Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil,
Thanks.
As annoyed as I am about my declarer play blunders and a few bidding blunders I feel like I got more defenses right than I would have expected to.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everyone for yet more kind words.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andrew,
As is evident from my comments I am still pretty tired and haven't had a chance to really think about what's best. It seems that your line would work as described. The thing I like about ducking a heart is that gives me the contract when S has the HK and takes it as well as on the squeeze.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan,

On the first hand I played for my LHO (Andrew Rosenthal) to have specifically stiffed the 9 of clubs when he had other easy pitches available, so I had a pretty good reason to at least look for a better line.

On the second hand when I selected my line I thought I had two chances to make, either my RHO (Berkowitz) to have been dealt either K of hearts or 22 or fewer in the majors. It was very sloppy for me not to first test clubs and see if 22 majors was even possible. As it turns out on the second round of clubs I would have discovered that RHO had only 8 minor suit cards so my second chance didn't exist. At that point I might have thought of another line. Also I should have thought more about whether Berkowitz might duck the HK if he held it. I think it would be safe to assume that the HQ will never hold against a club player, but if I thought more about it more I think it would have been better to duck the heart around and play to squeeze Hamman between spades and the HK specifically.

I am far from sure what is correct on those hands, but I think both were clear errors.

Edit: I just looked at the hand records and I had remembered dummy having held AT8x of clubs and actually it was the 7. I will have to go back to vugraph and double check exactly what happened but I may have done something even worse than I thought. I need a nap!
May 15
Max Schireson edited this comment May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard: “Debbie treated you as a partner, not a student”.

Ironically that's the best way for me to learn.

Also it is the highest honor I could hope to receive from a great teacher and player.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies to Cornelius Duffie for blowing his bracket.

Probably the only one I blew, so we knew who we were likely going to dinner or playing a match with if we won!

Sorry to let you down Cornelius!
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing in a club game when they combined the limited section with the open section, we doubled out opponents in 2 spades. My left hand opponent inquired about whether if she bid something else the double would still apply. After learning it would not, she bid 3 spades. I felt a bit guilty about doubling her, but they weren't going to get any matchpoints either way.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too have been tempted to bid to 8 as a sacrifice.

Pretty sure bidding past 8 would be a phantom save, and an 8 level redouble would be pretty funny :)
Don't know the history.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.

The whole experience was fantastic:
- Debbie was, as usual a great partner
- Will and Geeske were great teammates
- Our opponents were great to play against. For 2 days we played against Hamman/Berkowitz, Willenken/Ginnosar, and Rosenthal/Silverstein. All of them were wonderful
- Jan, McKenzie, and everyone else organizing the event were great. The playing conditions were excellent as were the hospitality suite

I also want to thank everyone who has been wishing us well. It has been very nice to get so much encouragement - in person and online.

As far as the bridge, I think Debbie was amazing, and Will and Geeske had some really nice score cards.

I made a number of plays and bids that I wish I could hit “undo” on but the mistakes are part of the learning process. Overall I thought I played decently well in some segments and not well in others. I am not yet at the point where I can play well consistently, but having a few good segments makes me happy.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the team is now JD/BP and Brogeland/Lindqvist
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe only one pair from the new Diamond team is eligible to represent the US.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As she should be to qual with those teammates!!!
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if I was discriminated against I would understand and not be offended ;)
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As usual Debbie was Awesome, and Will and Geeske had results at the other table that bailed us out more than once.

I am having a blast, even if I owe my wife a huge apology for missing mothers day.

While we might have been the notable underdog victory, Robinson going 14 and 3 is amazing. Huge kudos there.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a new bridge goal: someday when I enter one of these I want to have enough chance of winning that Jan asks if my team is willing to do a match or dinner with the fantasy bracket winner.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is how to figure it out:

1 Rather than thinking about each *hand* having the same distribution, think about each *suit* having the same distribution. Now it is clear that there are the same number of layouts possible for each suit.
2. Calculate the number of ways a suit can fit a given distribution. For example for 5332, there are 13*12*11*10*9/(5*4*3*2*1) ways to have 5 cards; with 8 cards remaining you can pick 3 cards 8*7*6/(3*2*1) ways; the next 3 are 5*4*3/(3*2*1); after that the last two are fixed and you have to divide by two to account for the fact that you could have picked the two three card sets in either order.
3. Calculate, for any division of the suits, how many ways you can arrange it into hands. For example, say that each hand/suit is 4333. Any of 4 players could have 4 spades. After that there are 3 players left who could have 4 hearts, and two players left for the 4 diamonds. This gives a total of 24 ways to arrange the divided suits.
4. Notice that there are only 3 types of hand patters: ABCD (eg 5431), ABBB (eg 4333) and AABC (eg, 5332), so there are only 3 answers to the above calculation
5. The total number of layouts of a given patter is (number of ways to divide one suit) to the fourth power times the number of ways those layouts can be arranged.

Presto.

I could claim it is better to teach a man to fish but actually I just don't have time to finish the calculations. Hopefully this gets someone on the right track, and sorry if I missed something in my rush to get this up before flying to Houston for the USBC.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is possible that your opponents are damaged by a failure to announce, but the possibility is remote.

Example: you bid 2D and partner doesn't announce a transfer. Your LHO would have doubled for the lead if the transfer was announced, but didn't get that opportunity (say because X of a natural 2D was takeout).

Here they may not have redress because they should have protected themselves (which could itself be the subject of a long thread), but the announcement does serve a purpose.

Similarly say you have a strong hand without a clear action over 1S 1N. If 1N is announced as forcing, you can pass and know you will have another opportunity to act. Therefore when it is not announced, your might stretch and make an imperfect call because you can't bear for it to go all pass. This could effect the course of the auction to your detriment.

I don't know with certainty, but I suspect these are announcements because asking can create its own mess. Asking about the 2D and not doubling when you hear it's natural seems to request a diamond lead. Similarly say your RHO asks you if your partners 1N is forcing. You say it is and he passes. Now you wind up buying it. Which opponent do you think has a bad balanced hand vs Which one has something interesting?
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thinking about this a little more, I think the right approach is what I would call an encrypted mix of reasonable options.

Strong and weak NT are both playable. Transfer responses to a club and not are both playable. Regular Lebensohl and transfer Leb are both playable, Standard carding and upside down carding are both playable. 3rd/5th and 4th. Etc.

You could easily create a one time pad cipher from e.g. letters from a favorite passage of text. With each S you switch between standard and upside down carding, odd use upside down. If it contains the letter T you switch whether transfers systems are on. Every 4 letter word you switch to 4th best leads, 3 or 5 letter words you switch to 3rd and 5th, etc.

How much of this would be worth the memory strain would vary from pair to pair, but I think this is the right general direction.

I don't find it particularly interesting, but I think a simple encryption layer on normal systems would solve some of my previous concerns.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meh.

I understand the desire for anything goes.

A few reasons I think our game is *far* superior:

1. I think the game is much less interesting when you don't know what the opponents are communicating. Being able to draw inferences from their communications, and having to trade off the value of sharing info with partner against the cost of sharing it with opps, would be lost with little gained.

2. Practically speaking, secrecy is hard. For example, you play with a pickup partner; how much of your usual secret system do you reveal? What are the ethics of sharing a former partners system? What about having a leak of your opponents system? Seems you would need to keep your system secret from teammates in case later they were opps. You might not even want to discuss your auctions with teammates. Imagine a team with players, coaches… and scouts. But the scouting relationships are secret. When you are talking in a bar you don't know who the player you are having a drink with is working for - maybe your opponent tomorrow. Yuck.

3. Much of the above would make it hard for the game as a whole to advance; secrecy undermines collective effort. Also long term partnerships would have to spend energy changing their system for the sake of change, even at the price of inferiority. I would much rather they spend time improving their system; everyone eventually benefits from that.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

Before you said “Harvey” I was going to guess you learned bridge from Paul Cohen, who was a professor at Stanford in his mid-20s and proved that the continuum hypothesis and axiom of choice were independent of the standard set theory… seemed like a good match but wrong name… then I realized that Harvey Friedman was a Stanford professor at 18!
May 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
.

Bottom Home Top