[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-May-12, 01:29, said:

That would be a sufficient argument if the event were funded entirely by the participants. Is it?

Yes it is.
(The USBF seems to be wasting their TV deals and vugraph subscription fees on other stuff.)

[qwery_hi]

helene_t, on 2011-May-12, 02:52, said:

It is not only the players who have interest in security issues. Rumours about matches being determined by leaks would damage the reputation of USBF and of bridge in general.

OTOH, even if the event were fully funded by the participants, it is in ACBL's interest and good for bridge in general to keep the viewers in mind, after all the open trials are a huge advertisement for US bridge.

[paulg]

whereagles, on 2011-May-12, 02:53, said:

Still, a butler can be negative for team morale. I remember once in an international event, the three pairs were more worried about their butler scores than in the actual team scores. Naturally, the coach was not pleased...

Only once?

[Hanoi5]

I think a butler would be interesting.

I think watching different pairs deal differently (because of system and judgement)with the same boards is interesting.

I think it is better if everybody plays the same boards as it seems fairer and, although it is not neccessary to have all the tables playing exactly the same boards, bridge is what it is very much because of the fact boards are duplicated in several tables and the best result wins.

But I understand the security issue. And I think the best solution is just to use a cone of silence at every table.

But that is yet to be invented.

[glen]

In the QFs, the ♦ team (1/3 born in Toronto) is cheering on Justin and the rest of the Bathurst team, while the Nickell team (Toronto area coach) likes the Deutsch team's chances with their 1/3 Toronto/Montreal roots. Its nice being able to watch the US championships from Canada.

[MickyB]

http://www.tomsguide...news-11125.html

[glen]

MickyB, on 2011-May-12, 06:29, said:

http://www.tomsguide...news-11125.html

It's curtains for us?

[paulg]

Hanoi5, on 2011-May-12, 05:53, said:

And I think the best solution is just to use a cone of silence at every table.

But that is yet to be invented.

Heresy!

[bluecalm]

Seems like BBO crew is doing quite well. JLall sucked out in the brackets as well to get a chance to eliminate Meckwell before some rando team eliminates him Goood luck !

[awm]

It was always my impression that world class pairs make very few defensive mistakes subsequent to the opening lead. You can see the dummy, you've got partner's signals (and presumably a well-established partnership). Even when I play in a strong partnership, I feel like I make few defensive mistakes (post-lead), and neither I nor my partnerships are up to the standards of some of the pairs in this competition.

Yet watching the past couple matches from the Nickell team, I've seen Meckwell perpetrate some surprising defensive errors. Makes me wonder if they're losing their edge... or maybe I'm just mistaken about the "few defensive mistakes after the lead" thing.

[whereagles]

awm: tiredness plays a role. If I'm concentrated and motivated, I also note I make very few defensive mistakes. If I'm playing causally, the rate of defensive mistakes rises dramatically

[bluecalm]

Lall - Grue owning Meckwell pretty hard tonight. Go go go go

[y66]

Exciting!

[Phil]

Great 4th segment tonight. Loved Board 60 in Justin's match.

[JLOGIC]

Board 60 was quite interesting to play in 6N, however 6S is cold without guessing the spades...good hand for playing in your fit!

[Fluffy]

show the hand for us poor mortals who were working when it was being broadcasted

[glen]

Fluffy, on 2011-May-13, 01:56, said:

show the hand for us poor mortals who were working when it was being broadcasted

Board 60 in:

http://usbf.org/docs..._R8_2_31-60.PDF

Spade suit was Q32 -- AK874, both tables reached 6NT, after West opened 1NT, East bid Stayman and South doubled. After winning ♣ lead, Wooldridge played ♠ Q, ♠ to 7. Meck ♠ Q, ♠ to ace. South had singleton spade ten.

[Hanoi5]

Meckwell's sequence was:

1NT-Pa-2♣-X
Pa!-Pa-XX!-Pa
3NT-Pa-6NT-All pass

I couldn't get a hold of the other room's bidding sequence but I'm amazed Meckwell didn't find their spade fit/couldn't 'smollen' after the redouble. What was the sequence in the other room? Is that the best way to tacle the spade suit in that situation? (Maybe it is after the double and doubleton lead, but I think I might be resulting, although if the spade 'finesse' lost you could always resort to a (double?) squeeze?)

By the way only the results of Nickell's team victory are available online at USBF.org, i.e. only one segment out of four, why is that?

[gnasher]

The vugraph is here:
http://www.bridgebas...ph_archives.php

Nickell-Bathurst, set 4.

On the actual layout, after Meckstroth lost a spade and North returned a club, he'd still have been able to make it if he had been able to cash ♦K - there's a double squeeze with hearts as the pivot.

If you think clubs are 6-2, the best line might be ♦AQ, ♠Q, spade finesse. If that loses, you have a red-suit squeeze when South is 2236, and a double squeeze if he is 2326 with ♥9 (without ♥9, he can break up the double squeeze by switching to hearts).

[Fluffy]

I am probably biased by seeing full hand, but ducking a heart looks like a strong line also.

EDIT: I was biased, didn't see the likelly red suit squeeze, in fact if south had acted in the bidding you might maximice your play in spades knowing that you can more likelly squeeze north if spades are 3-2