Leaderboard

I have not really talked to BH lol. He was the enemy, and I played all 6 sets that I was in against Meckwell (just like last year). We shook hands and said well played, gl, whatever after the match...it's not like we can discuss hands since he has to play the finals. I played all day yesterday with a fever and 2 nights ago. I think I destroyed my body/did not help it get better since I was just pounding more caffeine in the form of espresso and red bull, and running on caffeine and adrenaline. Now I can't sleep and am a little bit delirious and am alternating between hot and cold. This was a weird tournament emotionally. As was posted in this thread, our team changed last minute. Gavin and Kran at the beginning of the tournament had an accident on 2N p 3C, one thought they played puppet and one didn't. That is how raw their partnership was, because Gavin wasn't even on a team until 1 or 2 days before the event, and Gav and Kran have rarely played together. Kevin and I used to be a regular partnership, but since he plays with Dan Zagorin we had to simplify much of our system since neither of us remembered it much. Hemant and Reese knew their stuff but are still a relatively new partnership. All of that indicates to me that winning long matches is a lot more about psychology, and a lot less about partnerships and systems. This trials was called the "lame duck" trials, because the Fleisher team and Nickell team are breaking up after this, as well as a partnership in each of their teams. The point being, it was considered that they won't play as well as usual, ready to move on to new things. I suggested that I thought Nickell would not be lame duck, because their team is too determined to do well and play in world championships. Anyone who has not met Meckstroth will have no idea how intensely competitive he is about EVERYTHING related to bridge. Same with Hamman. It is clear they both want their legacy to be BEST PLAYER EVER. IMO, that has been their competitive advantage over such a long period of time, and that is why they have stayed at the top for so long. Sure, they are great players, but they also just have the burning desire to do well. I thought that the Fleisher team would be lame duck, and they were, losing pretty handily to clee which was obv a huge upset. Our team had great chemistry, and a burning desire to win, and a feeling that we were going to win, even if somehow we shouldn't. When we were down 100, we were sure we would come back and win. And we reached a point where we might have won, down 40 with 15 boards and momentum is nothing to sneeze at. Meckwell are freaking amazing in that spot though, and it showed...we were swinging hard at the end because we had nothing go our way. But we had a shot. The nickell team used to be known for winning from ANY spot, if they needed to win a dogfight, if they needed a huge comeback, if they needed to hold a big lead after losing some of it. In the round before, they played the spector team that had half of the team that won the trials the year before, and they were down 50 early. And they came back. Having that competitive drive, and that positive outlook, requires good team chemistry. Team chemistry is just massively underrated. If our random team could reach the semi finals and make a comeback of 100 imps against a team like Nickell, when we had no partnerships and were certainly outmatched talent wise, and likewise our random team the year before that had Joe and me which was a non partnership WIN the whole thing, there is something more going on imo, there is not enough of a luck element in playing 4 120 board matches to explain it all with randomness. This should show that having a pairs trials or something of that nature would be a horrible way to pick a team. I am really looking forward to the finals tomorrow. Nickell vs Diamond is the stuff legends are made of.

Not at all. I just try to make the lead that's objectively best. I assume that whatever signals we've agreed to play, in combination with partner's bridge skills, will enable us to solve any defensive problems that occur.

I've written system notes for a 2/1 system based on the systems played by Gitelman-Moss and Levin-Weinstein, Fred Gitelman's article series "Improving 2/1 Game Force" and blog posts by Justin Lall. Where I've had to, I've patched ideas together as best as I've been able. The idea was to get a complete system playable by a group of people who might differ in how much complexity they wanted to add to the system. Therefore the suggested conventions are separated from the base system. The system contains few to none new or original ideas. Still, maybe someone finds it useful and I would appreciate comments on how to improve the system if anyone has the endurance to read it through :). Introduction Summary Base system Extensions

This was a textbook hand from the US team trials, see if you play this one carefully. [hv=pc=n&s=saqjhk94dkq43caq7&n=st62hj85da52ck653&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] Trick 1 goes ♠4 - 2 - 9 - Q ♠4 = attitude lead

IMP's Vulnerable vs. Not-Vul Partner, in 2nd seat opens 1NT (SAYC so 15-17). What do you respond, with the condition it be a "Correct SAYC" auction? :blink:[hv=pc=n&s=sak983hk97dk7cjt8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1np]133|200[/hv] Thanks!

Do you have to be done? 2H, now, would seem to be the appropriate noise. With extras like this and 1-3 in the majors we could try 2NT; with extras like these and 3-1 in majors 2S would happen. With the failure to open NT (correct), and the inability to rebid 2NT...this hand is the only one remaining which would bid 2H now. For clarification: 1D-1S 2C-2D (then, rather than reluctantly passing) 2H.....is the situation I am talking about

As described in the link SEF is a 5card major system (better minor openings), 1NT 15-17 and Benjamin 2♣/2♦. Besides, there are some differences in further bidding: * Roudi: After 1m -(p)-1M -(p) 2♣ is now some kind of checkback stayman, see e.g. My link * invitational only 2nt after 1M: 1M -(p)-2NT shows 3card support, 1M -(p)-3M 4card support * 2/1 bids force to 2nt. This affects opener´s rebids as well, e.g. 1M-(p)-2m -(p)-2NT (usually 15-17, bal., forcing) 1M-(p)-2m -(p)-3m (no minimum, fit, forcing) 1M-(p)-2m -(p)- 2M (some kind of default bid, no other bid, can still be 5 cards, balanced) 1M-(p)-2m -(p)- 2M -(p)-2NT (nf) -(p)- 3m (sign-off in partner´s minor) * no garbage stayman, 2NT-rebid showing both majors; also see My link * mixed cues after shown fit * RKCB 3014, but some don´t show the trump queen with 5♠ Defensive Bidding: Landy over opponents´ 1NT opener

3NT, WTP?

Good hand. I always get these right...... the next day :blink:

I don't know about this. He could be very tricky. :)

Also, he rates to not have a heart void when he leads the ♥3.

Its obligatory to mention that Precision is not a system traditionally associated with the Blue Team. Yes, they played lots of systems with artificial 1♣ openings. Neopolitan Club Roman Club Blue Club However, Precision is notably absent from that list. Please note: I am aware that CC Wei bribed Benito Garozzo and partners to switch over to use "Super Precision". However, I consider this to be pecuniary decision rather than a real statement regarding the merits of the various systems. FWIW, I do think that there is some merit to your basic observation. Having a wide range for most opening bids is often cited as a weakness for "natural" systems. Gazilli mitigates some of these problems. In theory, this could impact the relative merits of a strong club system versus a natural system. However, as is oft the case, you're trying to turn a rather banal observation into something "big"

[hv=pc=n&s=sj652ht6dacakqj94&e=sk93ha5dqt763c732&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1hp2h3c3hdppp]266|200|1) Heart 2, A, 6, 4 2) Heart 5, T, K, 3 3) Heart Q, 9, Club 2, Club 4 4) Diamond J, 2, 3, A 5) Club A, 6, 5, 3 6) ? Over to you[/hv]

Perhaps the double is irrelevant to the correct defence, although it should help to find it. As Eric Jannersten points out in "The Only Chance" (great book), at IMP anyway you need to assume that partner has the cards (if credible) to beat the contract, even without a double. I think it also interesting that if North had held ♣xx and either♠AT8 or ♠AT9, and East had NOT held ♠9, then a ♠ switch by South is still required to beat the contract before cashing a second ♣, so as to provide North with a ♣ entry to South to repeat a ♠ through declarer's remaining ♠Qx.

I think partner would've led a club, not a trump, with a doubleton club.

When counting losers, the typical way to do it is pick a "master hand", and count losers in that hand only. This is usually the hand with *longer* trumps, therefore north on this hand. If both hands are equal length trumps, you typically pick the hand with better, side suits that can be established. Exceptions to counting in this fashion are hands that lend themselves to crossruffing, and "dummy reversals". So for this hand, you look at North count: 1. 0 losers in spades (you have all the top honors since S has Q) 2. 3 losers in hearts. (North has 4 possible losers, but the ace in south will cover one of them) 3. no loser in diamonds ( 1 loser, covered by ace in south) 4. 2 club losers (ace is winner, 2 small cards) So there are 5 possible losers. You can only afford 3, therefore how to get rid of them? The most obvious way is to ruff the losing hearts with south. If you can ruff two of your heart losers away, then the contract is made. So the plan should be, if the opps didn't lead trumps, to play ace and a heart at once, and maneuver to ruff one heart low, and the 2nd heart with the Q if it's possible to be overruffed (you can still pick up the trumps since you have AKJT). There are additional chances in the club suit; one of your opponents could have a doubleton honor, for example. If west has it, you can lead j and let it ride if not covered, and drop the honor later. If East has it, you can lead low toward the board, and if East pops finesse west later. Or if he ducks, drop it. But generally you are going to resort to this only if the opps led a trump on the go, and again when in with the heart, preventing you from ruffing twice in hearts. Once you have this plan, you can see that it would be a mistake to commence drawing trumps yourself; you need the trumps to ruff hearts twice in South. An alternative to counting losers (or really, should be done *in addition to*), is counting winners. Here you'd count 5 spade winners, 3 side aces, for 8 tricks. You need to generate two more winners, how to do it? Again, the answer is ruffing hearts in South. Of course not. here there are no trump losers because you have AKQJT between the hands. If say the Q or K were missing, that's 1 additional *possible* loser. If the ace was missing, it's a *sure* loser.

2NT or whatever your balanced invite mechanism is. I won't bother with Stayman, the ♥ suit is poor and the hand far too quacky to want to play in a suit contract anyway. But it does have good spots - don't dis those 8s and 9s B-)

A splinter over a 1M opening should deliver at least 4-card support. It's impossible for opener to judge how to proceed if it can be done with only 3-card support.

Please can you help with a structure after 1C 2H should partner of the clubber just double to show values or can you suggest something else. Am finding people interfere in this way so often and need an effective counter. thanks

read the opinions posted here and hope that your spidey-sense tingles (warning you of danger) whenever you start thinking of making a gambling x with little/no reason to try it:))))))))))))))

[hv=pc=n&s=sj652ht6dacakqj94&w=s874hkqj874dj94c6&n=saqth932dk852ct85&e=sk93ha5dqt763c732&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1hp2h3c3hdppp&p=h2hah6h4h5hthkh3hqh9c2c4djd2d3dacac6c5]399|300[/hv] So, of those who voted, they unanimously let it through (sorry). Maybe they envisage a different lie of the cards where a club continuation gains. At the moment I cannot picture it. Inquiry got it spot on, but ironically didn't cast a vote :P My thoughts: West and North are doing a lot of bidding here. West has gone out on a limb to contest the partscore vulnerable, and North has gone out on a limb to double them into game. In cases like this I tend to assume that if one of them has not got their bid, I trust partner to have his. In any case, partner needs to have the cards for his double for this to have a prayer of going down, so we have to assume that he has it, even if we have doubts. Perhaps, from South's perspective, there remains an outside chance that North still has the ♥J. However, it seems unlikely that he would lead a ♥ at trick 1 from such a holding, and even if he did, (1) declarer may have played low from dummy at trick 1, and (2) I still cannot picture a remaining distribution where a ♣ continuation gains over a ♠ switch. One occasion in which a ♣ continuation might gain is if North started with a singleton ♣. However, it seems to me vanishingly unlikely that he would lead a ♥ at trick 1 with such a hand, and in any case South could protect against that possibility by switching to ♠ immediately when in with the ♦A before even cashing a first ♣ So, for North to have his Double, it seems that he must have the ♠A and ♦K, and either the ♠Q or doubleton ♣. In either scenario a ♠ switch beats it. But if, as Inquiry notes, declarer has at most 1 ♣, a ♠ switch is critical. It is a bit unfortunate that dummy has ♠9, but that is how the cards were dealt. With a lower ♠spot, North would only require ♠AT8 as sufficient for a ♠ switch to beat it. For the pedants, South might have discarded ♣A on the third trump, or led a lower ♣ than the Ace on the first round of that suit, and yes North's opening lead is the only one to give South a problem. But I thought it quite interesting, and it seems to have challenged the voters.

sorry everyone 1C is 16+ any shape

No, I was joking haha. It's a good hand and not really hard, but the reality is that playing 4-handed in a long/tough team match, you will always make a few mistakes that you shouldn't make. If this is the worst thing I do all week, that's okay with me.

Is this poll to settle an argument?

As long as partner really has 15-17, and only accepts with a maximum, I'll bid Stayman then invite.

Fit jump / strong single suit with 3♦? This hand almost seems to fall into both categories...

I just noticed that actually you can also include 2 hand types in 3♥ (e.g. hearts, min and hearts, max), as long as 3♠ can be used as a NF ask over the two meanings. So a scheme such as 2♠-2N!... 3♣: ♣ or non-solid max (3♦: ask => 3♥, 3♠=♣ min, max; 3N=non-solid max; 3♥: ask "please bid 3N only with ♣ max and signoff otherwise") 3♦, ♥: nat (next step=strength ask) 3♠: min no feature 3N: solid allows to show both a side feature (or shortness, it doesn't matter) and strength, always below 3NT in the necessary cases.

Can't even bid 2D then catch-up in spades later? If not, then I'll go for "GF artificial relay with 2C". ahydra

I think its silly to alert these types of calls. That being said, I wouldn't mind a tickbox on the cc where you can mention that you regularly respond very light to 1m or 1M.

The Flannery hands keep coming. Board 80: Round of 16 – Segment 6 of 8. The organisers love Flannery so much they even give it to the defensive side over 1NT! Board 101: Round of 16 – Segment 7 of 8.

I don't care what name you give the guys who run the tournaments. But let's give them a new name here. How about the "Competition Organisers" or "Competition Sponsors." The fact that so many of these US favourites keep appearing, yes I do believe that they have been deliberately pre-dealt. Here is yet another Flannery hand, this time demonstrating defence to Flannery. Board 34: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. On this layout 4♦ can make. However at both tables E/W took +200 when 4♥X went down 1 and 4♥ undoubled went down 2.

Certainly a weirdly distorted perspective of how the game is organised, isn't it? I was thinking of picking up on it in the other post, but I took into account some advice we were recently reminded of in another thread:

I know you guys absolutely hate the Flannery convention but if you live in the USA the controlling bodies are almost guaranteed to include it in every big tournament. Thus far I have already seen 3 Flannery hands in the USBC. Flannery could have been used on - 1. Board 1: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. However at both tables, East chose to open 1NT which led to a Puppet sequence ending in 4♥. After Flannery it would have ended in 4 of either major. 2. Board 11: Round of 16 – Segment 1 of 8. You will need to polish up your defence to Flannery. 6♣ and 6♦ can make here. 3. Board 37: Round of 16 – Segment 3 of 8. One team bid 6♠ making 5, the other bid 4♠ making 6. This time Flannery gave the hand away when opps led trumps killing the cross-ruff, down 1.

Thanks for the edit. I did use <enter> first time. I did not try Control+Enter. Will bear that in mind in future It is a pickup partnership with whom you have no agreements on carding. Sorry, not helpful, I know. I am intrigued to know if it makes a difference to your action. BTW I forgot to mention that it is IMPs, if that makes a difference.

Bridge will be "dead" in the US in 25 years tops, there shouldn't be any debate about this.