Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hand 1 - many ways to make. Phil's is fine above.

hand 2 - I don't see any reason to play trumps at all. RHO likely doesn't have 6 hearts, and is marked with 3 diamonds. So I ruff a diamond, AH, ruff a heart, cash 2 clubs ending in the dummy, and lead my 4th diamond, presumably being allowed to ruff small. (I may lose to RHO ruffing in with a stiff spade, but probably not). Now I exit with my club and claim.

hand 3 - Of course in a vacuum this is a restricted choice situation, and yes the hand is all about guessing spades. But if LHO is really a reasonably strong player with Jx spade, they would almost certainly return a club after winning the QD, especially after having thought about it. They would know this would likely give me lots of problems even if I do have the TS (whereas if I do have that card, returning the JS would just allow me to instantly claim). I play for spades 3-3.

It's worth adding that the safety play in diamonds sort of destroyed our communication. It may not affect our ability to make 4 exactly, but I think I prefer just ducking a diamond right away at trick 3 once RHO doesnt play an honor. They may even have the QJ
May 16, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The frequency of the gain is much lower though, since they'll probably be running to 3m whether or not you double. Playing negative doubles, you usually can pass and then double 3m to show a trap
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should Kit really be given access to the hands in advance?
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well I disagree with that suggestion.

I mean mainly I disagree with your claim: “The premise of this event is that it's right to select a national team on the basis of performance over ten days, rather than over several years”, or at least with the phrasing.

I don't think anyone is over the moon with the idea that one event selects the team, as we all know there is randomness, etc. But for the 2 reasons I said above, we do run an event to select the team. Still, I would not call it “the premise of the event”, if it leads us to say that in all cases, we should prefer small sample sizes over large ones.
May 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oh i was considering a case where I just need to not get blitzed to qualify.

But in other cases, assuming the opponents of whoever “they” are do what I mentioned, then I think the the same applies.
May 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although we may not always send the strongest team by doing so, it seems there should be some kind of event to determine who we send. This means that for the most part, who we send will be determined by a relatively short event, rather than just history. If we sent teams purely on history, then it wouldn't be long before we had not much idea who to send (also, the trials itself is a good practice event for whoever wins).

However, wherever it is reasonably possible, it seems to make sense to seed based on history rather than 2 day RR event of 6 bd matches. As I understand it, the purpose of the RR is to weed out the weaker teams - not to determine seeding among the stronger teams.

EDIT: I also just want to add that there's a big difference between the overall trials, and the RR. The trials is not nearly as random as the RR.
May 12, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment May 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not convinced it actually makes you less likely to qualify, assuming you don't start playing worse because of 1 or 2 bad boards.

If the set happens to flat, then sure, but most sets have 30 imp potential to begin with on perfect play (30 being a blitz basically in a 6 bd match). I'd certainly rather my opponents swing than just play really well.
May 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know how to answer this question…
May 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I'm saying in Dave's sample auction, where South bid 3H, and North bid 3S, that South should now bid 3NT, rather than 4S as Dave suggested
May 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
r.e. Dave's sample auction

I think 3n directly by South is reasonable. 3h may be better, but South should absolutely offer 3n over 3s.
May 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
your spades are a bit poor. How will partner know that something like Jx or even Jxx isn't exactly adequate support?
April 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if lho is 3424 as I said, you can simply take the first 12 tricks. So no, you don't need trumps 3-2
April 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like rho has 6 diamonds. I play a then k of clubs. If they split, I draw the third trump, cash aj of hearts spade to ace, pitch 2 spades on the hearts, and now play a spade pitching a diamond. Rho is likely to win this against non world class defenders, and now I'm home basically.

With trumps 41, I can make if lho is 3424. Beyond that, it seems difficult to make on best defense.

I think this hand is really interesting because even though I like my first line if trumps break, there are issues. One is obviously a world class opponents who will know to execute a crocodile coup. Another is if spades are 3-3, RHO may hold the 10 and then my line will fail. An alternative line is to play as if trumps were 4-1 (my second line), but this fails to RHO being 2263 where I'm confident I will make with my first line. Another issue is RHO being 1462, but I don't see how to reasonably make at all against this shape. That is, unless the JC is doubleton, in which case I should have started with the AQ of clubs. But this presents issues if trumps are 4-1, so I don't think it's right.

Overall, I'm sticking with my original line if trumps split, in part because it's the coolest one, but it's possible there is better available that I'm missing
April 19, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment April 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If West can double 3c and pass a double of 3s, then I think I can double the poster's claim that West is fairly good.

Just a joke btw. But in seriousness, West hand knows a 10 card minor fit exists and that ops have an 8, likely 9 card fit.
April 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
first, this all feels like a bit of a hedge. Either in sentiment you want to allow mechanical errors, or you don't. I think pretty much everyone on Earth could agree that the examples Kieran mentions should be allowed to be taken back, and I'm not sure I'd even call the former a mechanical error.

I think it's fine if you don't in general want to allow mechanical errors. In some sense I agree, and I think my chess example is somewhat similar to a card falling face up on the table out of your hand. I do think bridge is different than chess though, and I think some people really do have difficulty grabbing the correct bid, and perhaps they don't always check what they bid after it's on the table. Personally I think that in principle, I would want to allow mechanical errors to be taken back.

Lastly, one thing that always bugged me was the saying that “bridge is a game of concentration”, so therefore all errors are equal because they involve lapses in concentration. Well, I disagree:

It seems to me there should be a higher emphasis on punishing bridge-related errors, and of course, lapses in focus on bridge-related problems fall into this category. However, lapses in vision, or focus on grabbing the correct bid, are not bridge- related errors in the same sense. They will probably be punished in some situations, and I have no problem with that, but it still seems wrong to lump all these errors together under “failure to concentrate”, when in fact they seem very different to me.

Here's my analogy: An employee in an office makes a serious work related error due to a lapse in concentration and is sensibly fired. He is told that the workplace is an area where concentration is needed to do well. Another employee is one day tasked with getting coffee for the office, but messes up the order due to a lapse in concentration.

Surely in writing our rules, we should treat lapses of concentration in regard to strictly bridge-related problems as more important, just as in a workplace, lapses of concentration in regard to strictly work-related matters would be most important.
April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could wait for David to respond, but my point was in reference to his comment about games.

I was a competitive chess player for many years, and if for instance, you accidentally hit one of your pieces, or knocked it over, the “touch-move” rule didn't apply. I don't see how this is any different in theory from a mechanical error in bridge. So my point is there are similar allowances in other games, not just life.

And fwiw I think David's tennis analogy, while quite funny, is really not a good analogy which in any way reflects the rules we play bridge under.
April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So to clarify, do you think that in principle, a mechanical error should ever be allowed to be taken back?
April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a bit unclear what the complaint is. I agree 2s is an insane bid, but so what? Are you saying that overcaller was somehow signalled by advanced they didn't have a good cuebid?

Certainly, you can't ask for any kind of adjustment here, and to me this doesn't seem like anything but bad bidding.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
let's say you sit down to play with a newer player, and bid Texas without discussion, and they alert it. Presumably you wouldn't correct the explanation to “we had no agreement”.

I see this situation as similar. Even if they are a regular partnership, I doubt this specific auction was ever discussed by them.

So my point is you either correct all of these types of explanations, or none of them.
April 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it's an awkward area of bridge when explanations are wrong not so much due to agreements, as simply the explainer not being a very strong player. I doubt this pair had an agreement about this auction - the declarer simply misinterpreted a fairly standard auction and explained it as such.

My point is that, in other standard auctions, even if not particularly discussed, we seem to have no problem with the declarer explaining their partner's bid like they have an agreement, just because the auction is “standard”. If partner explains a standard auction (where you technically have no agreement) and you as dummy DO hold the hand partner explained (the standard hand), then we don't feel it's necessary to correct the explanation, saying “we have no agreement”.

Basically, it is inconsistent to only correct declarer's explanation when it is wrong, because technically in all of these sorts of cases, you have no agreement (and further, I think having to correct all such explanations, correct and incorrect, is clearly not something we'd want to start doing). Only correcting the explanations where declarer simply doesn't know standard bidding seems in the same vein to me as correcting explanations only when they don't fit your hand.

So I don't think the dummy should HAVE to correct the explanation in this case, though I would if I were dummy.
April 9, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment April 9, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top