Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ben Thompson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep. The first time we played this I picked up AQ109 in … and another 4 small ones. So it went 1H (X) insta-pass from me . Lefty promptly trotted out 4H, passed back to me for the straightforward 4. Everyone else had managed that a round earlier of course :)
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a mad but entertaining scheme with my brother.

After 1m - (X/1red) we play:
P/1H = transfer (to the next suit up)
1S = the usual no major feels a need to bid hand
X/XX = I wish I could have just passed
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, yes it's all some sort of VP scale but I don't see “smoothness” as desirable. Any even vaguely sensible VP scale has a blowout cutoff - ie at some point the next IMP doesn't count at all.

I see the 2nd IMP counting less than the 1st IMP as a much bigger problem than the 41st IMP counting a lot less than the 40th. IMPs are already a compression. Why compress again … and change the odds of your bridge actions depending on how the match is going?

Philosophically, I want the odds of the actions I take to depend on the hand in front of me, not when I pick the hand up.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Kit said, but I wouldn't convert the round-robin results to VPs. Make every IMP count - so straight IMPs but have (different) winning & losing cutoffs for every match to limit ridiculous blowouts.

Or play speedball.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polling what you do with the right explanation would be part of the TD's job too, but the question of what you do with the wrong one is definitely relevant.

If 4 is not … for want of a better phrase … a logical alternative, then North has just made a giant boo boo unrelated to the misexplanation and has to wear it.

If you poll 100 (comparable) people with the RIGHT explanation and, for the sake of the argument, 5% fail to bid a slam, you haven't actually learned anything you can act on because on the other side you're working with a sample of 1.

So you have to poll 100 (comparable) people with the WRONG explanation to understand if the wrong explanation actually made a difference. If this poll comes back with 5% (or fewer) people missing slam then … the wrong explanation didn't cause any damage and North gets no joy.

But suppose you poll 100 people with the WRONG explanation first and exactly 0% of them missed slam. And exactly 0% of them bid 4S. We've just learned that we don't need to poll anyone with the RIGHT explanation any more because they can't bid slam any more frequently than the people who got the wrong explanation.

That is, in the special case where essentially no pollee misses slam with the WRONG explanation, there cannot be damage.
Oct. 31
Ben Thompson edited this comment Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to dash the spirit of bonhomie and whatnot but “if <fine person> and I agree on something, we're right” is not a given :)

And to clarify, I thought and think it's possible North MIGHT have been trying it on (which can be enough under the Laws to say “no chocolates for you”) but I did not and will not say that North WAS trying it on.
Oct. 31
Ben Thompson edited this comment Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, David has consistently pointed the way - we weren't at the table. Maybe West flinched slightly at the alert/explanation. Maybe North had played against EW before and knew/thought they played weak jumps. Just the explanation itself strikes me as unlikely (you see a lot of “weak” or “intermediate”, but “opening hand or better” is new on me and at face value has playability issues)

But I entirely agree with the principle of your question - that the possibility of a double shot would need investigation (by the TD at the table).
Oct. 31
Ben Thompson edited this comment Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interestingly, the first choice of 2 of the 4 players I polled was none other than Exclusion KC. They recognised the risks but judged the chance of uncovering gold to be worth it.

3 of the 4, on one of their subsequent attempts, simply chose 6S as their bid. Everyone tried ordinary RKC (for hearts of course) as one of their subsequent attempts.

All of these choices are imperfect but they're all rational attempts to manage an extreme hand in a difficult situation.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I'm saying several separate things.

On this particular North hand I'm saying the 4 bid was so bad (for what I have understood the class of player to be) that no adjustment is warranted.

More broadly, the double shot is alive and well and a blight on the game. I'm proposing that there is currently a legal basis for penalising players who try for a double shot. And that there should be a clearer legal basis in the future for doing so because the current basis is admittedly a bit tenuous.

I'm NOT saying that this North was trying for a double shot, and in fact I was careful to state that. I'm NOT saying that ANY North who bid 4 should be regarded as trying for a double shot, and I was careful to state that.

I AM saying that the Law doesn't require North to be trying for a double shot, only that North MIGHT have been trying for a double shot.

As for tu quoque, I'm comfortable I'm playing the ball, not the man. I have agreed here with several important points that you and others (eg John Adams) have made. On other points we disagree, and we express our disagreement. Preferably with rationale, maybe even data. And a reasonable approximation of humour and manners (which I recognise in you and I hope you recognise in me).
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh, very droll. But if you state your assumptions, of course you can make some judgments and give a “ruling”. Otherwise every BW article on a UI/MI/Law problem involving judgment can just have an auto-posted single comment “No-one was there so no-one can try judging the situation. This article is now closed for comments”.

You yourself have not been averse to expressing your judgment about what happened at the table. For example, “everyone knew what East meant”. Did they really? Surely only the TD at the table can assess that.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, you haven't quite got the point of my admittedly unscientific poll. I gave the pollees the table explanation that 3D was “an opening hand or better”.

All 4 bid more anyway and when pressed for alternatives … bid more anyway. No-one thought to do anything BUT bid a slam even when pressed, and when asked everyone thought 4S was inconceivably bad.

My pollees ranged from about 400 masterpoints to about 3,500. Different scale but vaguely comparable to the over 2,000 masterpoints North has (as commented by OP). I don't think club player is the right comp.

There is a point where your action is so bad it's just your error and no-one else's. North will need the rear-view telescope to find this one.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I agree with all you say about the director needing to judge the skill etc etc of the actual North. I even mentioned it earlier in different words.

Still, the OP gave us a proxy for NS's skill level (some pile of masterpoints) and so for the purposes of a Bridge Winners debate we can reasonably take that to mean North is easily good enough to appreciate the quality and potential of the hand. From there, North would be good enough to meet the “gambling action” requirements.

So while saying that only the TD at the table can fully assess the situation is true, it's not really relevant here since to have any meaningful debate we have to make some assumptions based on the information provided.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just for amusement I gave the North hand, the auction, and the explanation to 4 sound to good players tonight.

Everyone bid a slam (3x 7S, 1x 6S) in 2 bids. I said I forbid your auction, have another go. Everyone bid a slam at their next go. I said I forbid your 2nd auction, have another go. One said “I'm out of ideas” … and everyone else bid a slam. The most anyone got to was 5 auctions before giving up, and all 4 bid a slam every time.

Then I asked them to rate 4S. Every one of them said “bad”. I asked how bad on a scale of 0 to 10. Everyone said 0. Some asked if they could go negative.

Obviously this isn't the most scientific poll in the history of the game but the message is clear enough.
Oct. 31
Ben Thompson edited this comment Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, who I'm willing to call a cautious bidder after about 20 years sitting opposite him :), swears by a guideline for slam tries he picked up from Jeff Rubens and the Bridge World.

It goes something like this: if partner can have a realistic, suitable minimum for their bidding where slam is cold then you should try for slam.

Works well.

Here, slam is cold opposite several suitable (very) sub minimums, and realistic ones at that except for being sub minimum.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, no you just need to think North MIGHT have been trying for a double shot. You separate the possibility of intent from the particular player. That is, you don't need to establish that THIS North intended to be trying for a double shot, only that SOME North might have seen a dodgy opportunity and deliberately tried for a double shot.

It's a bit like that thing where if you pop in a hesitation in a situation where you COULD have known it could mislead the oppos to your benefit, and the oppos do draw a damaging false inference from that, then you get pinged. The director doesn't have to establish that you meant to mislead the oppos, or even that you knew that you could be misleading the oppos, only that you could have known (and have no demonstrable bridge reason for your little thinky).

To qualify that a little: you have to assess possible intent factoring in like skill - you can't ping a beginner for a dodgy thought process that they would never have thought of even if they were dodgy.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It really does matter whether or not West's hand is (roughly) consistent with the explanation.

North bid according to a belief about the nature of West's hand that (for the sake of the argument) turned out to be accurate. He had no idea that the explanation was wrong.

Note that the relevant law (75) kicks off with “After a misleading explanation”. Misleading. North was not misled about the ACTUAL hand. If directors are ruling, and being taught to rule, without considering whether a player was misled, then that is unsound and ignores the BASIS of law 75.

Damage lies in being misled; if two different mistakes mean you accidentally didn't get misled, you aren't damaged. Lucky for the offending side but there it is.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, no. There are two ways a non-offending side can contribute to its own damage in 12C2: (a) extremely serious error and (b) gambling action.

Only the “extremely serious error” type has to be unrelated to the infraction.

The “gambling action” type can be related or unrelated. The rider for this type is that the actor might have hoped to recover through rectification if the action turned out to be unsuccessful. The key word is “might” - the director doesn't have to establish that the actor WAS hoping for a double-shot, only that they MIGHT have been hoping for one (which 4S clearly fits).

But I brought up 12C2 primarily to counter your statement that the laws say nothing about making bad bids. The side point is that 12C2 does apply, and should lead to giving NS nothing even if EW were (wrongly, in my view) given an adjusted score.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, the OP said West is supposed to have “an opening hand or better”; that is very different from “better than a minimum opening one bid”
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's wind this back a step.

Was there an infraction?
East said West had an opening hand (or better). Is West an opening bid? Some would say yes. If, given the opportunity, West had chosen to open 1D with this, I wouldn't be offended by their choice; some fraction of the time I would do it myself (cf John Adams above that opening 1 banana creates a different auction dynamic than opening 3 bananas)

Did North seek to clarify what opening bid means to EW? OP didn't mention it so I'll assume no. You can certainly make small, irrelevant, modifications to the West hand so that most everyone would agree it's reasonable to call it an opening hand.

Note that East has several cards that could be in the West hand instead to make it an agreeable opening hand.

West accidentally has a rough approximation of the wrong explanation. That's lucky and … no infraction because, accidentally, North wasn't misinformed.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David if East had explained to me that 3 showed 6 diamonds and the AK of clubs, I'd be double-checking, because that seems like a ridiculously unlikely explanation to me; one probably intended as a joke.

Of course I'd call the director when it turned out that this West didn't have that hand because we will have failed to bid slam because of it. EW will need to point to the spot in their notes which validates that explanation.
Oct. 30
Ben Thompson edited this comment Oct. 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top