Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 223 224 225 226
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chapter one was about promoting winners. Hopefully you recall that :)
50 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absent any specific agreements, my default defense is X is TO and bids are natural.

It works pretty well.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve Robinson and other canape bidders :) get to 7.

It will be hard after the 1C start unless 4 was specifically for the majors. So both players fault for no agreements or neither players fault for no agreements. Take your pick.

If 6 making 7 was my worst result, I probably won going away.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Take out doubles are meant to be taken out” - E.K.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, except John's range was apparently 14-18, with 2NT=19-21.

(Do to the circumstances, that is also what I would have played.)
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes that is the best family.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this problem is multi-dimensional.

First, as far as long-run analysis, one might produce two different results based on scoring methodology. If passing wins more frequently than bidding, that makes it a reasonable MP decision. However, the value of bidding (games/slams) might exceed the value of passing (partials) making bidding a win at IMPs.

Secondly, the problem with the long-run consideration is that the event you are playing is probably dealing you a different hand every time. And there will not be that many hands in total. Better than 4/5 of the players are responding 1NT. So the question for me is, do I feel sufficiently confident in the theoretical edge in passing (if there is any) to make the non-field decision on this one iteration?

Third, there is a psychological component against human opponents that will not exist in the AI world. Suppose my table opponents are Levin/Stevo in a team match.

Situation (A) I pass as responder. We make one spade, maybe two. Four hearts will go down on bad breaks. L/W know I just picked up 5 IMPs. But they don't care. Furthermore, they think it is almost comical. You know what? I do not want to play this pair when they cannot conceive of losing a match to a “pair that doesn't bid.”

Situation (B) I respond. We push the board. This is actually a better scenario IMO. What I want my opponents to feel is pressure. If we play well and stay in the match, that actually creates a scenario where they might conceive that they could lose. Now these guys are war horses, and it is not easy to create pressure. But good luck beating them otherwise.

Situation (C) I respond. We get to game and without a clear lead, the actual guess gives me the contract. This is the least likely scenario. But it also represents my biggest win.

Finally, depending on methods and partner the answer might be different. While I want to bid with this hand, I have at least one partner I would pass. It is just safer that way :)
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be boring if they sat at different tables.

“Plus 100”
“Push”
“They found the club lead with KQ109 Qxx?”
“Of course”
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Conveniently, my 2 rebid shows 4 and 5+.

IMO, 1NT is a better option in a Precision context than in SA.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know some players who will sometimes open a weak minor to try to deter the opening lead. South also had some imaginary points in with those invisible clubs to justify the 3NT bid.

My guess is N/S were random bad. Didn't have the guts to take the heart finesse at MP. Or at least have the foresight to lead the J at trick two which probably produces 11 tricks without risk.

It is possible the ops were entitled to an alert or announcement, I have no idea why a TD would not make it clear to the ops why the score was being adjusted.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they aren't playing Precision (14 HCP anyway) what was the explanation of the 1 opening?
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT and not surprised since the AI solver is probably better than most of my opponents.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is easily 24+ - making it about 6-8 points too good for what passes as a 2 opener nowadays.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Irrespective of the utility, playing something one partner is likely to forget is never a good choice.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Q: Is it reasonable to bid 3?

A: Yes.

Q: Might the table result be reversed?

A: Yes, because bidding 3 is probably the winning action and the ops will probably summon the TD. I could end up on the unfortunate end of a poll if the TD can find some unreasonable people he thinks belong in my peer group.

Q: Does forcing a silly contract and result bother me?

A: No. This stuff sometimes happens when partner is dumb. Maybe partner will learn someday. One can only hope.

Q: Why did you not bid 3 the first time?

A: Is that a serious question? Maybe with a stiff diamond, but this is not the hand. I play 2M all the time these days. Larry Cohen no longer plays at our club.

Q: What is with the third option?

A: No clue. If I thought pass was a LA I would have saved everyone time and trouble and passed not bid 3.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, if I am on lead, i probably hold AQx and J10x
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Watson — Come here — I want to see you. You know, this would be a lot easier if you learned to use Tango!
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richie is in the Pictionary under “lugubrious”.

I would not describe him as odd, but Richie was very unusual as few people pursue their passions dispassionately. However, this was an essential trait. Passionate gamblers go bankrupt.

Another standout feature was Richie's inherent honesty. Boye and others remarked about his renouncing titles earned with tainted teammates. Schwartz did not do this because it was the right thing to do. For him, it was probably the only thing to do. I once heard Richie reject a complement simply because - in his objective mind – he did not deserve it.

It was 20 years ago at breakfast. The other player, a non-native English speaker, was concerned he might not have phrased “but you very smart guy” properly. And Richie was trying simply trying to explain that he understood it was intended as a complement, but he legitimately did not think that way about himself.

“How can you not be smart guy?”

“Because I met a lot of smart guys. I know that I am not as smart as they are.”

“But you good at many things. Talented, too.”

Richie thought about that for a moment and replied: “No, I try to be good at things I do. But really, I have only one talent in life. I know how to read a racing sheet. That is pretty much it, it really is the only thing I am good at.”

I thought that was quintessential Richie Schwartz. Most people have their ego in the way. Richie had no horse in that race. Richie was just thinking about how he looks at Richie Schwartz.

Thanks Richie for making the world, and particularly the bridge world, a better and more interesting place. I miss being able to play bridge against you already.
Feb. 10
David Yates edited this comment Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, technically, you can. I look forward to adding successful examples in my (still) forthcoming book: “Winning at Bridge by Passing, Then Guessing.”

I have planned to publish for years - just as soon as I have enough material.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It must be because my partners hate me. I have shovel marks all over my head.
Feb. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 223 224 225 226
.

Bottom Home Top