Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ran a simulation, it says 44 %

Condition: north has 5+ clubs, his hcps + clubs >= 15.

We make when north has 3 spades and 1-2 diamonds or 2 spades and 1 diamond or 4 spades and 2 diamonds.
Nov. 8, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Budapest we changed to digital (tablet) play in the upper divisions of our team and pairs championships a year ago. Also on some weekend tournaments. See https://lovebridge.com/

Live (delayed) broadcast, archives, etc. Awesome.
It can be licensed.
Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or 2 spades and singleton diamond in the same (North) hand.
Minus 3-0 diamonds.
Nov. 8, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every slam is fine which has a 2-digit percentage chance :-)
See also: https://i.redd.it/72e03vux9aj11.jpg
Nov. 8, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bought a bridge magazine (Brydż dla wszystkich) in Poland in 1988, an article in it described the system of Tomasz Przybora and Krzysztof Martens. It was already then and there in their system, they simply called it 5-4-3-1 convention.
I guess they learned it in New York ;-)

Their version looked like this:
- 3: short , 5+ and a 4-card major
- 3: short , 5+ and a 4-card major
- 3: short , 54+ in the minors
- 3: short , 54+ in the minors
Nov. 6, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the poll: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/how-do-you-play-this-2-zvxq2cs1xl/

140 votes at the moment.
Oct. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marion, have you noticed that I started with “I think”?
I just created a poll, let's wait a day or 2 and see its result.
Oct. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you don't have the 9, the correct way to place the queen is in front of the KJTx. Simply don't care what they ask.

Anyway, I think most people play 4 as a splinter in this situation, thus asking 4 without asking 4 is strange.
Oct. 27, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our relay precision:

1 - 1 2+, 10-15 // GF relay
1N - 2 BAL 11-14 // relay
2N - 3 5-332 // relay
3 - 3 3=2=3=5 // minor suit slam try
3N - 4 // lower range // RKC
4 - 7N

In 2/1 it might go:
1 - 1 3+ // 3+
1N - 2 BAL 11-14 may have major // GF
3 - 4 NAT, 5(+) // ORKC
4 - 4 bad hand // RKC
4 - 7N 0/3
Oct. 24, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange, I also wondered. What should opener bid lacking that? When we have 2 club losers we go beyond game?
Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say they open 1NT. We can say the Opener defined his hand. What is your 3 here? Does opener's promised strength have influence on it?
Oct. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would partner open 1 this 2 loser hand?
Oct. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West could not choose which Jxxx to underlead.
Oct. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also wrote about it :)
Oct. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play it 4-card (for the sake of simplicity and my partner).
Our 2 is always INV+.

Another possibility is to keep the original (relay) system, that is:
- pass: I would have bid 2 (whatever it means), X from responder is the next relay)
- X: I would have bid 2 (whatever it means)
- 2N…: same as without intervention
Oct. 6, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't 3 too valuable as natural(ish) bid to victimize?

If you happen to play second transfers after Jacoby you have an option:
- transfer then raise is 5 cards, GF
- transfer then 3N is 4-cards (the hand, that normally bid by Stayman and then 3N or 4M)

We almost always bid with balanced 4-card major GF like this, not revealing opener's hand.

If someone likes the idea of differentiate between flat and not-so-flat 4-card majors, (s)he can bid transfer then 3NT with flat, and Stayman with the not-so-flat ones.
Oct. 3, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, you may be right, but I would not risk passing without pre-discussing this, even smart players can (and often do) think differently in undiscussed situations
Oct. 3, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 3, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At our table it went
Pass Pass 1 3*
4 5 5 6
Pass Pass 6

3 = +
My partner beleived North with his 2 aces and saved, even guessed clubs for +15 IMPs.
Oct. 3, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did not you discard a diamond on 2nd round of spades instead of ruffing high? Did you play for an overtrick in the 24 HCP slam?
Oct. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
slightly off-topic and will be long, sorry…

I was around 12 when learned (simple 5-card draw) poker from a math book and played it with friends with small stakes involved.
(I started playing bridge around 14).

In the 90's a lot of casinos opened in Hungary and they gave you more in chips than the entry fee was, if my memory serves well, the entry fee was 1000 HUF (~ 5 USD then) and you got 1500 in non-returnable chips. I was never interested in roulette, but also read a book earlier on programming that mentioned basic blackjack strategies and Epstein's story. I bought another book titled “How to win in casinos”, its blackjack topic also described basic blackjack strategies, and also mentioned card counting. The funny part was that it suggested different strategy on doubling that the other book I read before. I became curious and wrote a software that calculated the optimal strategy (none of the 2 books was completely right :)). Then I wrote another one that simulated the play against the casino using the optimal strategy. The result was that it loses 0.5% of the stake in the long run (there was no surrender option in most of the casinos). Compared to the 2.7% loss that you can achieve playing roulette (there is only 0 and no 00 in Europe) it was much better. Meanwhile I paid some short visits to the local casino on the way home (it was located 200 meters from my workplace), hunting for the entry-bonuses.

The next step was learning and applying counting. In short: when there are more than average 10-valued cards in the remaining deck, then the result will be somewhat more predictable, and thus a bit more favourable for the players. So, normally you play at the lowest stakes, but when the remaining deck is favourable for you, you raise your stakes and may even make a small profit (I mean expected value of course). I highly recommend the film “21” with Kevin Spacey, it is impeccable regarding the strategy and how to make money using it. (it came out more than 10 years later…)

Counting the cards did not look very hard for me (as an avid bridge player), so I trained some weeks playing against a software and when I felt ready, my visits in the local casino became more frequent. In the first month of regular play I won more than my salary was in the bank. In the second one I won twice as much (in let's say 10 hours a week in the evenings). In the third month it was even more… I started dreaming on quitting my job and playing professionally. After some month I doubled my stakes… and started losing. Imagine a very little expected value with a huge variance. In the next 2 month I lost my previous winnings and a little more. Then I stopped completely, actually the main reason was that I had to finish and give in my thesis on a post-grad course. After that I re-run my simulations, and found an error in it. Corrected it, and surprise: it turned out that it is not even profitable, thus I stopped regular playing. It was about 23 years ago, I have played blackjack about 4 times since then.

One of them is a memorable story too. You have to know in advance that most people play blackjack terribly, the don't have the slightest idea about optimal strategy. The European Open Bridge Championship took place in Poznan, Poland in 2011 and we entered too. Not much success, the field was very tough, Poles are very good players as you may know, and there were a lot of them playing. Anyway, even Meckwell were there.
The story is that there was a casino in the hotel where we, and many other bridge players stayed, and I decided to play in one evening. The casino, and the blackjack table where I played was full of bridge players. I played an hour or 2, and have never seen such a high level of play in my life. Noone at the table made any non-optimal decision, it was a joy to watch. And we even won.

I also enjoy playing poker, even watching films on gambling. Rounders is one of my favourite one. Poker is another small story if anyone is interested.

In recent years I also played a lot of backgammon, no money involved, only against gnu Backgammon running on my PC. It my not be gambling, Kit will tell us :)

I may not be an addict :), still make my living on programming, and play bridge once a week and on weekend tournaments (let's say 25 days a year).
Oct. 2, 2019
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 2, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top