USBC 2012

[han]

There are some women who play mostly in open events and do well in those, although certainly not at the meckwell level. In the US it is financially unattractive to do so though, because the top women can make much more money playing in women-only events (where they are the meckwells of women bridge). This is a major reason why many of the top female players in the US mostly play in women-only events.

 

I think that this has good sides and bad sides. On the one hand it allows for more professional female bridge players. On the other hand it may hold them back, since they rarely play at the toughest competition. It would be great if some female bridge players made it to the absolute top. This would be great for many different reasons.

 

Here in the Netherlands the main competitions are open, and all the top women players do play in the open events. There are also women-only competitions (as well as mixed competitions), but they are not taken as seriously and besides, they are at different dates so people can play in those as well as in the open championships. Of course it is much easier to organize championships at different dates in a country this tiny.

[paulg]

Scotland has two women in its Open team for Lille. There are no men in the Women's team.

[barmar]

In the US, the size of the fields in the major women's events has been steadily declining over the past several years, as more of them migrate to the concurrent open events.

[JLOGIC]

If the semis are clee vs diamond and us vs spector thats gotta be some record for youngest age of a semis

[CSGibson]

I find it really intriguing to compare scores with the Nickell-Spector match. Basically, whenever Warren Spector plays, the Nickell team has an advantage (again, based purely on the set scores). I wonder if Spector-Cohler is really that much weaker as a partnership, or whether it is because they play against Meckwell, who put a lot of pressure on you, and that the relative weakness of Spector-Cohler in comparison to their teammates is magnified by Meckwell's style.

 

Or maybe its just random.

 

edit:

Ok, I wrote that after the 6th segment, there was a much clearer correlation then.

 

Oh, and congrats to Roger & Justin on making the semis. Good luck the rest of the way, hope you guys meet in the finals.

[rogerclee]

I find it really intriguing to compare scores with the Nickell-Spector match. Basically, whenever Warren Spector plays, the Nickell team has an advantage (again, based purely on the set scores). I wonder if Spector-Cohler is really that much weaker as a partnership, or whether it is because they play against Meckwell, who put a lot of pressure on you, and that the relative weakness of Spector-Cohler in comparison to their teammates is magnified by Meckwell's style.

 

Or maybe its just random.

 

edit:

Ok, I wrote that after the 6th segment, there was a much clearer correlation then.

 

Oh, and congrats to Roger & Justin on making the semis. Good luck the rest of the way, hope you guys meet in the finals.

 

I practiced about 100 boards against Nickell-Katz before this event, and trust me, they are very strong. That said, I don't know anything about Cohler-Spector as a partnership but they are certainly strong individual players.

[mike777]

pictures of semi final players

 

http://www.usbf.org/

 

btw I lived and worked many years in Schaumburg Il...great place for this event. I know this place very well.

 

You may see the tall Green building across from the Mall(north) I worked on top floor. btw first job out of college was next door a few yards away from the green building, Union Oil co.

 

Too bad I am far away now.

 

Go Cubs!

 

Side note I was really conflicted with Roger Lee who I know from his very helpful bbo forum posts and I used to work around the Cal tech area(before roger) and Chipper who I knew from Urbana and 1971 when I first heard of bridge.

[cherdano]

A clee-JLOGIC final, it's meant to be!

[Antrax]

I know it's a dumb question, but how come JLOGIC is on BBO while he's also playing on vugraph? Isn't it cheating? :)

[Phil]

I am watching the 2nd set.

 

<speechless>

[CSGibson]

I am watching the 2nd set.

 

<speechless>

 

I'm at work, can't get the running scores, what's happening?

[wyman]

well, for one, 0/4 pairs reached 6C with

 

QJ Jxx AJxxxx xx

opp

x AKQ x AKQxxxxx

 

5C, 5C, 7C, and 4N

 

edit: the 18-count was in 1st seat, no opps interfered iirc

[aguahombre]

well, for one, 0/4 pairs reached 6C with

 

QJ Jxx AJxxxx xx

opp

x AKQ x AKQxxxxx

 

5C, 5C, 7C, and 4N

 

edit: the 18-count was in 1st seat, no opps interfered iirc

Hmm, it never occurred to me to notice the point count, just the two missing bullets in East with one of them in West. Meckwell with their strong club and artificial continuations was one of the two in 5C via hole in their methods. Milner/HLall: tried 2C-2D-4N, misunderstood as a point range and Milner accepted slam in his 6-card diamond suit for an oops, Hement converted to club grand.

 

It wasn't long ago, where 2C-2D-3C as setting trump with specific continuations, (our toy) was pretty much dismissed on these fora. So, we would have gotten a lucky result with the given hands--having failed to heed the comments :rolleyes:

[Cyberyeti]

Hmm, it never occurred to me to notice the point count, just the two missing bullets in East with one of them in West. Meckwell with their strong club and artificial continuations was one of the two in 5C via hole in their methods. Milner/HLall: tried 2C-2D-4N, misunderstood as a point range and Milner accepted slam in his 6-card diamond suit for an oops, Hement converted to club grand.

 

It wasn't long ago, where 2C-2D-3C as setting trump with specific continuations, (our toy) was pretty much dismissed on these fora. So, we would have gotten a lucky result with the given hands--having failed to heed the comments :rolleyes:

What happened to 4N-5♦-6♣.

[wyman]

My only guess (obviously I'm not sure) is that pairs are playing 4N=minors.

[gnasher]

Isn't it standard that 2♣-2♦;4♣ sets trumps and demands a cue-bid?

[Cyberyeti]

Isn't it standard that 2♣-2♦;4♣ sets trumps and demands a cue-bid?

Yeah, but do you only cue aces ? Ks don't really cut it, opening 4N seems better.

[gnasher]

Yeah, but do you only cue aces ? Ks don't really cut it, opening 4N seems better.

No, I'd expect him to cue-bid a king too. But on the next round I expect him to tell me how many keycards he's got, because that's what I'm going to ask him.

 

Obviously it's better to open 4NT if you're playing it as a direct ace-ask and you know what the responses mean, because a 2♣ opening is more vulnerable to interference. I was just discussing ways to cope when you don't know what a 4NT opening means, or you know that it means something else.

[Cyberyeti]

No, I'd expect him to cue-bid a king too. But on the next round I expect him to tell me how many keycards he's got, because that's what I'm going to ask him.

 

Obviously it's better to open 4NT if you're playing it as a direct ace-ask and you know what the responses mean, because a 2♣ opening is more vulnerable to interference. I was just discussing ways to cope when you don't know what a 4NT opening means, or you know that it means something else.

How are you going to ask for aces ? for more than a few people 4♦ is the ace ask in clubs, and 4N is something else, so this also risks it getting murky, particularly in a partnership that isn't 100% sure what it's doing.

[mgoetze]

How are you going to ask for aces ? for more than a few people 4♦ is the ace ask in clubs, and 4N is something else, so this also risks it getting murky, particularly in a partnership that isn't 100% sure what it's doing.

Sorry but partnerships that aren't 100% sure of what they're doing yet nevertheless play 4♦ as ace-asking in clubs are not worthy of our consideration, even if 2 or 3 forum regulars fall into this category.

 

I humbly submit that even if you do sometimes play 4♦ as ace-asking in clubs you should not be doing so on this particular auction.

[bluecalm]

One problem I see is that if you have agreement "always 1403" then asking for aces puts you too high in case partner doesn't have any.

The hand is super simple for anybody who plays standard blackwood or have natural agreement that if very strong asks a weak hand then it's 0314.

 

We have many non-serious partnerships (with some very serious players) in this tournament so no surprise hey got confused on this one imo.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry but partnerships that aren't 100% sure of what they're doing yet nevertheless play 4♦ as ace-asking in clubs are not worthy of our consideration, even if 2 or 3 forum regulars fall into this category.

 

I humbly submit that even if you do sometimes play 4♦ as ace-asking in clubs you should not be doing so on this particular auction.

Totally agreed on the second line.

 

This appeared to me to be a partnership of 2 good players thrown together at close to the last minute. Am I wrong in this assessment ?

 

It is entirely credible that 2 players who always play kickback agree it with some discussion about circumstances but this one doesn't come up. It appears 2♣-2♦-4N didn't come up and possibly neither did 4N.

[aguahombre]

One problem I see is that if you have agreement "always 1403" then asking for aces puts you too high in case partner doesn't have any.

That would be a pretty silly agreement...no upside at all, when no trump has been established. I assure you if partner opens with Wood, I won't have 3 or 4.

[bluecalm]

that would be a pretty silly agreement...no upside at all, when no trump has been established.

 

Many partnerships including some elite ones don't play blackwood or any other ace-asking bid if there are no trumps established.

Opening 4N as blackwood requires agreements. Without any I would guess it's minors at least in area where I live. Looking at random CC (Lauria-Versace) it's also minors for them. It's at least very risky to open with that if you didn't discuss it.

 

That being said, playing 1430 when very strong hand asks a weak one doesn't sound like a good idea but 1430 in general might be good and to have exceptions here you need a lot of discussion/experience as imo this is very low priority after other more important stuff in the system. (Opening 4N is probably like 1000th thing I would want to agree on).

[Cyberyeti]

Many partnerships including some elite ones don't play blackwood or any other ace-asking bid if there are no trumps established.

Opening 4N as blackwood requires agreements. Without any I would guess it's minors at least in area where I live. Looking at random CC (Lauria-Versace) it's also minors for them. It's at least very risky to open with that if you didn't discuss it.

Agreed, but I can't imagine too many experts who would assume undiscussed that an opening 4N was anything other than the old style specific ace ask (not Blackwood), however I can see the situation where you thought you had discussed it and thought it was something else so didn't open it.