Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35 36 37 38
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems the 3 bidders disagree? At the table I was scared to bid 3 because I also thought it would be asking and that partner would bypass 3NT when that was right spot, but I wasn't sure what the alternative was.

At the table I chose X thinking it showed tolerance to defend, but was not purely penalty (not a bid I think is good or want to defend with so much club support).
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, you are S.
March 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, only $.95 for seniors (or so says the 85 year old man who sat next to me on train)
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well, if there was room for everyone to park for $5 it probably would be a much less interesting place to visit . . . the premium should be much higher imo to park downtown in a major metropolitan area
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At our table E declared 3nt on a club lead (with no interference). After N won and shifted to a spade, S is marked with six clubs. E unblocked spades, crossed to hand in hearts, played the spade jack and won the spade return. Now on the run of hearts S has to bare either the diamond K or club A, allowing declarer to exit in that suit and score the other minor suit queen. I thought this was a neat ending.
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 3NT is right. At the table my initial thought was 3NT, but I talked myself into doubling on the thin chance we had a slam, which didn't work well (and bridgewinners seems to agree I was wearing rose-colored glasses).

If the auction continues X-4d/4h is 4nt natural? That seems reasonable to me, but our partnership had not discussed (which is another reason not to X).
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a strongish club game (so definitely not an expert field, but most of the field reasonably competent)
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table I bid 4 and partner continued 5, all pass. We got a zero when the rest of the field was making seven in various heart contracts and we only made five on marked diamond lead.

Just a sanity checked to see if anyone was eschewing science on this one.
Feb. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were always planning to take a line I don't think I'd try to get a score adjustment (maybe file a recorder if it were blatant), but playing low towards dummy and then deciding what to do based on what both LHO and RHO do seems reasonable (maybe RHO isnt prepared to underlead his second honor in tempo if he has not been thinking about the hand enough).
Feb. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm happy to see the ACBL listened to the feedback from some of the players who actually participated in this event and lengthened the time you had to complete the boards. To make things even better and address some of the concerns in this thread (although undoubtedly people will find new things to whine about) I think it would be nice if each set of 24 boards could be played 8 at a time throughout the day (with a shorter time limit).

That said, I am not convinced increasing the time really increases the chances of unscrupulous behaviors all that much.
Feb. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So people play xx is to play and demands a pass and passing is just a suggestion to play 5dx and everything else is as if they didn't interfere?

At the table N redoubled, but unsure if we were on same page I pulled as S. Both 5d and 5s are down
Feb. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 shows 1 or 4 spade key cards, not diamond key cards
Feb. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe he doesn't want N to get a chance to make his next call (which surely isn't passing out 2ntx)?
Feb. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, I do not know. At the table there was a BIT by north over 2, which is reason for poll.
Jan. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems you are not convinced “Mr. Sharp” made an honest mistake, so regardless of the ruling it seems like this is worth filing a recorder form (or whatever the equivalent is in your jurisdiction). One hand doesn't really mean anything, but if he really is being “sharp” here it probably isn't the first (or last) time something like this has happened.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh, I don't like, but that's fine. To me there is a big difference between optimizing the bidding when opponents do not bid because they likely wouldn't bid and when they don't bid because the model enforces it. How much this affects results I don't know, but I know in real life if I knew opps would never bid I would probably change my approach quite a bit.
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there are eight outstanding hearts and opponents are silent the odds of say an 8-0 split go down or maybe I'm missing something about their approach?
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but if your assumption is that opponents don't compete, but the way you evaluate your results is inconsistent with that assumption how meaningful are the results? I thought the paper was interesting, but to my untrained eye did not seem to have much substance in terms of advancing the field
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may be captured by what you said, but my cursory reading is that they evaluated performance by randomly dealing opponents cards (more than once) and then doing double dummy analysis, which doesn't necessarily seem consistent with assumption that bidding is not competitive.

It also seems that the development of the bidding was “Markovian” and considered only the current state and not how they got there: “listing the cost of all available outputs, only with the state as input”. It is unclear to me what information is included in current state. One argument I have heard against the success of bridge AI is that in bridge how you got to a state contains important information on what you should do next (which is not the case in games of complete information)
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So this guy is accused by the ACBL of sexual harassment and the ACBL's response is to sign a five year contract with him to run bridge cruises (but he has to leave the board of directors). A few months later the ACBL decides it wants to break this contract and this guy is fine with that, but a year later the ACBL allegedly defames him leading him to sue. The ACBL wants arbitration, this guy doesn't and there is a court case. This guy won the court case and is now free to sue the ACBL.

Is this an accurate cliff notes?

Also, what is the disadvantage to this guy and others of arbitration? Presumably the ACBL prefers it because it saves money?

Edited to add: Personally I am more interested in learning why the ACBL if it believed he was guilty of sexual harassment chose to enter a contract AFTERWARDS with this guy to work on cruise ships (and to some degree be the face of the ACBL?)
Oct. 21, 2017
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Oct. 21, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35 36 37 38
.

Bottom Home Top