Obviously gogogo fmk, but it's too bad they had to meet the Dinkin team so early; Id have liked to have seen that latter go farther in the tournament, rather than the same old client-and-pro models. (It doesn't look to me like there's any client on that team.) Further, it's nice to see experimental weirdness do well.
What bugs the crap out of me is when a team with a weak client does well. I don't know details on many of the teams but one that I do know is Gupta — I was disappointed to see that team get out of the round robin. But at least they're losing now.
IMO the team should be chosen pairwise, with USA 1 composed of the three top pairs in some lengthy IMP pairs trial, and USA 2 the next three. That would solve the client problem.
sorry to burst your bubble atak but Dinkin is a client. Which kind of begs the question... does it matter? I mean that seriously because if it was the same team with no money changing hands it seems like you would root for that team more.
Anyways the pairs trial thing has been tried (and is done in other places). it doesn't seem to work. I can only remember one time in the past long time where a weak client has won anyways, it is hard to win lots of tough 120 board matches against good teams if you have a bad player on the team. hence the reason that nickell/diamond/Fleisher have had the USA teams that have done well for the past decade or so. really there was only one client that was bad that had continued success, Zimmerman, and some light has been shed on that recently haha
I wonder why pairwise trials don't work. I get that a genuinely weak client is likely to drag down a team in a long contest, but a team would still theoretically be even stronger if all of its members were selected for ability. Oh well.
I asked if Dinkin was a client because that would mean that team might actually stick together. If Dinkin wasn't a client I would just assume Grossacks and Lien/Brescoll would move on to some other team.
Yeah the betting public was a little high on Fireman since how they did in the last Bermuda bowl cycle. Fleischer does look like a good bet, and I expect the odds to go way down if they advance to the semis.
1D is Precision (good 10-15 HCP, 2+ diamonds). 1NT opener would have been 14-16, so if he's balanced he's got 13 or less.
Spoiler:
Hampson passed Greco's 1D opener and ended up playing it there, going for 400 opposite a mirrored 4324 13 count with Tx of diamonds.
I was surprised to see this; it feels like the only times the opponents let you play 1D is when it's right for them to do so. A 1S bid would have led to playing 2S (or the opps balancing in maybe), which wasn't wonderful either but was a lot better than -400. A 1NT bid would probably have bought it and gone for a trick or two.
I would bid 1S but the rationale in general is that if you bid when your vul it's pretty dangerous. 1D p 1S p 1N X or something is very bad when you might have survived if they were gonna balance over 1D. Even just playing 1N is pretty bad if you go for 300.
Ofc when you declare 1D it could be very bad as here. I am guessing he did it because he had KQ of diamonds.
I confess to thinking, possibly wrongly and with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, that he's the most overrated top player out there.
I don't think he is over rated - bit old maybe and definitely best suited to a high stakes rubber game - I suspect it is a bit of a struggle for him sometimes to play with and against world class players - normal for him is doing most of it himself and his opponents helping a lot
An interesting psych on Board 9 in the Gordon/Cohen matchup. Pratap, W/R, opened 1H in third seat on xxx T9xx Txxx Qx.
Spoiler:
Partner had a Drury bid of some sort and then doubled the subsequent opposing 3NT on his 9 count with roughly xx Jxx AKJxx xxx, and then failed to score one of the high diamonds along with the other 11 tricks they couldn't take, so they racked up -1350