Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Weinstein
1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My local club has used a mode where scores start to show only after 4 rounds or so. Clearly a good tweak if you show at all.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An aluminum foil box is vastly superior to any of the many wooden holders I’ve tried. The crucial pro-tip is to keep some foil in the box. Otherwise it tips over much too easily.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For beginners who finished last, poor valuation much more likely than anything sinister.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS could easily make 8 tricks in clubs if they got to lead. Pull three rounds of trumps, then three rounds of diamonds. When EW lead against 2, looks like their play is three rounds of spades, threatening to score the 13th spade or an extra trump trick. The play from there isn’t simple – from DF we know that EW always get a 6th trick, but there are a number of variations. EW’s control of the side suit looks like the key difference between 2 and 2.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Results at http://thecommongame.com/PHPPOSTCGS.php?options=LookupClioBoard&acblno=&date=2017-03-28&board=15&gamemode=

Only about 10% managed to double the 1NT overcall, it appears.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener had QTx in clubs.
It’s a classic Vondracek effect: you have a loser in spades but not clubs, and spades plays better. The phrasing “Vondracek effect works in spades but not clubs” is a bit confusing. The play is indeed worth studying, certainly more complex than the standard Vondracek examples.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would also be normal to make 3nt on a diamond lead. Looks like the normal result after a 2nt opening and transfer auction. Clubs are very random board-by-board, but session results generally pretty just.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Club hook is better than 50%, based on restricted choice on the lead.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In most formats isn't the first stage longer than the second stage, precluding this?
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True Ira, I just wasn't sure that was realistic! But all aspiring high-level players should do at least some reading, I think.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Preparation of these casebooks is a fantastic service to the community. Many thanks to Adam and all the commentators! I am curious as to whether the casebooks are read carefully by all members of the national appeals committee and high-level tournament directors. Ideally they would be read by directors at all levels.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Addendum: I would go easier on North if he hadn’t bid 2. Then it would be a straight MI case, with (to me) the correct ruling being changing West’s X to a P and the contract again to 2.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfair to West, as he is entitled to act on the description of 2 as a transfer. Yes, North’s hedged phrasing was a clue to something funny going on, but he is not obligated to guess that he is getting bad information.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a general consensus that if North had behaved ethically, -200 or -300 in 2 undoubled would have been likely at the table. Getting to the same result after his unethical actions took significant work by the director and opponents. For this reason, restoring equity is not sufficient, and I agree with the commenters above who say a further penalty of some kind is warranted. This is way beyond some borderline hesitation case, as a good player is supposed to know he absolutely can’t field partner’s 2H here, even though there is a chance he would have guessed to do so behind screens.
The explanation by South is almost irrelevant, by the way, because the failure to alert delivered effectively the same UI. Absolutely no fault to West for his questions.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe: If West had heard the correct explanations (1NT minors, 2H natural), he would presumably not double.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Utter nonsense. The statistical evidence of correlation between bid-card placement and strength was overwhelming. It didn’t match on every single hand, possibly because experts didn’t know their whole system, possibly because they randomized placement when it didn’t matter to prepare a defense. The argument that the experts didn’t know their system is asinine, that actually goes in the other direction, i.e. if strong correlation was found despite this confounding factor, it makes the evidence stronger.
(I was one of a handful of informal consultants asked about the strength of the evidence as prepared by Nick Hammond. I’m speaking mostly for myself, but to my knowledge there was no doubt about the strength of the evidence from any expert consulted.)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ok, it appears that it is BridgeComposer which calculates par, using DF as a subroutine. In these cases where par is dealer-dependent, they report multiple values and ignore the actual dealership. See the bottom of http://bridgecomposer.com/Par.htm if curious.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's also easy to construct a deal where South and West both make 7NT, so that par swings from +2220 to -2220 depending on dealership. (This digresses from your original post.)
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is also a hand recorded by Pavlicek where all four declarers make 3nt. In these cases, assuming nothing higher is makable, par would depend on who was dealer; dealer would open 3nt (3 in your case) and make the other side save. At least, that's how it should be defined. I don't know if DF is programmed to deal with that, but I would think so.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan M.,
That’s certainly a plausible pattern of learning. There are thousands of pages on learning processes which might get you to equilibrium, without any universal answers.
The second paragraph of Charles Brenner’s comment is a good view on equilibrium. Rephrasing, equilibrium isn’t necessarily what you *should* do; if you have good reason to think your opponent is away from equilibrium in a certain direction then don’t randomize, go ahead and play the best reply. The equilibrium is a useful baseline of what would happen if good players faced this situation a lot, and of course it defends, on average, the tricks you’re entitled to.
Jan. 12
1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top