fhacker

Riverwalk takes issue with the fact that large events pay many more masterpoints than small ones and that this is unfair financially to people unfortunate enough to find themselves in a small event. The ACBL awards points based on the number of tables in an event and the type of competition (club, sectional, regional national, etc.) The more difficult an event is to win, the more points you get for winning it. Seems fair to me. I believe master points per dollar of player entry fee is an illogical substitute for the traditional parameters. I do not understand Riverwalks' description of what is fair. I do not understand why he thinks masterpoints increase quadratically instead of linearly. I do not understand what he means by scoring each place with equal probability. He says that the number of masterpoints should be the same regardless of tournament size. I think one consequence of that would be that winners of small tournaments may get more points than winners of large tournaments. That seems a logical consequence of spreading the same number of points among fewer players. Now for the masterpoint formulas. I usually play in 12 or 18 board games with a single section or a large number of sections. The ACBL requires at least 18 boards to award masterpoints at the full club level. Below that the awards are 60% of club level. For flight A the 18 board single section formula is .1 times the number of tables up to a maximum of 1.50. For 12 board the formula is .06 up to a max of .9. For multiple section events, there are also overall awards. For 18 board events, these are .1 times the number of tables up to a maximum of 4.00. For 12 boards it's .06 per table up to a maximium of 2.4 This means that the overall award for a 30 table event is 3.00, for a 40 table event, it's 4.00. For 100 tables, it's still 4.00. I'm not sure of the awards for flights B and C. Flight B awards are usually 80% of flight A awards based on the number of tables in flight B and below. Flight B and C partipants are eligible for flight A awards. None of this seems to be quadratic. It is linear until it levels off.

I have been enjoying this new ACBL tournament format, but I'm not in love with the way they post the results. I think that in the headings, where they inform you of your master point awards and your overall ranking,they should let you know what section you (and your friends) were in.

My robot partner opened 1D and I responded 1H. Opposing robot overcalled 1S. Partner robot doubled to show 3 card support. After opponent's pass, I decided to ask for key cards. My robot partner passed 4N. I was stunned to read that the robot thought I had 4+ hearts and 6+ points.

On 7/24 I made a post about an unfortunate opening lead by Chiaradia in the 1961 Bermuda Bowl. This lead allowed the French declarer to make 6NT on a hand where Forquet went down in 3NT at the other table. I had been unable to find the hand. Thanks to Zelandakh and thebadger for their responses and tries to help. I wish I could report that the story has a happy ending, but unfortunately it hasn't. I asked for help from the ACBL museum and one of their people tried very hard to uncover the hand -- to no avail. There was a book published covering the 1961 Bermuda Bowl. Italy vs. France was the only match omitted. There also doesn't seem to have been any contemporary magazine coverage, and books on bridge disasters don't have it. I had high hopes for Bridge a la Une a book in French by Jose Le Dentu, published in 1964. No luck there either. One of the respondents mentioned writing Phil King, but I am not familiar with him. I would like to give him a try, but I need more information. Thanks to anyone for whatever help he or she can provide.

In the 1961 Bermuda Bowl Eugenio Chiaradia led the singleton 9 of diamonds against the French contract of 6NT. In 1992 Alan Truscott called this the most disastrous lead in world championship history, as it permitted declarer to make 6NT. Forquet went down in 3NT at the other table. I have been searching for the actual hand, but have been able to find it. Can anybody provide the actual hand? Thank you very much.

I would bid 4♠. My bidding style is to be conservative with my invitations and aggressive with my acceptances. With 3 good trump and an outside ace I wouldn't consider 3♠. I understand the rationale for 3♦. I don't have what you asked for, but I do have something else. I find help suit game tries to be useful with weaker hands. I might go on with 4 trumps and the ace or a singleton in the help suit.

At a table with 3 robots, I recently held ♠Q10432 ♥AQ854 ♣A84. I opened 1S and subsequently landed in 4S down 3 when both major suits broke 5-0. I noticed that 2 people opened 1C and collected 800 when the robots ended in 3H doubled. Can anybody give me a sensible reason for opening 1C against robots?