Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Martin Fleisher
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no perfect solution to any of this, but as I said in another post lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I propose the following:
1. In pair events simply eliminate the unethical pair(s) and move everyone up a place (presumably only do this if the unethical pair is in the top 10 or so)
2. In Swiss teams/Reisinger formats same as 1.
3. In Knockouts, obviously the trickiest thing, the best I can come up with is to assume that the team with the tainted pair on it, loses each match, but assume the team they beat then loses the next round. Is that entirely fair to the losing team? Surely not. But I can't think of anything better.
e.g., In an event that Monaco won, have the team they beat in the round of 64 lose in the round of 32 etc. As we get later in the tournament, their round of 8 opponent loses in the semi-finals, their semi-final opponent is treated as losing the final, and the losing finalist is given the title.

This can be tweaked for sure. But otherwise are we really leaving all of these totals (including most of the American ones for the last several years) vacant? I can't believe that is the right answer.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicely done. As everyone knows, you guys are a class act!
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
now i know why I've done so much better in the Vanderbilt!
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in that case, same answer as for 2014
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would declare the losing finalist the winner. that is the easy case in my opinion.
2015 is harder, since both teams were suspect. probably i would suggest that the losing semi-finalist share the win
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that is reasonable, but I dont think the ACBL would go along.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I believe the current rule was not sensible to begin with, I can't agree better to leave it in place.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. i appreciate Mike digging up the ACBL rule, but I dont see why it can't be changed in a situation like this. I can see how it might have been applicable in a single occurence, but is obviously obsurd here.
2. With regard to the discussion begun by Gonzalo, this is the exact situation where we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Leaving most of the main titles in the K/O vacant for the last several years makes no sense (nor does leaving the runner-up assuming they get promoted). What difference does it make if there is no ideal way to determine who played better of the rest of the teams? Any system, and I intend to propose one, is better than the current ACBL rule.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zimmerman won the 2010 Vanderbilt without the Fantunes.
Sept. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
terrific work Ish, Per and Ovunc!
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to the Fireman team. Well deserved win!
May 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
kit, you may be right but i think you are overbidding the strength of the analysis. declarer may well play low with the kj if he has a singleton if he has a useful pitch. with kxx or kx he might play low with the hope that partner goes wrong with the AJ say or the king is useful for an endplay or squeeze later.
And in terms of partner not dreaming in a million years that i might underlead the ace, every time partner leads a suit in which declarer is know to be void, I think about whether he might be underleading the ace. I bet you do also.
Dec. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a heart on the second hand is pretty clear, but I think low should strongly be considered. Might well save a trick if declarer is void.
Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do have a brother Michael Fleisher but he does not play bridge. I've never met the bridge player Michael Fleisher
July 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lets not go that far . . .
May 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this was a really terrific article.
Feb. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to go back to the original double. Kit says this is t/o for the other 2 suits, but I think that is not expert standard. I have always played that as spade shortness by an UPH.
Kit?
Dec. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very nice article! Great to have you at the American tournaments.
Dec. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
until reading this, I forgot that Bobby was on that team. that was a long time ago!
Dec. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's only about an hour from Hong Kong, which is very accessible from many north american gateways ( e.g., NYC, Chicago, LA, SF and Dallas)
Nov. 19, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top