[csdenmark]

In the Iceland-Sweden match the precision pairs were derailed and ended up in poorer contract than other table in boards: 9-11-13-14. In board 1 they ended up in best contract but missed the slam.

In three boards: 1-15-19 precision pairs ended up in better contracts than other table. Board 15-19 were uncontested.

There might be other candidates for support of my statement - but they are more difficult to see.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

In the Iceland-Sweden match the precision pairs were derailed and ended up in poorer contract than other table in boards: 9-11-13-14. In board 1 they ended up in best contract but missed

So let's start with Board 9:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was 1♦-1♠-Pass-2♠-All Pass

+110. Result from other table: 3♦ by NS down 1.

It is silly to claim this bidding is confused, or the pairs are derailed.

[glen]

Board 11:

Scoring: IMP

---

This had some big results elsewhere, but was +1 IMPs for Sweden in this match.

Bidding at our featured table Pass-Pass-Pass-2♣;-2♠-All Pass
-100
At other table 3♥ made for EW

It is silly to claim that 1 IMP swings are a sign of being confused, or being derailed.

[glen]

Board 13:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was 2♥*-X-3♥-Pass;-4♥-4♠-All Pass

* 10-13 6+♥s

It is silly to claim this bidding is confused or derailed.

[csdenmark]

glen, on Jun 30 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

In the Iceland-Sweden match the precision pairs were derailed and ended up in poorer contract than other table in boards: 9-11-13-14. In board 1 they ended up in best contract but missed

So let's start with Board 9:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was 1♦-1♠-Pass-2♠-All Pass

+110. Result from other table: 3♦ by NS down 1.

It is silly to claim this bidding is confused, or the pairs are derailed.

You may say so Glen - but as the other table found their sacrifice it is near to see they ended up in giving away here because a likely short diamond opening. They didnt give signal of diamond support in due time. Therefore it is right to say they were derailed and unable to find their best spot.

[glen]

Board 14:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding was 2♥*-All Pass

* weak, could be just 5♥s

It is silly to claim this bidding is confused or derailed.

Before you toss out claims against world class players, get a clue.

[ulven]

I was East in this Ice-Swe match at one table. What do you want to know?

On board 13 for example, Iceland opened 4H, I overcalled 4S and S bid 5H. My partner competed with 5S and I was unable to contain myself and bid the failing slam. Should or shouldn't you bid 5S? Should you pass 5S with my hand?

[ulven]

Board 11 went pass - pass - 3C to me. I passed and sat for partners X. South bid 3D around to me. Should I X or bid 3H/4H/3NT?? I went for the middle of the road action with 3H which partner might raise sometime. This wasn't the optimal bid this time.

Board 14 I didn't open 2H and they bid 3NT uncontested after 1D-2D GF.

[ulven]

Board 9 was 1D - 1S - X - XX; 2C - pass - 2D - 2S; ?
North now went for the pass, but changed his mind and competed to 3D instead. The main reason for differing contracts was the X of 1S at our table.

[csdenmark]

ulven, on Jun 30 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

I was East in this Ice-Swe match at one table. What do you want to know?

On board 13 for example, Iceland opened 4H, I overcalled 4S and S bid 5H. My partner competed with 5S and I was unable to contain myself and bid the failing slam. Should or shouldn't you bid 5S? Should you pass 5S with my hand?

It is the missing 5♥ by Upmark/Cullin this is about. They chose instead to give away to a winning 4♠ contract. Looks like their interference handle was not bold as 3♥ was not the signal they needed to take care of their interests.

[hrothgar]

glen, on Jun 30 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jun 29 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

In the Iceland-Sweden match the precision pairs were derailed and ended up in poorer contract than other table in boards: 9-11-13-14. In board 1 they ended up in best contract but missed

So let's start with Board 9:

To quote The Princess Bridge:

Quote

"Fool!" cried the hunchback. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.'"

Here's my addition: Don't bother trying to engage Claus in rational discussion...

He is very opinionated and almost completely clueless

[csdenmark]

glen, on Jun 30 2008, 12:24 AM, said:

Board 14:
<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 92 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> T85 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AQJ7 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AK72 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJ654 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 742 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 932 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> JT </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QT8 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KQJ93 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 865 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q4 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A73 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A6 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KT4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 98653 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->
Bidding was 2♥*-All Pass

* weak, could be just 5♥s

It is silly to claim this bidding is confused or derailed.

Before you toss out claims against world class players, get a clue.

Yes - the other table proved Upmark/Cullin missed their 3NT game and gave away to the 2♥ preempt. Their defensive is not bold enough here.

[glen]

... and if ♣s were 3-1/1-3 instead, then what would you say?

[655321]

[csdenmark]

Quote

I thought that the point of this thread was analysis of systems used by successful pairs. In what way is bidding judgement on a pair of marginal hands (whether or not to double 2♥, whether or not to act over 2♥ in 4th seat) related to system? It is very likely that all pairs in the field played similar methods over a 2♥ opening.

No they dont do so. Some plays natural, some plays Lebensohl and some plays something else. Thats all according to their systems. We rarely knows very much about it but thats the deciding parts of a system.

Those deals I have pointed to shows that openings and response structure for uncontested actions are of less importance to judge a system than most discussions in this forum assumes. They show that the systems here discussed are likely to be unsolid to help the players back on track after interference.

I said I had the impression that these 2 pairs played less well against each other than I assume they would have done against pairs playing natural systems. For a judgement of that it might be interesting to see how the other pairs using Precision performed in their deals.