Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Bodell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 146 147 148 149
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, right, the ranking is likely making KO seem more accurate than they really are in David's simulation because he's assuming a perfectly seeded KO tournament. In reality, the seeding is likely to be better than random but quite a bit worse than perfect. Therefore, when RR shows better outcomes than KO even with the assumption of perfect seeding, you know in reality the gap is likely even greater.

I think you can model strength of teams in different levels of complexity, but the root point is going to remain that KO has some advantages of a format, but an accurate ranking of teams - even the #1 team, let alone teams 5-20 or whatever - is not going to be its strength.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. But if A plays, with different people, not just x but sometimes x and sometimes y and so on for z and a and b and c. When you forget x, it doesn't help to say a is easier than x, sometimes you just don't remember which easy thing you play.

Neither 1430 nor 3014 is intrinsically easier to play. There are some players more used to one or the other that will find it easier to play.

It is mostly the fault of the person who forgot. But if you are blaming conventions, then if the person remembered kickback but got the key card count wrong switching 3014 versus 1430, that might be something you could partially blame on 3014, but here they didn't recognize kickback, so that is more to blame.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think KO versus RR versus BAM is the question for having the highest likelihood of the best team winning as much as number of days (number of boards).

The 7 days versus 3 days gives you much more time. But for instance you could still do a full BAM event (which is sort of like the RR that David mentions) that does ever-decreasing cuts of the teams, where each cut cuts 25-40% or so of the field and if you have 7 days for the 48 teams that were in the Reisinger this year do:

48 -> 30 day 1
30 -> 20 day 2
20 -> 12 day 3
12 -> 8 day 4
8 -> 6 day 5
6 -> 4 day 6
4 -> 1 day 7

The carry over each day could be increasing as the field size gets smaller (probably roughly proportional to the number of boards you play against each team).

This gives many, many, many more boards of play and skill for the teams to establish themselves and do well without any drastic cuts or problems with the bracket impacting the outcome.

In the 3 day event where we went from 48->20 on the first day, some teams people likely think should have been in the top 10 and competitors for top didn't Q. By having the smoother cuts you would have much less chance of that and much larger opportunities for the top teams to triumph.

On the other hand, the event would take 7 days, and there are benefits to being able to start and finish the event in just 3 days. Plus some would argue that a bit of luck with the skill makes events better as more people have a chance (or think they have a chance).
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, it is pretty common to claim and then ask the opponents about their holding to find out if the board will be good versus alternative contracts or lines.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did notice in San Diego there was more prominence given to computers where you could file a recorder player memo then I'd seen in past NABC, which I think is a good thing. I didn't use them, so don't know how well they worked in practice.

I did have someone revoke against me in the first session of the Reisinger, and we only realized it after the round had ended with the cards returned and the opponents had gotten up (my partner, who was dummy, noticed earlier).

But the opponents came back to the table, we reconstructed the play, and they were completely honest and honorable admitting the revoke, so the opposite kind of story as what the OP experienced.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
psycho-suction or inverted psycho-suction works well. I use this primarily over the mini and weak nt, but could be used over the strong NT too.

When you want a business XX (generally UPH acting):
XX - business
2 - or +, non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - or +, non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - or +, non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - or +, non-forcing pass/correct followups
2NT - two non-touching suits

When you don't want a business XX (generally the 1NT bidder when they run, and if the partner is a PH - maybe you also want the partner of a strong NT bidder if you don't want the business XX in play):
XX - or or + or +, partner bids 2 (unless they have their own single suit to show) and this is pass/corrected to the minor with the single suited minor, or pass/corrected to the major with the non-touching major minor 2 suiter.
2 - + or , non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - + or , non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - + (or - but probably not since you had XX available), non-forcing pass/correct followups
2 - + (or - but probably not since you had XX available), non-forcing pass/correct followups

It sounds a little confusing at first in the explanation, but it is actually extremely easy to use and play in practice. The version where XX is non-business nearly always gets you out at the two level in a good fit and puts a lot of pressure on the opponents to know if they are X you in your suit or not. In theory you can get the non-forcing continuations wrong and play in a non-fit when the bid is passed out, but when this happens you are not doubled and nearly always coming out ahead anyways.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note, at most movie theater there are 20 minutes of previews, so late at the movies is fine too.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was discussed last year, but as a 10k eligible player, I'll say I think it is much better for the fast pairs to be Wednesday-Thursday as many want to play a three day event Friday-Sunday, and if you fail to Q day 1 of Blue (or miniblue) you have two days with only regional events currently (unless you are willing to miss the final 3-day events). The fast pairs would be ideal for Wednesday-Thursday. So put me as a very strong +1 of Eric's comment. I know many 10k eligible players who feel similar.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a bit of a disaster in the compact Ko Monday afternoon. Attempt to do brackets by computer and projections, but projector went out and possibly other problems and the event was nearly 45 minutes late starting. The nice thing was the acbl or organizers recognized the inconvenience by giving out $8/person discounts, so basically half off for the session as compensation. A good recovery, but interesting given all the past technology discussions.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Compairing people across fields is the only way I think. Bot-bot might be artificially high if part of the problem is weird bidding inferences that will not be on same page with humans, but will with self.
Nov. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think flipping 3 and 3nt makes the most sense and I've done this before. But I don't think it is that important and I wouldn't expect it to be a default undiscussed treatment (which is why I voted for the 3 any strength cue). I think there are far more important things to discuss like what is 3 in:

1-2
3-3

(especially if you were flipping 3nt and this some of the time)

or what more precisely makes a hand want to use non-serious versus cue versus jump to game.

Or many, many other things.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And note that I think the bigger “bridge problem” isn't “how should you play AQ8x opposite K7xxx to take 5 tricks” where the unblocking is quite clear, but more “do you even notice that you hold AQ8x opposite K7xxx or do you think it is AQxx opposite Kxxxx”. It is impossible for me to block this suit *if I notice the spots*. It is not impossible for me to block this suit *if through being careless I don't notice the spots*.

So the OP question becomes does a declarer who doesn't state a line of play mentioning the spots originally, doesn't state a line of play mentioning the spots when given further chances to clarify the situation, doesn't correctly consider the case of a possible 4-0 split in this suit indicating some blind spot related to this suit, does a declarer with all those caveats be given credit to have noticed that this suit isn't AQxx opposite Kxxxx but rather something that requires care and attention applied to the often unimportant 7 and 8.

Again, the question is more “do you notice there is a problem” than “do you know how to solve this problem, given you noticed there was a problem”.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you play drury? And if so, do you play a style that lets partner bid it fairly aggressively to keep invites low?

If yes to both (my preferred style), then only inviting with the presumably natural 3 seems very reasonable, and 4 seems too pushy to me. If no drury where the 2 is more wide ranging including more stronger hands now the 4 call seems more attractive, although 3 still might be better.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with 7 with shortness. With the Q do you bid 7 or 6nt. What does 6nt show here? Is that denying 3rd round control but demanding NT as a strain? Seems like it ought to be allowing choice between 7 and 7NT and showing the Q (which I guess could invite a different 7 level bid if even more is needed to decide between 7 and 7NT, although the more rounds of bidding offered, the more opportunities to go off the rails).
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit that I often claim online without stating a line. This is especially true if playing from a tablet or mobile phone where typing is problematic time wise, and where there is extensive time pressure on completing the round on time. Even on the computer where typing is easier my claim is often either of the form 2, 1, 3, 2 where I'm just listing the number of tricks by suit, or some simple short thing like xruff.

It is nice that the contested claim works well online in that you don't know which opponent is contesting it, and that legit claims are contested fairly frequently (including those with explanations), so the “wake up” is pretty minimal.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the restrictions to apply are the legal bids. I.e., you can't bid 0 of something, you can't bid 1 if the auction is already at 1, you can't X if your side bid last, etc. Once you have those legal restrictions in play, then let the bidding evolve as it may.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One reason to be cautious of claiming less than the rest of the tricks is opponents might defend irrationally and give you the rest of the tricks. Even good players make mistakes or lose focus. I've seen people keep suits I've shown out of and other 0% irrational plays. So exercising caution here seems ok (and definitely don't defensively claim stating what partner will keep).

When you have all the remaining tricks this doesn't apply though, as you don't need the mistake.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Phil, I agree that if you have thought things through well and/or have good general principles that spot transportation is a good thing to get right. But if you are keeping 72 in the long hand on that suit you can keep either the 6 or the 3 in the short hand and it shouldn't matter (other than some spots early might conceal things for defenders better than others).

But yet Peter says for him in his sleep he'd expect to automatically play from top down the 6 before the 3 and expect everyone to do the same.

Doesn't Phil above giving a suggestion of keeping the 6 show that even for a good player making a thoughtful play the 6 before the 3 or 3 before the 6 are both possible? I.e., that there are different styles and techniques for different suit combos? Doesn't this also suggest that for someone being careless, there are different combos possible (some less successful)?
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think AQx opposite KJxxx is different than AQ8x opposite K7xxx. Because it is easier for people to just concentrate on the winning cards, and treat all the non-winning non-honors as equal x's. So AQ8x opposite K7xxx is possible to be thought of, in a confused and careless moment, as AQ22 opposite K2222 and have people just play A then Q then K always playing the lowest spot from the hand opposite. How do people play AQ63 opposite K8742? Do they always play the 6 before the 3 just in case even though it doesn't matter on this combo? My experience is no, which means having to notice the 8 and 7 and the problem. I agree most players will usually get it right, I don't think it is so obvious that 100% of people will get it right. I think a suit like AK2 opposite QJT98765 is close enough to 100% to get credit, the AQ8x opposite K7xxx, not so much.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems pretty easy for me. Is blocking this suit a mistake that I'd ever make? Unfortunately, yes, when careless or tired I could see myself occasionally making this mistake. So while I'd want to be friendly to claims and try to speed something up, failing to mention the unblock, especially when given much time or when there are other even more obvious stuff like 4-0 that were missed, I don't think I could give the person credit that they will 100% always unblock.

To take it to an extreme: Would you really bet your life that this person would have unblocked if playing it out?
Nov. 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 146 147 148 149
.

Bottom Home Top