BBO Discussion Forums: USA Team Trials - BBO Discussion Forums

Photo: Peg Kaplan at Bridge Winners

(L to R) Eric Rodwell, Justin Lall, Jeff Meckstroth, and Joe Grue wtih Greg Hinze kibitzing

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-13, 22:16, said:

I wonder why they were all against Meckwell. I assume that there are alternating seating rights. I wonder why both teams seemed to prefer the same matching.

mfa1010, on 2011-May-14, 09:40, said:

That happens fairly often actually. I think Joe/Curtis played every set vs Levin/Weinstein in the Vanderbilt. Not sure if it can be rational for both teams to want to line up the same way, but it probably can be.

Re the seating rights:

We had 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th.

In segment 1: Joe/me, Kevin/Dan were in vs Meckwell Katz/Nickell. Meckwell sat vs us, because I know when the sponsors are in they like to play vs the pro pair usually (and they have had great success with this).

In segment 2: Hurd/Wooldridge, Kevin/Dan were in vs Meckwell, Nickell/Katz. Meckwell sat vs Joel/Johnny, same thing.

In segment 3: Hurd/Wooldridge Joe/Me were in vs Meckwell, Hamman/Zia. Our first segment had gone well, and our second hadn't, so Joe and I played Meckwell obviously.

In segment 4: Same 4, and our 3rd segment went well, so we sat back.

In segment 5: Hurd/Wooldridge, Kevin/Dan were in vs Meckwell, Katz/Nickell. This was the lineup in segment 2 when they won a bunch, so they sat the same way they did then.

In segment 6: Joe/me, Kevin/Dan were in vs Meckwell, Katz/Nickell. We did ok in segment 1 with this lineup so we played the same way we did then.

In segment 7: Hurd/Wooldridge, Joe/Me were in vs Meckwell, Hamman/Zia. We might have switched since we had a poor set vs Meckwell segment 6 (set where I led spade vs 6D X) and Hurd/Wooldridge did well vs them in segment 5, but we opted to go with what worked for us the day before, so we sat vs Meckwell again.

In segment 8: Same 4 in. Now you might think this is where they would switch. However, since they were trying to make a comeback, there was a more important issue. Joe/Me and Meckwell play same basic system (strong club) and Hurd/Wooldridge and Zia/Hamman are nautural players. So if they switched, they would not get the random system/NT range swings which is often important for a comeback. If they sat vs us, if the cards were tough for natural systems and good for strong club when Meckwell had the cards, or vice versa when Hamman/Zia had the cards, they would create a lot of "random" swings that way. I think they definitely made the right decision to sit vs us in 8 for that reason.

All of this is pretty logical for why we ended up playing all 6 sets vs Meckwell.

kenberg, on 2011-May-14, 06:34, said:

1. It's an odds game, so anyone can beat the champs on a good (lucky) day.

2. I haven't given up hopes

Congrats man you guys rock.

Regarding the segments in the Bathurst-Nickell match, here are the IMPs by partnership:

Bathurst-Zagorin: 4 segments, 94-128, -8.5 per segment
Grue-Lall: 6 segments, 233-154, +13.17 per segment
Hurd-Wooldridge: 6 segments, 192-128, +7.5 per segment
Nickell-Katz: 4 segments 128-94, +8.5 per segment
Hamman-Zia: 4 segments 109-188, -19.75 per segment
Meckwell: 8 segments (the whole match): 237-282, -5.63 per segment

To have Meckwell play all 8 segments resulted in Hamman-Zia only in for half the segments.

btw do the hard working vugraph operators get any credits in photos?

whereagles, on 2011-May-14, 10:16, said:

You are wrong. Thats a myth when it comes to 120 boards.


But anyway, this is why i wrote earlier in this thread " Nickel is playing vs a strong team, in fact much stronger than most people know of" And your comment as well as some comments by kibitzers during the match corrects me in a way..

Nickel team did not lose because they were playing very bad or some "youngsters" had a good or lucky day. Anyone who knows the background of those so called "youngsters" can comfirm this.

And when it comes to comments like "Nickel team played bad..." The key factor to the bad play of a team IS the other team's performance. Nickel played vs a team which constatntly bid, played, defended and made overwhelmingly accurate decisions than themselves. Not only that but also punched, kicked, bite at every possible oportunity bridgewise. Now this can wear out any team or pair, and imho thats what happened.

Thanks, Justin. Very interesting.

Is it the internet traffic at the hotel or what that caused drop offs in vugraph every 4-5 mins today ? And if so, cant they use private connection by using aircards or private modem ?

MrAce, on 2011-May-14, 13:14, said:

Board 109 where Hamman went down in 3NT but Justine made on a squeeze is a case in point perhaps.The opening lead was same but subsequent play was different.

Well, Hamman has been at the top for almost 50 years now. At some point it's only natural that the young stars will overtake him. It is good for Bridge that the next generation is ready and has shown that they can also be at the absolute top internationally. Whoever wins this will surely give Italy and Netherlands a run for their money.

zasanya, Justine is a female name, for example Justine Henin.
Justin is a male name, for example Justin Lall.

gwnn, on 2011-May-15, 04:54, said:

It's not always that easy. In Germany, Andrea is a female name (for example Andrea Reim), whereas in Italy it is a male name (for example Andrea Buratti).

Quote

True, of course the agressive style does not always pay off (see the 6♥-2 at the start of the Semis) but in the long run, it is incredibly hard to play against.

Gerben42, on 2011-May-15, 05:34, said:

indeed and then Chris and Billy and a few other names in America..

zasanya, on 2011-May-14, 22:22, said:

109 was confusing:

http://usbf.org/docs..._2_s8.htm#bd109

If Hamman really discarded the ♠ 4 on the ♣ ace trick, his only play at that point was hope for either red suit to split 3-3, or a red suit squeeze, therefore unblock ♦ king, take 3 top spades ending in dummy, which is auto pilot for Hamman. However play records can be wrong, especially when it comes to small card discards.

glen, on 2011-May-15, 08:04, said:

What I find confusing is Rodwell's defence. Cashing the hearts looks really strange. Wouldn't you expect declarer's hand to be exactly what it is?

Maybe he was worried that declarer had xx KQxx AKx K10xx. That might explain the third round of hearts, but not the fourth - after North throws an encouraging club, I can't think of any layout where cashing the last heart is correct.

[Edited to reduce no of cards to 13 ]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-May-15, 11:05

Hurd-Wooldridge had a strange-looking auction to 3N missing a 5-4 spade fit, was there a mix-up over the meaning of 1C (1D) 1S?

MickyB, on 2011-May-15, 10:30, said:

Not sure, in the comparison they just said sry so I didn't ask.

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-15, 10:52, said:

Another example of good judgement in this event by Justin. Perhaps after it is over, we will find out.