Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 334 335 336 337
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian: When does it make a difference whether you cash a high club or not?
56 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's long been Standard that a balancing double can be lighter than a direct seat double. My notes say, and have always said ‘a king light’.
A non-balancing TO double, in Standard, suggests at least minimum opening values. If minimum, it should contain 3(+)-card support for any unbid suit. You might ‘fudge’ with a doubleton in an unbid minor.
A balancing double is more likely to have the ‘wrong’ shape with some extra values. It makes good sense to ‘risk’ a direct seat 1-level overcall with some ‘too good’ hands. But after responder has passed, an overcall has a clearly lower upper limit - so double is often foisted on you.
Not every hand that qualifies is compelled to double. So, yes, having 4-card in unbid major(s) is ‘better’. Also, the decision is sometimes affected by vulnerability.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron G: “There is no double squeeze unless South guards diamonds and North guards hearts.”

That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't really say enough. This would be the end position.

Dummy: x, Q, KQx, —
Declarer: Axx, —, x, x
LHO: KQ, —, J9x, —
RHO: Jxx, K, x, —

Declarer leads the last trump, and South pitches a spade. Now declarer must read it and pitch a low diamond from dummy - giving up on the chance of 3-3 diamonds.

* * * * *

On the heart lead, I think what you may be saying is that if declarer is not going to ruff hearts they may as well finesse Q at trick one? If so, I think those lines are pretty close. Finessing gains when leader has the K and 2 or fewer diamonds - about 16%. A gains when K is wrong and diamonds are 3-3 - about 18%.
But the percentage play on the hand seems to be A, ruff , to dummy, ruff high (unless obviously fatal), and then hope for 3-3 or a squeeze (or, if you like your card reading skills play for the non-simultaneous double squeeze). I estimate the non-reading line as more than 60% - so, discounting any psychological aspect, clearly better than finessing at trick one.

Edited in an attempt to make the end position more ‘readable’.
2 hours ago
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment 49 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe that, double-dummy, EW make 10 tricks in any strain? I haven't really analyzed it but, at a glance, that didn't seem impossible to me. But I guess, even if true, that doesn't seem especially ‘symmetrical’.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My idea is not that they fail to win. My idea is that they do not compete at all.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AK10xx opposite Q9xx is (or, at least, was) called a ‘sure trick play’.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: “Where are they going to draw the line for tolerating disobeying the event rules?”

The line will be ‘drawn’ where the COC of that event and the Laws of the organizing body say it is. I think I already read some COC or Law that said suspension/expulsion was possible for the type of action I would make. I doubt if you'll find any COC or Law that suggests suspension/expulsion for a revoke. In any case, I think that's a silly analogy.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “Refusing to play in an event will only disqualify you from that event. You would not be expelled otherwise unless you do some extra.”

I am not talking about “refusing to play in an event” (whatever that means). I am talking about sitting at the table and refusing for that round) to make a call. I believe someone on some thread already posted a law or COC that this could lead to suspension/expulsion for the player doing it. I'm not going to research it.

I think walking away from the table could possibly lead to the same result.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “You can argue that this hypocrisy does not matter……..but it does exist”

What I would argue is that stating an incorrect and unreasonable opinion over and over again, as if it were a fact, does not actually make it a fact.

“ I think boycotting the whole event shows a higher standard than boycotting certain opponents (which is a smaller sacrifice).”

Arguable. When you boycott one event, you miss one event. When you do as Roy/Sabine/Kit/I propose there is a possibility you could be suspended from ALL the events of the organizer - or even expelled from the organisation.

“There is no need to guess my motivation. I am nobody in the bridge world and do not know S/R. I just have an adverse view on what they did.”

Based on all your comments, it doesn't look like a guess. One can have a ‘personal’ antipathy without actually knowing somebody. The last two US Presidents are prime examples.
(Note to Bridgewinner's management: If this comment gets ‘flagged’, please remove the prior sentence - and this one.)

Giles: Sorry.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix S: “What is the definition of hypocrisy? Isn't it saying (A) and doing (B)?”

No. That's not close to a good “definition”. Only if (A) and (B) are diametrically opposed. Not as here, where (A) and (B) are different approaches to a problem, where both approaches have the same ultimate goal.

A good example of hypocrisy is claiming to have certain moral standards, then acting in your personal life in a way that conflicts with your professed position.

Another good example of hypocrisy is when you attack your enemies/opponents for doing (A) then defend/support your friends/affiliates for doing the same thing.

Another good example of hypocrisy is when you attack some person(s) pretending that it's on general moral grounds - when the truth is you have a personal animus against the person(s).
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David C: First, you have the minors switched. Second, it would be ‘normal’ to bid 2 over 2.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale: “Everybody else is happy to bid like it's 1955 after the opponents make a non-space-consuming 1 level overcall.”

Perhaps that's at least partly because his partner might be about to make a bid that actually IS space-consuming - so you mght want to bid 2 on some pretty light hands
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: “M.R when/if has to play vs cheaters will refuse to play vs cheaters and get kicked from event..”

You don't know that's what will happen. Nobody does - since this is ‘new’. My belief is that, if enough people do it, it might well provoke a change in the minds of tournament organizers.

If we merely withdraw, the event will continue - only slightly disrupted. With no ‘spectacle’ during play.

Let's say it's 200 pairs and 13 rounds. For withdrawals to wreck the event, it might need 100 pairs to withdraw. But I think it probably only takes 3 or 4 pairs to sit and not play to disrupt the event and make it the subject of ridicule. And, when the relevant pairs see what's being done, maybe they will too. If it's 8 or 9 pairs, so much the better!

I'm not saying I'm ‘right’ here. Or that you're wrong. This is just my idea of the ‘civil disobedience’ action I want to take - it feels ‘right’ TO ME.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're always going to cover with the ten with Kx and KJx, you're making a case for going up with the ace if North plays low.
Thus, with KJx there is a good case for playing low - even if you discount the possibility that partner is void (unlikely on the OP auction, but not impossible - AQxx, AQ, Ax, 10xxxx. Some would certainly open 1N).
Covering with KJx may force declarer, with 10x(x) to use an entry to repeat the finesse. But you're probably not defeating those hands anyway.

Conclusion: Don't cover with KJx.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: First, yes - setting him two. That's not an insignificant gain - 3 imps.

But, even without that, how does South ever ‘show’ A or KQ? Why can't South's discards be deceptive? Alternatively, if you're saying that N-S discards are always totally honest, that means declarer, on the actual hand, will have a far better chance of succeeding.
Defending the OP hand has a poker element. Once ‘poker’ is accepted, it's difficult for the defense to communicate anything in absolute terms.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mine M: If declarer's only legitimate chance for the 9th trick is the Q, isn't he close to 100% to finesse the queen - whether or not you bare the K? If so, it doesn't seem so important that North not bare the king.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why can't he double bluff and pretend to have bared the K? There are no absolutes here.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On December 20, 2018, on the thread:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lanzarotti-readmitted-to-acbl/?cj=744701#c744701

I wrote this comment:

“When you prank someone, I think you're either a bully or having fun with a friend - I'm not in either of those categories. So I really don't like any of the snide comments/pranking ideas.

I don't know yet what I will do. I want to discuss with others. I think we should present a unified front.
My first instinct is to sit there and say nothing and do nothing. No words of greeting. No bridge calls. When the Director inevitably appears and asks me what I am doing, I say ‘I’m treating this round as a sit-out'. If this gets me thrown out of the event, so be it.”

I did write a (much longer) message to “others” - a ‘panel of experts’ that I am on. But, at the time, I didn't get much support for this particular idea (an idea which I believe is similar to Kit's suggestion).

I still don't know what is ‘best’. I support Roy and Sabine. I support those who boycott (though I'm inclined to think the Roy/Sabine/Kit/me idea will be more effective.
But the one thing I feel sure of is that we will do ‘better’ with a unified front.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim F: Adam said that it's not clear to him that striving for fairness is always desirable. That, combined with his using the word you quote - “perceived” demonstrates, at least to me, that Adam is biased - and thinking the wrong way about this.

A remedy for unfairness might not be good. Or it might be worse than the situation it's trying to remedy. But the search for a better/the best remedy is, in my opinion, clearly desirable.

I believe my remedy is clearly more equitable than the current Law(s). And I would not be surprised if things turned out, overall to be ‘simpler’. Certainly, the Law book would be shorter and simpler.

Thanks for the correction of the typo. I have edited.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about expulsion from the ACBL for anyone who revokes more than once? That would be “simple”. And would weed out all those pesky revokers.

If you're not going to think about fairness when making laws, I hope you (generic) have nothing to do with making laws in our great game.

Edited to add the word “to” to the last sentence.
May 7
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment May 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 334 335 336 337
.

Bottom Home Top