Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jordan Lampe
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One technique you can use to avoid “cherry picking” and to allow yourself to “state a hypothesis” is to take a big pile of hands in which you suspect cheating. Take HALF of them, do whatever analysis you want on the first half, and then propose a hypothesis, and then see if that hypothesis holds water on the other half. It takes some discipline to do this well (it's very tempting to find your hypothesis fails on the second half and then “tweak it” based on the way it failed on the second half…)
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there an advantage to this system over Lavinthal discards?
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played Gazzilli for a while, and concluded that it is a win in bidding. But then we realized that Gazzilli auctions were a lot like Precision auctions, and if you have the appetite for memory-heavy systems, why not just play Precision?
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What if the diamond finesse loses and a diamond comes back?
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could make this double with an ace less, and Partner had to cater for that possibility.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What were you planning on doing if Pard had bid 3?
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is easy. Saying “could be artificial” is just rephrasing standard 4th suit forcing. When the auction goes 1-1-2-2, that 2 is 4th suit forcing, so we say it is artificial. However, nothing says that Responder can't have a decent heart suit, right?

For me “forcing, says nothing about hearts” and “forcing, could be natural”, and “forcing, could be artificial” are all the same logical statement.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If LHO has KTx then leading the J and covering with the Queen only gets 2 spade tricks instead of 3.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, here is a case where the declarer would be “woken up” to the problem and get a superior result using your method: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/claim-ruling/
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we followed Kit's proposal, the score would be +670.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East probably forgot that 1-1NT implies club length in the 1NT hand and so was afraid to double with his club doubleton.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other main difference between bridge and all those other games is the existence of CHO.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. It just makes it more difficult if there has to be a sub-protocol where defenders have to / are allowed to show each other the cards they play without showing declarer, instead of just playing their cards face down.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dumb counter example: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=s2ha2d3&w=skjhkj&n=sa3h43&e=sqthqt

If declarer Kit-style claims before leading his last diamond, he goes from 0% to 25% (50% defenders both discard the same suit, 50% declarer guesses which one it was).
Nov. 5
Jordan Lampe edited this comment Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about a AI Whist player to get us warmed up?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you could show us all 4 hands?
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They don't hurt my feelings. Psyches are legal, last I checked. If your question is “is the OP bid legal?”, I think it is. If your question is “is the OP bid a psyche?”, I still think it is. And please lay off the insults.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think saying “our agreement is Pass or Correct” allows you to wave a magic wand and suddenly declare all bridge logic hereby null and void.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit says “But what is a psych? As I understand the definition, it is a bid which grossly misdescribes the actual hand”

I think this line gets close to the heart of the problem we are having here today. Intuitively to me, a psych is less a bid which “grossly misdescribes the hand”, but something more like “misdescribes the hand with the primary intention of disrupting the opponents auction”.

Under Kit's definition, 2 is a mild but not a gross misdescription of the OP hand, and therefore not a psych. Under my definition, it's obviously an attempt to steal the heart suit from the opponents, and therefore a psych.

So all we have to do is debate which definition is correct. I suspect the laws as written will favor Kit's, but I think that the spirit of “the thing that people do in bridge to gain an advantage that causes hard feelings which require rules to be written” is closer to my definition.
Oct. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top