Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, I think you’ve identified a flaw in the wording of the laws rather than a convincing basis for resolving the question (but in any case reminded me of the limitations of textualism as a method of statutory interpretation). If the drafters really intended to exclude knowledge of tendencies from disclosure, surely they would not have hidden this exclusion so cleverly that it takes several careful rereadings to find it? Nor included the words “… or partnership experience” in 40.B.5(a) without further qualification?

It seems to me much more likely that we’re looking at an unintended interaction between the placement of the requirement that partnership agreements be symmetrical and the disclosure requirement than an intended exclusion of individual tendencies from disclosure.

Of course, and as the other discussion in this thread shows, there are issues about how and when this information is disclosed.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That will be very much influenced by partner's first-seat and fourth-seat tendencies.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Asking not arguing here, but how are you going to feel if the auction continues 3H by your LHO and 4H by RHO?
And what will you do over 4H?
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In unsophisticated club games I have often encountered opponents who play the devastatingly effective Hesitation Defense against our weak NT.

The most effective counter that I've found is to politely ask “Do we all agree that there was a break in tempo here?” at the time of the hesitation.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> The poor pair who's only crime was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time lost a punitive 11 imps.

That seems somewhat inherent in the pairs format, does it not? The problem is that there are “right places” and “wrong places” and these are assigned by chance. Not only do I not see how tweaking the scoring can eliminate this random seating effect, but I will offer a conjecture:
Any pairs scoring method that does not weight all boards equally will have larger variance due to seating effects than straight matchpoints. (The proof is straightforward but unfortunately does not fit in the margin of this post).
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>Have you ever sat down…
BTDT, often
>Fewer than 10% want to improve their game. Right around 90% want advice on how to win the most pigmented Masterpoints in the shortest amount of time

And they are remarkably reluctant to consider the proposition that improving their game is an effective way of winning pigmented master points :(
The exceptions make it worth the effort, but they are exceptions.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> 1 huge KO and a bunch of consolation events for those that don't cut it…
How about one huge multi-day stratified Swiss event? Multi-day would allow 24 or 36 boards per round which greatly reduces the randomness, and the Swiss format keeps everyone engaged throughout.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find that one of the more effective indicators is how quickly and confidently a player claims/concedes once the outcome is clear. Weak players will often play out a hand even after there is no doubt about the outcome.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A spade stop is overrated here, as LHO doubled instead of overcalling and RHO couldn’t scrape up a 1S call after the double.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did Socrates not say “The uncaffeinated life is not worth living”? Maybe I’m misremembering the exact quote, but I’m sure I have it pretty close.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking about the choice between 4C and 3H, not 3H and 2H. 4C pretty much guarantees that game won't be missed :) and I'm not sure it will lead to a minus much more often than 3H.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably responder will bid 4H over 3H with Kxxx of hearts and the club king or diamond ace (so we want to be in game, taking ten tricks when the hearts are 3-2 and no defensive ruff)? But then responder is going to make the same raise with Kxxx of hearts and the spade ace or other spade values - and the opponent's silence suggests that partner has some of these.

So I'm not sure how effective 3H will be at keeping us out of game when we don't want to be there, yet getting us there when it's right.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quackiness is less of a defect in NT play than in suit play. That's an argument for leaning towards NT when pass is not an an alternative and you're worried about quackiness.

(A choice between opening or not is a different matter - quackiness is a never a good thing).
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I’m understanding Sathya’s previous post properly, that gaggle of quacks wasn’t responder’s hand, but intended as an example of why bidding 4S directly over 2S would be ill-advised using this partnership’s methods. But yes, if that were responder’s hand it’s a pretty clear sign off.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's something a bit odd about how this poll has played out. The question being polled is what to do over 3H; that's gotten an unsurprising 96% vote for game in spades with no discussion (all the discussion has been about responder's single raise).

So I'm curious: Sathya, is there more going on here than meets the eye? What was north trying to show/accomplish with the counter game try? 4S is right under my nose, but was jumping to it a bit lazy? (This last is a question that might not occur to me except in a BAM problem)
May 24
Eric Hamilton edited this comment May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the sort of deal that makes playing with a resulter so unpleasant.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ace lead asks for an attitude signal, but after dummy comes down with the QJxx east cannot have an encouraging holding. In situations like this, where the attitude is now known, does it not make sense to assign some other meaning to east's card?
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was the void (hypothetically) signaled before or after I bid 3H?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a club duplicate…. If partner is expecting me to play to win this match, pass is the odds-on call. That didn't stop me from bidding 6N.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Not to mention that, if it costs bridge players anything at all to get their CC copied they will make sure to bring them henceforth.

Not only have you accurately assessed the general stinginess of the average club player, but you may also have exposed the ulterior motive behind the original post.
April 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top