Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 122 123 124 125
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it may choose randomly among the plays that work out the same on the hand sample it is looking at? So some combination of 2 with something like 1 is my assumed culprit when the bots do something crazy.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rubber bridge: 150 honors :)

If you have all the diamonds and RHO has all the clubs and saves in 8C all white they will net +50 if doubled. You can get the same in 8DX…
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, correcting your partners 8 level bid to 9 of a different strain could be winning, but barring an irregularity it seems it can never be right to bid at the 9 level over your opponents 8 level sac, whereas (depending on the form of scoring) it can be right to bid at the 8 level over your opponents 8 level sac.

Sorry I wasn’t clear about what I meant by 8 over 8 and 9 over 8.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To add to the oddity, my 8 over 8 should not have ended the auction.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have more than once held a hand where, in a different form of scoring, an 8 level sacrifice would have been profitable even if the opponents had already saved at the 8 level. Sadly the hands were misdeals, and 8 over 8 would not have been profitable at the form of scoring we were actually playing.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
8 over 8 can be a winning call, even without irregularities.

9 over 8 seems that it must be hoping for a revoke?
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just checked.

Thankfully it was as I described. Playing 3N, my clubs were A opposite KQx. Oops led a club. Dummy’s A won and I took a diamond finesses.

When they came back a club to my K, thankfully it didn’t auto play my now singleton Q!

You can transfer $1 to mschireson.

Thanks for being a good sport.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought I might be making a total sucker bet where nobody would call :)

Now I need to go online and check, hopefully I am right!
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven’t used the feature or tested it but I will offer 100:1 that it autoplays singletons only when following suit, not when on lead with a choice of what suit to lead. This would avoid accidental hesitations with a singleton (but the fast play might give away that it was a singleton).

Sorry to spoil a good bashing.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this would be helpful.

That said, I expect players will very quickly begin to recognize actions that take exactly 3 seconds. so think a random delay of eg 3-6 seconds is preferable to a fixed delay. The delay can (and imo should) be omitted on actions that take more than 5 seconds.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone gets all the guesses available correct, they could easily be caught.

They would also need to be careful not to cheat all the time in these “toss up” situations. If they only cheated say 1/3 of the time they faced this type of situation, and therefore got them right two thirds of the time, it might seem that they just had very good judgement in prioritizing the small inferences available.

They could further reduce their chances of being caught by not cheating in “pure guess” situations, but rather in what I will call “conflicting clue guess” situations, where there are significant clues pointing in opposite directions.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding Steve’s role, I think Oren (as usual) got it right. Any frustration we feel should be directed to the authorities, who were free to accept, reject, or modify Steve’s recommendations on sentencing.

Steve acted with no official authority - using only his credibility in the bridge community - to bring about a confession. Any of us could have done the same, to the extent that the player considering confessing places value in our support for the proposed penalty. Many of us might have the credibility to induce a confession at a local club game if not a withdrawal from the Bermuda Bowl.

Is doing so a good idea? In an ideal world it would be unnecessary. In the real world the authorities might not be vigilant, who knows. I can think of a situation where I am quite sure a player at the local club cheated, and if I had been able to negotiate for a confession as Steve did (not at all sure this would have worked) it probably would have been better for bridge at that club.
When a player does this, they place of of the credibility that enabled them to broker that deal on the line. If the authorities don’t like the case they have made - both against the cheater and for a lighter sentence - they will be less likely to listen to that player’s recommendation in the future. If the sentence is hugely different from the sentence that is recommended, another offender might not value that player’s support in a future deal. Perhaps more importantly, the community at large might have more or less respect for the player after learning (part of) the story of the deal they brokered.

Steve has earned his credibility over many years, and it was his to wager. Mostly the upside of that wager was achieving an outcome Steve thought was positive for bridge, and the downside was to his own reputation. I haven’t seen all the details, and even if I did I am not sure that I would be qualified to judge whether Steve’s actions actually were beneficial, or if some other course (eg, bringing the case to the authorities for trial without a confession) would have been better.

Without knowing the details, I do think it is mostly good that an enormously credible player was willing to risk some of his own credibility to improve the game. Let us hope that over time the authorities take up more of the burden.

Edit: fixed typo
June 25
Max Schireson edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think various bad behaviors occur with and without money involved.

Here are examples of cheating when no money is involvedin cycling: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jun/01/dope-and-glory-the-rise-of-cheating-in-amateur-sport

I have seen some teammates that behave in a way that would cause others in the team to want to hide issues, and some that create openness. I have seen both behaviors from sponsors, pros, and amateurs.

Certainly money can exacerbate these issues, but I suspect that money is just amplifying tendencies that already exist. I suppose money can be a major factor in choice of teammates; when one chooses to play with someone I would consider a “bad teammate” (bad due to a tendency to blame/criticize, not due to lack of skill) for financial reasons, I suspect that in their mind the money could front and center in the problem. I would respectfully suggest that poor behavior is the primary problem, and it is the money which causes them to tolerate the problem.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats to you also Rajeev, even if you didn’t break the age record :)
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats to Andrew, and to all his partners, teammates, and mentors. It’s great to see so many kids playing, learning, having fun, and making mincemeat of their adult opponents!

Edit: removed erroneous data.
May 27
Max Schireson edited this comment May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not an expert but I have been working hard for about 5 years.

My opinions, which might be controversial:
1. Just practicing remembering things with drills won’t work. Unless you are highly highly unusual, you don’t have nearly enough working memory to keep track of everything you see there.

2. In other games, players recognize positions by their logic. Grandmasters can recreate positions from high level chess games quite well, but can’t remember random assortments of chess pieces.

3. I believe that when you understand how to take tricks, and how that depends on the layouts of the hidden hands, you will start to notice how those hands are. If you think clearly about setting up long cards in a suit, you will notice “there were 5 spades missing immediately. Both followed to two rounds so there is only one remaining, then my low spades will be good”. As you become aware of more techniques for taking tricks, you will notice when they might apply: “LHO preempted 3 diamonds; it’s unlikely he has 4 cards in either major, but if RHO is the only one who can guard both majors he will be squeezed; after losing one diamond trick I can unblock dummy’s hearts and run my clubs; if the small heart in my hand isn’t good I will try the spades which likely will be.” The more you understand about which cards matter, the better you will be able to notice what’s going on with those cards.

4. I believe the needed skill is more than just remembering the cards, it is remembering the cards *in a format which lets you reason about what to do*. If you are using all your brainpower to create a picture if the hand, you won’t be able to make good decisions.

My conclusion is that the typical model for learning to count has reversed cause and effect
- learn to remember the cards so that you can play better isn’t really practical
- but if you learn more about play, you will remember the cards (which in turn will help you to play better)

I am not saying that it is not important to be able to count a hand - I think it is absolutely necessary to playing well. I just think the way out brains work, it is unlikely that direct efforts to learn to count will actually succeed. After all, every bridge teacher says to learn to count but few students actually learn it.

I don’t mean to be negative, I am just proposing a different approach. By analogy, I would say if you want to be able to remember what was said in a lecture given in Latin, start by becoming fluent in Latin. Then you will remember sentences and paragraphs that mean something to you; if you just try to remember sounds or words, it’s impossible to remember very much.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that it is an awkward hand to explore slam. While I judge that you could just sign off, I understand the desire to explore, and I understand why someone might judge to just keycard because there isn’t a good way to explore.

Nevertheless I think it’s a big gap not to have included any other exploration towards slam as an option; keycard should usually be the last choice for “exploring” slam with questionable values, but sometimes nothing else works.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I aim to signal without thinking and often fail. Sometimes I fail by thinking, sometimes by playing the wrong card.

Probably my most common “wrong card” is eg a 7 intended as high from 972 because I am not sure without thinking that I can afford the 9, when in retrospect it is obvious. I also will sometimes give eg the 4 from 642 even if it is clear that I can afford the 6. The “correct” signal might be high, but I may not have worked out whether that signal will help partner or declarer more, so I try the 4 to buy myself a trick to decide what to do.

And these are just the cases where the “correct signal” (eg, count from 3 cards) is clear. SP and attitude, or deciphering what the meaning of the signal is in any given situation, make it harder.

But as badly as things go when I make these errors, I would prefer to err than to think over signals in the wrong situations. But imo sometimes it seems ok to think: for example I am pitching, first I have to think what are the cards I can afford to pitch, and I may have just learned how the suit is breaking and how many discards I need to make… I do think I am allowed to process this and think about what possible distributions declarer might have and what suit I can afford to abandon for example.

Now here I am, far from expert, trying to figure out if this is a situation where it is ok to think of not, and I get that wrong too, or just get lost in trying to work out the hand and play slowly when it’s not even about this trick at all.

Some believe that it is only ok to think about bridge problems that are directly related to taking tricks; others believe it is ok to think about signals too, but if I think too long I give my partner UI. So maybe I am risking giving my partner UI, or maybe even worse I am risking coffeehousing opponents, but maybe Michael and Kit have different views on whether it is only the first or both.

This is really hard. I try hard and fail quite often.

None of this rant is meant to excuse my errors, or give up. I agree with the OP that this is a problem. I think it will be very hard to solve. I think more rulings against the tempo-breaking side, particularly in high level events, would help.

I will redouble my efforts to not think about signals. Hopefully I will fail less often. Thank you.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO the most important lessons may be embedded in the way the answers are structured

1. That there choices besides driving to slam given enough controls (which is what 4N is) and signing off.

2. That you can’t really “sign off” in 5S opposite a partner who has shown a minimum and holds 3 keycards; they should bid slam.

IMO these are important structural issues about how slam bidding ought to work.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No partner should bid on.

Your only way to sign off (it say a substitute player started the auction for you and you have returned from the restroom to discover they have a much wider view of a minimum than you and your partner) is to ask for the Q, and hope partner didn’t have something like J98xxx, KQJ, QJ, QT, and decide that they will show the Q.
May 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 122 123 124 125
.

Bottom Home Top