Tomi2

we have that rating in "Butler" too, so your butler scoring in teams events will count. After playing a weak season with some new partner, the most successfull German player in the past 20 years (in national events that is) Dr. Wladow dropped to place 68!! Now he formed his successfull partnership with Elinescu, who waited in the top 10 of this rating, and in the current league they scored 1.75 imp/board... so they show again, that they are the best players but Elinescu rating will kinda explode because Wladow is soo much underrated. Their difference at the bedinning of the year was 0.5 imp/board, so Elinescu effectively gets 0.25 extra imps per board becaue his partner had a weak season in between, thats WAY TOO MUCH imo!

we have some comparable scoring in Germany too. I think it is very hard to find a fair rating system. The one used here has lots of negative points, for example: I played some of the past mixed pairs championships with my mother, especially when my father was not available, because of playing other tournaments. We always do well, but thats not the point. Last year my parents won a bronze medal, this weekend I played with my mum, but since she plays no other championships their medal effectively costs me kinda 1% of my rating for this weekend. (compared to "if they didnt play at all last year") additionaly I played open pairs after that event with my father, so I guess, their good mixed result costs me about 30 places... atm my mother is ranked higher in MP than me and its virtually not possible for me to score so well in open pairs the catch her. my only hope must be, that she plays with my father next time again and that they suck - that would improve my rating... But my parents both play bridge for 30 years, so ONE result will not make them better/worse players than they are. Their raiting would be influenced by the next tournament by 18% in our German system... the EBU and German rating seems to take the average of both players to dertermine the pairs strength and uses some formula like: (strength of your partnership compared to the field) * your result = the result, that effects your new ranking maybe it would be some idea, to get two different results for both players in a partnership by counting some weightend average for each player strenght of partnership for the score of A = (2*A+B) /3 strenght of partnership for the score of B = (A+2*B) /3 so if A(60%) and B(50%) form a partnership in a 55% field, they wont need 55% to reach "hold" their rating but: A will need kinda 56.7% and B will need 53.3% (of course those precentages are not = 55% so the strenght of the field will have some effect) if they now play a 55% session the ranting of A will drop a bit and the rating of B will rise

my first priority would be to give partner the signal, he expeted me to give anyway, so if this is a count situation i unusaly split low from any two or 4 cards and high from 3 or 5... if this trick would be smith echo, i split low, if i wanted to encourage and high if not not sure, if overwriting an information, that is supposed to be importand for US (thats why we have carding agreements), by an iformation about honors in the suit lead by THEM is a good idea

in my experience bidding in this position ist most usefull if you have a fit, because it will often be xxx only and you expect trumps to split badly. if you have any kind of hand without the other major or some fit, its likely that they compeat in the missing major, then I think its important to judge correctly, if we belong one level higher or maybe even in game if the 1NT was, let's say streched. so I play ALL suits below 2M after 1M - (1NT) - ? as values here and fit in the major xx - jxx - xxx - kqxxx would be such a hand. if they compeate to 2 spades it would be nice if partner raises one level with axx in clubs and lets them play with a club single or bad hearts

That's not true, with "stopper-ask and 4oM" you bid 2NT (=... or GF with 4oM) and cuebid after partners 3 Clubs

after I started it I cant think of bidding normal Stayman anymore... -no more overcalls like 2 dias that need some agreements -no need to show openers major holdings in case you look for a 4-4 fit and you dont find it -split ranges in 2clubs and 3 clubs if looking for a fit -finding 5-3 manjor fits obviousliy...

do you overcall every 12/13 hcp with 5 hearts over 2 spades on 3rd level vulnerable? I think passing and then bidding 3 hearts leaves partner more space to pass 3 hearts than bidding directly, where he will rise you with most 8 counts. auctually he had aqx - j98xxx - qx - qj this does not look like a 3 heart bid directly but worth a try in the 2nd round once he knows partner has close to an opening I think if he overcalled this directly he would have been in many bad games while passing and then 3 hearts makes partner pass on a non fitting hand and raise with some heart fit - that is what he needs... so I disagree to your statement, that my way and my oponents way to bid 3 hearts effectively forces you to games - its the other way round... to solve this problems: one need to cash the club tricks, opener has kjtxxx - / - xxx - Atxx and had some fear that a passive defense will let the contract make dummy had xx - ktx - akjxx - xxx on a dia or spade lead one club goes on the 3rd dia and the other on the 4th only one guy I asked solved this problem, his idea was: lead the ace of hearts(!!) and watch the dummy, I liked this idea and try to find out, if its possible to find this lead - it seems very hard

I think your style is not playable... how can reopener know if partner wants to force to game and has 4 hearts but points or real hearts but not enough poits? 4-2 fits dont play well... balancer could have reopened either with a double and correct partners 3 clubs to 3 diamonds or bid 2nt also correcting... since he IS a passed hand and truly limited - both actions can't be strong! Declarer had 5 or more hearts and a hand that is too weak to act directly over 2 spades facing a passed hand, balancer has found some maximum to raise partners encouraging but not forcing natural 3 heart bid here

you expect the declarer to run out of 3 dia to 3hearts on 4 cards and the balancer to bid like this with 4 harts and lonnger dias? I would overthink this...

can be quite strong but sees no game with a random 11 bal count. on a bad day qjtxxxx in spades and nothing outside, but probably not this board

you are 1st hand, teams, red-red p - p - 2♠ - p p - 3♦ - p - 3♥ p - 4♥ - X - ppp you hold xx aqxx xxx kxxx partner rarely doubles normal contracts your ideas?

Hey, Felix and me also sometimes post here, why not make a Climbach Team?

Jassems WJ05 System differs in the english book and the polish one, because he tried to make the system easier for foreigners. I talked to Jassem about his books and he says, that he a) does not like everything that is mentioned and b) has not invented everything there himself, his aim was to define some actual standard in Poland and make some easy book for non-polish readers If you open 1Dia in Poland with a bal hand and 4 card only you surely play against the field! If you go to Poland and play an individual tournament, and your CHO is K. Jassem, you can expect him to open 1 club on 2344... this 90% somebody has mentioned fits with my experience of 5000+ boards at polish bridge festivals. some 10% really open 1dia and sometimes gain tricks because silly oponents like me forget to ask about their openers and play on 5 cards on defense and declarer play...

I play count singlas in nearly every spot and UDCA and obviously i play the smallest here. partner can read this as two or 4, no agreement is perfect. but once i play a small spot but not the smallest one he knows i have two cards only. if i play a relatively high one he must find out if its Xxx or xX and if I play the highest one he knows its 3 cards. I really hate "encouraging" with two small. if partner has the count on the hand he should be able to work out, If I get a ruff. I can't imagine playing the same card from xxx and xxxx and sometimes "falsecard" from xx to make partner find a switch. and on the other hand to play the same card from xx Qxx qxxx etc. the xx xxxx problem gets solved a bit in the next round if partner decides to cash the king, i play my next lowest spot. so anytime i have not played the two lowest spots i have started with a doubleton. so 23 sec and 98 sec are kinda the most difficult holding for this method regarding the correct count

I remember the hand as I was sitting in the onside Vugraph. Pszcolas table finished earlier, so he came in to watch the other table playing and he was suprised, that the Italian did not win this contract. His words were "I obviously finessed in hearts" so for him it was the clear better play

my idea would be to add another sort of robot tournament, the: Beer-Card Best Hand Robot Reward you get the best hand at the table but it must be sure that you hold the ♦7 as well, so either it will be set somehow or the dealer will redeal as long as possible to assure that. From then the tourney runs as it is before but only those boards where you win the last trick with the beer-card will count into the score, the rest will be scored as passout, even if you or gib wins a grand -So if you see a medium to bad hand comming you can try to passout -if a bad board is already in the cardplay, like a game for gib, try to pitch the card as soon as possible to get the board scored as zero -if your dia 7 is relatively short, try to passout -else try to bid the best contract and make it with scoring the beercard

sry, dont know how to post a screanshot or a link holding: x kjt8xx x qj9xx gib bid in 4th hand al non vuln: 1♦ - double - 1♠ - 3♣?!?! pass - pass - double - 3♥! 3♠ - pass - 4♠ - pass... pass - double!! - pass - 5♣??? double... so its prefered a weaker minor (5 cards)to a better majors (6 cards), refused to bid the cold 4 hearts, then took out my penalty double... my spades were not that strong but they could have been nuts and opps were in an 8 card fit without the majority of points and gib corrected to 5 clubs (800)

I do think that they in fact play the same system all the time, but only adjust a) their NT ranges and b) their openings become lighter, from 12-17 to 10-15. vuln: 1NT 15-17 opening 12-17 1club 12-14 bal or some strong hands non vuln 1nt 12-14 opening 10-15 (their 1dia still shows real dias, they seemed not to have some lower nt range in 1 dia) 1club: 15-17 nt or hands too strong to open 1suit follow ups as in polish club but of course with different ranges

I think I can also remember 2009 in San Remo where the pair including a CEO from a domestic coffee company and an open player finished 6th or 7th in the Semifinal B (5 should qualify to the finals).. guess what has been done.. for me the change is incredible, especially because it does not make the tourney any better. My idea would be to make the original top8 cut and let the rest and the dropping semi finalists (who all get a bronze medal) play some side event for free, for example a world BAM championship or whatever

do I count correctly that the outcome of the Seniors does not affect the ranking anymore and in the 4 possible endings of the other events it will be: Netherlands + Indionesia: Gerben wins Netherlands + France: I win USA II + Indonesia: Justin wins USAII + France: Justin and me tie? // edit: good luck to Justin anyway :) was a nice thing this predition, made me chear in some "random" seniors and venice cup matches too, but maybe next time we allow changes after the RR if your two finalists play against each other in the QF. So for example you would be allowed to switch the positions of all teams that you have bet on. Obv. if your favorite is not even in the QF you are not allowed to rank them down into the QF bet and replace by a team that is still in

if the rules were anti-usa they would allow only one team to enter... There are many open- and transnational competitions around, Rosenblum+2 transnational WC, open nationals in North America and European Open... this event is for national teams and so the two best nations should be in the final. Would not like to see USA-USA there as well as I dont like to see Monaco there while the players do not (really) live in Monaco. I also don't want to see JLall in the Seniors or Joe Grue in the Ladies competitions, because they don't belong there (although they would be among the best players in the field, as USA III or Monaco would be in the BB)

has somebody inside informytion about the reasons Sweden switched their partnership during a BB QF?

my meta rules clearly say "dsip" some points, can compeate in 3 hearts or dias (we will find that out), have no problem defending 2spades doubled (if partner has 4 of them) my next double on 3 clubs will be more penalties than this

my try: BB: W: Italy F: USA I S: Netherlands, Israel Q: USA II, Poland, Bulgaria and Sweden VC W: France F: China S: USA II, Netherlands Q; Germany, Sweden, USA I, Poland SB W: Poland F: USA II S: Indonesia, Denmark QF: Netherlands, USA I, Germany, France

those who alert indeed open light, 11 bal. cant remember the women pair, who plays the 14-16 nt opening too light against me, but the juniors open some "crappy" hands. the reason for the upgrades is imo, that most Polish tournaments are relatively large MP tourneys, where the better players, don't need just to score 150 to win the event, they go for 400 / 600. If they think they are better declarers than their partner (and most are probably ;) ) and the rest of the field (this is true for most polish declarers), then they simply open 1NT to gain all positives. -you will be declarer -you will often play an agressive but not chanceless contract -they won't disturb the bidding as often as after the 1cl opener -if partner passes, opps are probably cold for some partscore that scores higher than n*50(or n*100) upgrades from 17 to 18 are less common, because you have to open 1club and once everybody is bidding, you will have to commit at some poit, that you have 18-37 points, often it will be difficult to show your shape/strength well, but in all cases you will be below minimum in a wide range