside for 8-12 hrs a day?

I wonder if more folks might have attended if some of the events were horizontal so you could have more DAY time to be enjoying Hawaii outside.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was it failure or inability? Or is inability a failure?
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problem with new information.
What bugs me is piling negativity on negativity. We all get it. You feel wounded and cannot help but retaliate.

You can love your vacation without sticking in yet another dig

One of these days I'll listen to your BOG comments. Maybe someone will cue the timestamp.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, for one, have had enough sarcasm.
How many times does one get to make their point? Over a dozen?
The situation was unfortunate and maybe could have been addressed with more decorum.

I don't believe Hawaiians use “Mahalo” in quite this way.

We here at BW obviously don't adhere to mom's adage “if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all”.

Our motto seems to be “if you don't have anything nice to say, say it anyway….over and over.”
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Carryover Question:

Reisenger:
The bottom qualifer has a carryover of 10.62
The leaders, Lee & co. have a carryover of 13.62
Why is it not 0 and 3 boards?

N.A.Swiss
The bottom qualifer has a carryover of 60.38
The leaders, Rigal & co. have a carryover of 90.38
Why is it not 0 and 30VPs?

Earlier in the week, in the 0-10K Swiss the top qualifier was
23.78VPs and bottom was 0.00

Top c/o in the Super Senior pairs was 62.38 (17top) and bottom was 0.
Top c/o in the women's BAM was 4 boards and bottom was 0.
In the Open BAM 5 boards & 0.

Is there any rhyme/reason for this discrepancy?
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2-session horizontal (morning) swiss or CKO seem more popular these days. We killed our morning horizontal events when we abandoned Choice Pairs and moved ‘primetime’ to morning-afternoon.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I apologize as my original comment seemed to set off a flurry of objections from folks who would rather rail at things they don't understand rather than contribute constructive ideas.

We were one of the districts who advocated for the 4-session small bracket experiment after our KO entry field led to a universally disliked single handicapped bracket.

We could have abandoned the long match 4-session KO in favor of the one day 2-session bracketed events that seem to have expanded recently. IMO, if we value the Spinderbilts as our premier competitions why are we abandoning 4-session KOs at so many regionals in favor of short match events.

It should be noted that the big Lone Star regional coming up in Texas is advertising a couple of these events.
http://www.acblunit174.org/Flyers/lsr_ms.pdf
They have been running 1 day 2-session bracketed events for some years. Someone from that neck of the woods can tell us why.

I'm not from Texas and have no ‘dog in the hunt’. Our idea never included a large regional breaking their KO structure into a whole host of small 4-session brackets. But I understand the idea of a high quality regional event as potentially attractive to players who want the best competition. I hope the Texas idea is successful. The new small bracket formula does not punish overall awards with the reconfigured BSAF and I suspect the Lone Star will be popular.

A side benefit for this structure for clients in the MP hunt: they will only have to play 1/2 the boards. IIRC you don't often see six person teams in 1 day 2-session bracketed events.

I take no pleasure in a top bracket KO with 6 quality high level teams and three or four ‘cupcakes’. Any team that wants to play up is certainly welcome to in our regional.

I believe that offering a top bracket, small bracket KO, that encourages top flight competition could be a draw for traveling teams. As Chris alluded to upthread, the success of some regionals does depend on meeting room blocks. A schedule that is attractive to traveling teams was the point of Kevin beginning this topic and I apologize again if the topic has been disrupted by my encouragement of the small bracket KO for this group.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Advertising a 4 session small bracket KO for your top bracket, as I'm sure you are aware, should help

Item 183-10: BSAF KO Bracket Changes – Second Reading
Item 182-28: BSAF KO Bracket Changes
A KO event may be scheduled with the first two sessions played as a Round Robin or Swiss to qualify four teams to the semifinals and finals played over the next two sessions.

As a side benefit the teams averaging 3,500MPs might be encouraged to play knowing that they would not be sacrificial lambs in the top bracket. btw, I am not in favor of extending the small bracket concept to the lower brackets except to avoid handicapping a sole second bracket.
Nov. 29
Mike Cassel edited this comment Nov. 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 68 69 70 71
.

Bottom Home Top