[JanM]

pclayton, on Mar 12 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

Damn, VG doesn't start until tomorrow.

Working on it - check tonight just in case I succeed

[cjames]

Congrats Justin, thanks for taking the time to post so much on this forum, your posts are great.

[pclayton]

JanM, on Mar 12 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 12 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

Damn, VG doesn't start until tomorrow.

Working on it - check tonight just in case I succeed

Jan you rock.

[JanM]

We'll be showing the closest match from the Vanderbilt Round of 16 this evening, starting at 8 PM Eastern time

Of course, those of you who are rooting for Justin will now be hoping he's not on Vugraph since that would mean his match was close.

[Edmunte1]

Well done Justin, keep it this way

[jkdood]

WD Justin and Team(M)

Let's Keep Justin ON VG
(Justin: Keep Winning of Course, To do Your Part!!)

[AlexOgan]

I just logged on to BBO and opened the Allegaert/Meltzer match. Does anybody know what happened on board 18 in the open room? Justin/Kevin ended up in 4H-7 on a 2-2 fit. Maybe North thought 4H was a retransfer to S?

Was wondering if I missed any commentary about alternate explanations...

[TimG]

AlexOgan, on Mar 13 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

I just logged on to BBO and opened the Allegaert/Meltzer match. Does anybody know what happened on board 18 in the open room? Justin/Kevin ended up in 4H-7 on a 2-2 fit. Maybe North thought 4H was a retransfer to S?

Was wondering if I missed any commentary about alternate explanations...

Multi auction, something like (2D)-X-(P)-3H; (P)-3N-(P)-4H; all pass. It was indeed a missed re-transfer -- actually missed the transfer, too.

[jkdood]

I know Justin has won national championships, but there will also be many Vandy and Spingold crowns on his mantle before long. His continued excellent effort against one of the best pairs of all time, after a couple mishaps, is quite commendable. Also commendable is his and Kev's success to get to this late round, although disappointing to exit I am sure, is still a veryWD feat!

[kfay]

jkdood, on Mar 14 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

I know Justin has won national championships, but there will also be many Vandy and Spingold crowns on his mantle before long. His continued excellent effort against one of the best pairs of all time, after a couple mishaps, is quite commendable. Also commendable is his and Kev's success to get to this late round, although disappointing to exit I am sure, is still a veryWD feat!

Hear Hear!

[TimG]

Jlall, on Mar 14 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

Thanks everyone for all the support, really disapppointing but it happens. I hope Kevin will keep playing with me since I've never had a partner play as well as he played in that event.

Oh, and yes, I misread the multi defense they gave. Obviously that was my fault and thats why we played a 2-2 fit.

The vugraph operator was providing some descriptions of the players' demeanor during the broadcast. It seemed to me that JL and KB played through this without incident, which I thinks says a lot about their approach to the game. I suspect many pairs, even those with lots of experience at high levels, would have lost their composure as a result of the misunderstanding. Others might have cried foul and complained about the methods or the way in which written defenses are presented. Instead, Justin has simply said "my fault".

[pclayton]

WD Sir. It was enjoyable to watch, although I only got to see about 20%.

[andy_h]

Well done Justin, good effort! It was certainly enjoyable to watch.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Mar 15 2008, 04:43 AM, said:

Thanks everyone for all the support, really disapppointing but it happens. I hope Kevin will keep playing with me since I've never had a partner play as well as he played in that event.

Oh, and yes, I misread the multi defense they gave. Obviously that was my fault and thats why we played a 2-2 fit.

They gave you a defense that suggested transfers?

[Cascade]

Oh and by the way a day after you left your partner to play in a 2-2 fit in 4♥ my partner left me to play in the same contract in a 4-0 fit so I know a bit of what it is like - although this wasn't on vugraph for everyone to see.

[Cascade]

There has got to be a flaw in a process that suggests you use a recommended defense instead of something that you have explicitly discussed.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Mar 16 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

There has got to be a flaw in a process that suggests you use a recommended defense instead of something that you have explicitly discussed.

I believe they may use their own written defense, it doesn't have to be the one provided by the ACBL. "Suggested defense" would probably be better called "provided defense".

[JanM]

Of course you can use your own defense. The only reason I bother to mention that is that during the Vanderbilt I twice heard the director called when a pair wanted to refer to their own written defense instead of the ACBL approved defense. One time the director knew the rules and said yes instantly. The other time it took an amazingly long time before he gave that answer, but eventually he did.

The ACBL defense (which is really not adequate and most pairs who have played together much do in fact have their own defense), Option 2 which is what Kevin & Justin had chosen, says:

(2♦) DBL (Pass or RDBL) ?
(where P/RDBL shows or tends to show diamonds):
2M = To play
2NT = Clubs (forces 3♣ with 13-15, then 3♦ = forcing club 1-suiter, others NAT, with clubs)
3♣ = Stayman, game-forcing, continuations as after 2NT - 3♣.
3♦ or 3♥ = Transfers, at least INV.

The defense doesn't define the 4 ♥ bid on Justin & Kevin's auction:
(2♦)-DBL-(P)-3♥
(P) - 3NT - (P) - 4♥

So I guess it could either be 54 or more in both Majors or a re-transfer. I believe that the doubler had 3 spades and 2 hearts, so even with the ambiguity should have corrected if he had realized that 3♥ was a transfer. One problem with written defenses is that you have to read them carefully at the table, particularly if you aren't familiar with them. That's why, even though we are happy to distribute ours, we tell people not to play it without some practice.

Our much longer defense also does not define 4♥ in the auction Justin & Kevin had, although in fairness to us , 3NT is not a possible bid after 3R transfer - the doubler can accept, reject, bid his/her own suit with a good hand, or cue bid the opponent's Major. Maybe we should have 3NT defined - I'll have to ask the expert, but I don't know what it should be - perhaps an acceptance and choice of games between 3NT and partner's Major.