chudecek

Maybe Meckstroth led the Q to show a doubleton, knowing Rodwell could work out that he had the king.

No, I am stating that both Rodwell and Meckstroth knew the hand was unbeatable if declarer held the HK. So from Rodwell's perspective, he must assign that card to Meckstroth. And since Eric did not hold JTxx, he probably erred by playing a card (H3) that would encourage a continuation. And Meckstroth erred by not continuing hearts after his Q held with the 3 being played on it, since Rodwell holding JTxx was the only legitimate beat.

If declarer had the heart king he had nine tricks after Meckstroth led the HQ. 2S 2H 2D 3C. Rodwell knew that, and the whole world knew that, and Meckstroth knew that Rodwell would know that, especially after a long tank. So Eric's attitude signal in hearts HAD to be trusted, because it was consistent with H JTxx. So continuing with the HK is not only a logical alternative, it is the SUPERIOR alternative and should have been required after Rodwell's long tank. I'm not jibber-jabbering - I am describing conditions as they occurred.

Why should a World Class player chose a play that requires an error, rather than choosing a play CONSISTENT WITH PARTNER'S SIGNAL, which beats the hand when it is beatable?

[hv=pc=n&s=s865h972dak97ckq3&w=skt7ht863d83ct965&n=sqj32haj54d64ca84&e=sa94hkqdqjt52cj72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1d3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Continuing with D10 after the HQ holds cannot beat the hand whether declarer has H AJxx or Axxx. Meckstroth led DJ, K, 3, 4 Moss led S5, 7, Q, 4 Moss led C4, 2, Q, 5 (Count by Eric?) Moss led S6, T, J, A Meckstroth led HQ, 2, 3, 5 For whatever reason – skill, experience, whatever - Jeff led HQ. It HELD as Eric played H3 which HAD to be attitude. Now Jeff shifted to D10. Declarer simply wins the diamond in dummy as the D8 falls. Now declarer leads dummy's last spade as Eric wins. Declarer has remaining a good spade, heart A?x C Ax. Eric has only hearts and clubs left. If he leads a heart, Moss goes up Ace and on the actual hand HK falls for trick nine. If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays Ace and a club to dummy, and leads D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7. If Eric leads a club, Moss goes up Ace and cashes his HA as HK falls for trick nine. If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays a club to dummy, and leads D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7. The diamond continuation by Meckstroth was a losing play regardless.

In response to mfa1010: [hv=pc=n&s=s865h972dak97ckq3&w=skt7ht863d83ct965&n=sqj32haj54d64ca84&e=sa94hkqdqjt52cj72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1d3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Meckstroth led DJ, K, 3, 4 Moss led S5, 7, Q, 4 Moss led C4, 2, Q, 5 (Count by Eric?) Moss led S6, T, J, A Meckstroth led HQ, 2, 3, 5 For whatever reason – skill, experience, whatever - Jeff led HQ. It HELD as Eric played H3 which HAD to be attitude. Now Jeff can count declarer’s tricks: 2S 1H 2D 3C, and he should reason unless Eric held H JTxx (which would be confirmed by H3) there was no beat. Jeff knows that on a D play after HQ holds, the D8 is either In declarer’s hand or in Eric’s – therefore declarer can get a 9th trick by leading D9. So Jeff has to credit Eric for H JTxx and continue with HK after his HQ holds. This is consistent with playing for a beat and consistent with Eric’s attitude signal of H3. The problem is that Eric’s H3 came after a long tank, and this made Jeff suspect that Eric did not have H JTxx. The committee should have asked Jeff “How did you expect to beat the hand unless your partner had H JTxx, which his H3 implied?” And the ruling should have been that continuing with HK after HQ holds is the NORMAL defense. Push board.

In the same 15-board segment Brad opened board 68 on 11 HCP in second seat vul, and board 73 as dealer on 11 HCP: AQJxx Qxx Jxx Jx. If he is opening these, he is opening with both majors.

If the play had gone the way it did, thru the DJ return after Jeff's HQ won, let's say that Moss wins high D in dummy, and makes the "safety play" of a heart to his Ace. AND NOTHING HAPPENS - LOW LOW LOW. He now uses his last entry to dummy - the high club - and leads dummy's last heart. Rodwell on his right wins HK and cashes the long club. Defense wins 2H 2S and one club. And Moss' partner asks "What kind of a safety play was THAT?" And Moss says: "I am demoralized!" There is a lot more to this hand than folks are allocating to it.

On the actual hand, East played the D10 after the HQ held - and declarer, who on the actual hand held Heart AJ54, and possibly was mesmerized by his RHO's tank, misplayed the hand by playing a heart to his Jack, losing to East's King, where a heart to the ace safety play would have worked. I reckon that Moss saw this right after the hand, DEMORALIZING himself. In fact this may have been pointed out to him at the table. And if you don't think the entire team was demoralized by this whole incident and ruling, you don't know bridge players' psychology.

I know from nothing about BBF hand diagrams, but I will look. Point well made. Everyone in the world SHOULD be talking about this hand because it was significant in International team selection.

Because Moss was demoralized in the immediate hands that followed, and the team did some shooting near the end when, with a narrower margin, more straightforward play might have made the difference.

The Committee ruled against Moss' appeal. But shouldn't Meckstroth have been required to continue with HK? If the deal had been as follows: Declarer QJ32 A654 64 A84 W Eric KT7 JT83 83 T965 .....E A94 KQ QJT52 J72 Dummy 865 972 AK97 KQ3 DJ led and won by K, S to Q which won, club to dummy for second spade where it went T-J-A. Now HQ, long tank by West. and finally H3 from Eric (encouraging). The easy way to beat the hand is to continue with HK. If declarer ducks again, Jeff leads a second round of clubs. Declarer is screwed. His spades are not yet developed, so if he wins C in dummy and leads a spade, Eric wins and exits a diamond. Declarer is down to SJ H A6 _ CA, dummy S_ H9 D97 C3 and Eric has S- HJT D_ C T9 so whether declarer leads H or C from dummy Eric gets a heart at the end, to supplement the defenses 2S and 2H up to that point. If Declarer wins second C in his hand and leads a S, Eric wins SK and exits with HJ or a diamond, holding declarer to 2S 1H 2D and 3C tricks. And Moss WOULD open that 11 HCP hand with BOTH majors. In that 15-board set he opened two other 11's. So maybe Moss should never have been given a chance to err.

The "majority" refers to the majority of all players attending NABC tournaments and playing in multiple-session events. That personal opinion is GOOD ENOUGH if one is 76 years old and has been observing play and listening to opinion of ALL players for 58 years. A handful of big time players PLAY TOO DAMN SLOW and wreck the game for the majority of participants. I have never heard one complaint that "expert ZZZ finishes his sessions (or rounds) too damn fast" My proposal of a metered player average of 48 to 54 minutes consumed time per 32 boards is MORE than reasonable for anyone who wants to be considered an expert bridge player.

You don't talk with friends and go to dinner between sessions? My, has tournament bridge changed since I was more active in it. We couldn't get enough of hashing / rehashing boards.

Have you ever filled out a "Pick-a-dot" product marketing survey? What kind of computer programming Einsteins (make that Yangs :) ) does it take to produce that? If a couple of decent programmers couldn't come up with a suitable program for this in a week, they should change careers, and take up grease trap cleaning at Mickey D's.

If a player is calculating the difference between an 84.34 percent line and an 83.92% line, and he takes more than 20 milliseconds to do it, I don't want to waste my life playing against the sucker. And BWS is complicated to the point that very few people would bother reading newspaper bridge columns if it were that basis used in those columns. Bridge in its simple form is an activity hundreds of millions of people can enjoy. Many of you people want to use 2082 bidding methods, 1982 computer technology, under the umbrella of 1282 human psychology and 1382 marketing concepts. You people would take a Kentucky Derby-winning race horse, equip him with air bags, spring-loaded shoes, side view mirrors, and rocket boosters on his rump and sit back admiring your "progress".

Your problem is you don't understand the software I propose. At the start of the game players insert their PERSONAL SD card into the computer, and for that session the "Standard" system call descriptions embedded in the computer are modified to conform to the explanations on that PERSONAL SD card. So when a player opens 1H, his opponents instantly get a description of the call, eg "12-20, 5 plus hearts" with a second RED FLAG warning in a different box on the computer screen "Flannery played, so 1H denies 4S if 11-15". This takes insignificant time for an opponent to read.

I love this idea.

Mt. Vesuvius wrote: " Here's an idea... How about you answer Owen's questions instead of dodging them and attempting (quite unsuccessfully) to insult him? " Hudecek: I thought his name was "olien", and I felt I was complimenting his politeness. And I'll try answering. We shouldn't have to ask "relevant questions" The call should be EXPLAINED to us via the software. If the opponents play support doubles with three trumps and a certain point range, a pass should be alerted VIA THE SOFTWARE - and they damn well better not have three trumps and the specified point range. 1) Re 1H opener using Flannery 2D: A 1H opener should have the accompanying note "5CM, denies 4 spades unless reversing values" How tough is it to hit a dot on a template with this explanation? 2) The 1C opening is accompanied by an explanatory note that says "might be two - a 1D opener shows an unbalanced distribution." And it would post a suggested defense: Say "2C overcall shows clubs, 2D overcall=Majors" a) The SOFTWARE provides the explanation and suggested defense automatically and I find that very palatable to the point of being delectable. And it wouldn't "slow the game down". And if a method is so great it certainly should have to go thru a development, trial, and testing phase. If people want to spend time developing a system or method and come to "agreements", they can take 5% of that time to use a "pick-a-dot" template to codify bid meanings, inferences and defenses. The development, trial and SOME testing phases could be done over the internet- FREE at a BBO table. And the current crop of American tournament bridge players just want a smooth-flowing, reasonably paced game where they don't have to confront obscure methods and listen to half-baked explanations. And I guess I have "rambled on" enough.

I haven't been called "Mr. Hudecek" since a couple of months ago, when I answered the doorbell and was asked to buy Girl Scout cookies. Your mother raised you well, olien. And being admonished about "rambling on" by someone who used 524 words in a prior post? Sheesh.

Some hands are bid and played? differently by some experts, because a) Some experts are not as expert as other experts; b) Most experts have had their mind poisoned by "system and method development" c) I submit that true "experts" would play a given hand the same way. That's why Par contests with strict time limits are the best way to determine playing and defending expertise. ************************************************** Bridge World Standard and artificial club systems are complicated. I submit that if you used these systems in bridge columns for Joe Average (like those in NYT and most other newspapers), the readership would drop to near zero within a week, and they'd have room for Lil' Abner reruns.

They are great SLOW players. Wouldn't you prefer to play against a pair of Michael Seamon's and finish in time to eat and talk with your friends? The "ten minutes every other board" was editorial license to make a point. '

One MINUTE? Some of these characters take TEN minutes on every other hand. That's why I gave up the game.

A ad hoc defense will never overcome the hours and days of development put in by the perpetrators. That's why a lengthy Trial and Test phase which includes discussions on the internet and articles in bridge magazines, followed by approval or disapproval of the method, is the way to go. If you mean allowing opponents to discuss defenses during "results don't count for anything" trial sessions, I agree.

Bridge is (was) popular for exactly the opposite reason. In one (at most two) pages of text a bridge hand can form a complete short story, with a beginning, a story line, and an understandable conclusion. And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.