Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not actually recommending my line :)
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Fwiw that seems reasonable to me.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No argument with your correct line, I was just trying to come up with a plausible losing line.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,
What I am suggesting intuitively, which may or may not be legal, is that if the NOS to has a mind loss (“demons”) subsequent to the offense then there is a split score, NOS keeps the table result as we are all responsible for keeping sane but the offending side is awarded an artifical score of average.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael unless there is a 14th club (two deuces in the deck?) that holding isn't possible.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I may not be able to tell the experts on this site how to make a hard contract but I am pretty good at going down in cold contracts. This one isn't even that hard, if you block the trumps you can lose control of you aren't careful:

Hook a diamond, A, ruff a diamond small and find them not breaking. Now play the T because it kinda feels like you are finessing through the likely trump honors on your left. T->H->K->out. Low club to the A, cash the other 2 aces, ruff a major suit spot to the board. Now not wanting to lose a trick to a low trump, another club; on winning the club LHO continues a major suit, ruffed in dummy but now dummy is down to one trump with a diamond still to knock out and a defensive trump still out.

Rohit how did I do? I assume someone went down if you are asking, did I get the line that went down correct?

Edited for clarity
22 hours ago
Max Schireson edited this comment 21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
First of all I deserve no credit for the phrase, it was Hendrik's upthread, though I do like it.
Without knowing the rules about when a split score should be awarded, I find it intuitively reasonable that the offending side might get an average and the offending side the table result in this case.
For me given the other fact that declarer would have bid in the other auction I see this similar to a player turning their hand over as dummy after an irregularity and director call; the fact of the offense created the confusion and thus influenced the outcome, but the content of the offense had no effect. If I were the offending side in that situation and the director took my top away I would have no problem with that, having done nothing other than creating confusion through an infraction to earn it, and as the NOS I would not expect an adjustment for my mind loss (though it might take a while to recover my mind and reach that view).
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point about ruffing the *small* diamonds Robert, you wouldn't want to waste two beers for no reason.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff: to quote from Hank's post below:
“he admitted that if faced with other auctions he would bid game (including BTW 1H (1N) 2H)”
This seems to refer to the questions the directors asked your teammate regarding his decision to pass 3H.

I don't expect anyone to change their mind at this point, but I wanted you to understand what was asked as the directors were coming to their conclusion.

I agree with Hendrik that the MI probably conjured the demons in his head that led to the pass, I just don't find that type of causal link direct enough to provide relief.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Brian.

For sure the MM means much less to me that the BR finish.

Debbie is great. For sure worth the bashing here :)

– Max
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, let me explain why I believe the other auction is so relevant.

The directors said they asked your teammate what he would have bid if the auction had gone 1H (1N) 2H. He said 4H.

Think about that for a minute. The same high cards are sitting over your partner. His partner had strong bids available and chose to make a bid which was merely competitive and not invitational. It looks very very similar to the situation your teammate was actually in, if he took the “15-17” to be correct. I found this a bit jarring and it got me thinking.

The biggest difference between the two situations is that in the hypothetical posed by the director your teammate had the option to invite available. Presumably your teammate had multiple bids available to make a game try, having agreed a major at the 2 level with no further interference. Yet your teammate felt that it was so clear that game was right they should just bid it, rather than making any of a number of descriptive game tries.

If it is so clear to your teammate to bid game there, why would they not bid it in an almost identical situation? Yes, the hands that their partner might have in the hypothetical are slightly different in the actual auction (call this set A). Now think about the hands with which responder would have passed if it started say
1H (1N) 2H (P) 3H
Call this set B.

Since opener had the option to invite and didn't take it, he must prefer game to 3H for those hands where responder would pass 3H (set B). Those hands to me seem clearly worse on average than the set of hands with which responder bid 3H by responder in the actual auction (set A).

If not LHO's hand (the same in both cases) or responders hand (better in real life/set A than in the hypothetical set B), there is no actual bridge reason for opener not to bid game in the actual auction since he would in the hypothetical.

I am then forced to conclude that opener's decision to pass is not a rational bridge decision based on the data he has, but must be something else. The two logical possibilities I could identify are a) he just got confused (definitely happens to me plenty) or b) he thought there was no point in bidding 4H because he would get an adjustment if there was MI.

I don't believe either of these, if true, would merit an adjustment.

Hopefully that chain of logic, while long, makes sense. Feel free to ask me clarify any step that is unclear.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin,

My view is somewhat in between but I wanted to get your opinion on a few questions about polling that may be contributing to the disconnect.

In this type of situation where there is decision that works out poorly subsequent to an infraction, and intuition says that the infraction makes it harder, do you feel comfortable that polling 5 players enables you to determine that something is a clear error?

Something might be an action chosen by 20% and still about a third of the time none will choose it, so it is nearly a coin toss whether a 20% action will poll as an error. Personally I think if you take a 20% action after an infraction it might be an error but not so serious that you should lose protection.
Ignoring the practical constrainsts, and assuming the players polled after peers, what is your view on how unusual an action needs to be to forfeit protection? 10%? 5%? 1%?

If you think that a 20% action is normal enough to still deserve protection, then it seems you would need to poll more players. If that is not practical then perhaps something like Michael's approach could help.

I believe I am familiar with how you poll for logical alternatives, and you seem to be looking at the inverse of that here, but I wonder if perhaps a higher standard of unusual might be warranted to better protect the NOS? By definition 10% and 20% actions are taken reasonably often but may poll as errors and result in no protection; does that seem fair to you? What if anything to the laws say about how this should be judged?
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I needed more poll answers. You need to decide when you start the suit which stiff quack you want to be able to pick up. Please regard the answers this way, I will clarify
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
Are you saying re my hypothetical that unless you felt opener would table his hand as dummy absent the commotion you would adjust? How would you then rule?

Back to the real situation… how do you square opener saying he would have bid 4H over 1H (1N) 2H with passing 3H? Given that sequence, I find it hard to find a link between the infraction and the pass, other than the infraction causing opener to get confused and pass. After all in the 1N action the same high cards are sitting over you, partner isnlimited in the samw way, and this time an invite is available so it seems game is the clear choice for that exact player given the same bridge facts he cited to justify his pass???

Do you feel that both the hypothetical and the actual situation are equally “caused by” the irregularity? If you see a difference, what is it?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Understand you might have been embarrassed, I just think it's never right to be give your opponents artitude. Sorry if I was harsh.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I strongly disagree that making them cringe is better than calling the director. I think it is much worse.

It is not your job to make them cringe.

If they don't know what they did was wrong they need it explained. If they knew they need discipline. Calling the director can help in either case. Making them cringe is awful if they didn't know better and unhelpful if they did.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Either call the director (which doesn't make you a crybaby) or find a way to move past the issue without being rude to your opponents.
Tough love, meant to be helpful: not calling the director, being rude to your opponents, and posting to complain about the ehole actually looks much more like a crybaby than just calling at the time.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the tech world over 20+ years I became pretty competent.

At bridge I am starting again from the beginning.

I was reminded today of how far I have to go at bridge:
- twice when 3N seemed possible (I will admit it seemed like a stretch both times, but who wants to miss a vulnerable game? Ok, they were awful bids) I lost lots of imps on lots of undertricks
- I misbid a hand that should have been in game then misplayed it, so I would have lost even more if I bid properly
- We had a contract beaten and I didn't cash out
- I didn't want to defend a perfectly normal 1NT with nobody vul so we went down 2 in partscore when we might have had a small plus

That's about 35 imps in 35 boards, and I am sure there was more.

I think I did defend one hand pretty well, and I played one pretty well (both partscores) but with at least 6 really bad mistakes to 2 pretty good boards I probably cost my team more than 20 imps net.

My prior success may give me the fiancial ability to hire a great teacher and the time to play a few times a week, but for purposes of this site I am just a mediocre bridge player trying to get better who like to write about it. Someday maybe the ratio will be reversed and I will feel like I had at least half a dozen pretty good boards and only a few awful ones and gained my team 20 imps. Then I'll be a pretty good bridge player trying to get better who will probably still like to wrote about it.

If my Wikipedia page ever looks like Bob Hamman's (hah, fat chance!) then I will accept being called a big machker on this site.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Nat.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of our opponents told me at the beginning of the round that they are intimidated when playing against me and Debbie due to Debbie's skill. I told them that in a few years I thought they would then be intimidated by playing against Olivia!
Jan. 15
1 2 3 4 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top