GreenMan

The hand in the bulletin matches the one in the hand records posted on the ACBL site, FWIW.

Some do. I've played in three Vanderbilts and two Spingolds, generally been seeded last or next-to. I'm definitely a "comparative chump" in that company. But it's fun. Once we drew the Pavliceks - Kantar/Kay - Granovetter and a guy I can't remember; another time we drew the Shugart team. Got pummeled. Some friends of mine played the Nickell team close to even for three quarters. The experience is worth the shellacking IMHO.

duplicate, sorry.

Great approach. Keep it up! :)

I love the midnight zips, and I've always had the most fun when juniors are at the table. :) One great aspect is the "You never know who you'll see" factor, such as when Matt Meckstroth recruited his dad to make up a team. Sorry I couldn't be there this time around.

I like to use the "big cards" option when watching and playing. In one situation I get confused: When dummy is on my left (I'm defending or E is declaring while I'm kibitzing), the trump suit is always at the top of the diagram. In F2F bridge the trump suit would be closest to me, analogous to the BOTTOM of the diagram. Seems as if it would be easier, cognitively speaking, to move the trumps to that position when dummy is on the user's left. Right? Is this possible/desirable?

Nice thing about them putting the recaps online is you can look this stuff up from home. :) Board 9, second session. Looks like a small handful of 1370s (and one 1390), a 1440, those two 1430s, and a ton of -100s along with some game scores.

That used to fascinate me 24/7 but now it's just 22/7.

There will be celebrations all around.

Sometimes the claim statement would be something like "If you lead a club I can do A, if you lead a diamond I have a free finesse, if you lead a spade I can something else," possibly with longer explanations for each case. It's not always shorter to verbalize a bridge position than to display it, but displaying to both opps without a claim statement is dangerous. Occasionally the player at the table can work out the most efficient course of action better than armchair quarterbacks who haven't seen the hands in question.

Um, because they got the best score? It's a radical notion, I know. You're focusing on the INDIVIDUAL BOARD as the unit of measure for fairness. The point of playing more than one board in a session is to even out the effects of chance that you don't like. So unless you're arguing that the system AS A WHOLE is unfair to certain pairs, then I don't see what the problem is.

It sounds as if you are complaining that if someone gets a poor result on a board it hurts their chances of winning the event. I am not sure why this should be controversial.

LHO won't be on lead.

FWIW this is the foundation of the concept of "field protection": In a strong field, most NS pairs will be in 6H if it's reasonably biddable, so the EW pairs who score -980 will get scores much closer to average. Similarly, if you bid a good game or slam that fails on a bad trump break or an early ruff, then you should have plenty of company and not have to worry about the timid pairs stopping below game. If the slam on the original hand here was just a lucky shot that most pairs wouldn't reach, then you're truly fixed, BUT most of the time against this pair you'll benefit from their wild bidding, so it'll work out in the long run. Just not today. :)

Good luck!

I was on a team with barmar some years ago and he never complained about the results from our table. That speaks quite well of his patience and sportsmanship. :)

THIS. I love these challenges. GO MAKE MOAR.

That venom is not your responsibility and you need not apologize for it.

I like kenberg's analysis. We know 10 of declarer's cards (5♠, 3♥, 2♦) and the rest are in the minor suits. If declarer has any diamonds left, he can ruff one in dummy, and the ♣AK take care of the other two unknown cards. So we need declarer to have 3 clubs. If they're xxx then a club or trump exit will do, but if Jxx then only a trump is safe.

Seems as if the question of working values is important, right? If partner's ♥ stop is anything besides Axx(x) then in a diamond contract it's pretty much wasted opposite our stiff, I'd say.

Then your unit's Sectional surely didn't replicate hands from a Regional several states away. Same for any other that makes its own deals, unless they're using wyman's approach.

True to some extent (e.g., knowing you play Fishbein doesn't make up for the fact that you play Fishbein), though they also insisted it didn't require an alert. There was a bit of a contretemps between them and a TD.

I see. Thanks.

Backwash squeeze!

No idea. I suspect that if you're good enough to recognize a hexagon squeeze positon at the table you're good enough to pull it off without having to refer to book learnin'. The hard part is recognizing them at the table. I studied squeezes for a while before I started noticing the positions during actual play. I still remember the first one I pulled off on purpose. I've seen a few double squeezes too. For the most part, once you see them they're fairly simple to execute. Compound squeezes seem rare; I've only seen one at the table.