Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Yates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 234 235 236 237
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Are we reading the lawmakers’ minds?” Accurate mind reading devices do not exist yet. So I make that about the same as reading what they wrote.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No appeals is “such a good idea for bridge”, I will not be surprised if our whole judicial system just tosses them out as well. North Korea hasn't had an appeals system for decades and no one complains.

“Progress”, just have to define it as such so that people know.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff,

If you can find a sure-fire method to get players to stop and count before playing to trick one, I sure would like to know. I was thinking of trying corporal punishment, but everyone is kind of old and heals slowly.

What I teach is to count winners in two steps.

Step #1 - count the winners you can bet your life you can run to the bank with right now without losing the lead. (Not that you should do that.)

Step #2 - look for where additional tricks can be established to fulfill your contract total.

Those additional tricks become the basis or your play plan. I keep repeating: “make a plan, a bad plan is better than no plan”. The plan should focus on establishing extra winners, not necessarily what you can cash right now.

Most contracts involve the possibility or often certainty of losing the lead. One apparently needs to hammer this concept into people's head. So my mantra is “lose your losers so you can later win your winners”.

I believe the two-step counting reinforces the idea they losing the lead is natural and to be considered. New players hate losing the lead so they play bad and cash winners nilly-willy.

I don't believe in teaching players to “count losers”. First, they tend to stop counting winners because counting losers is easier. Also, loser count seldom leads to a good plan. Players will count three losers, draw trump and not come to 10 winners.

I do point out that at suit contracts, losing tricks can sometimes be “dumped”. I teach them only to be aware of the possibility they may need to dump an immediate loser in a suit contract before concentrating on establishing winners.

If they concentrate on winners in a suit contract, then ruffing with the short trumps, setting up long suits, etc. becomes the obvious method to achieve these aims.

Focusing on winners keeps their eye on the ball. Focusing on losers makes them think about the strike zone.
June 15
David Yates edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained as I was not quite happy with the terminology. I think partner could pass given that my 1 bid limits my hand. But 3 has to show good values for my initial bid but just four spades. It is not technically forcing but I would be surprised if doubler passed. But I think it is possible. For me, 3 is the game try. Not “OK, how about this?” In my view, the purpose to consider it “forcing” is that advancer's 3 could not be just a stop or fragment and not a suit. This would be rare, with bad clubs.

Any min for the 1S call should rebid 2S and not a new suit. You will be ruffing hearts with the long trumps, but it is not like they are going to tap you out. Partner has to have something in hearts for a strong hand and only 3 spades. Clubs are more likely the open suit and that should be partner's shortness.
June 15
David Yates edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or you have a great internet connection, Michal :)
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While playing in three sectionals in the same district in the same week has some whirlwind appeal (“If It's Tuesday This Must Be Belgium.”) I selected B to see both “finals”.

My curiosity wants to see why they need to cut the field in a unit sectional, when even the District (GNT) teams - for at least for us - requires no such advance pruning.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ M.R. Just to be clear, that was my idea of a short article.

Regarding visual evidence. I just saw the New York Premier of Jackie Pare's Aces & Knaves. (I understood it was shown @ Memphis, but did not attend). The packed theater were mostly bridge players. Very few would know much about 1965. But they do play bridge. At the point in the movie when they discuss R&S, they run a sequence of photos across the bottom of the screen with enhanced close ups of the finger positions. 0 hearts, 1 heart, 2 hearts scrolls across.

The audience gasped in astonishment. It was a few second presentation and everyone understood. Very powerful stuff.

The “confession” is a subject for a later article. It is a fairly complicated issue because Reese's assertion (confessions frequently are excuses, and either characterization implies different degrees of credibility which has not been established) was to a reasonable friend (who would not challenge its veracity) and has no method of corroboration.

My opinion is that years later, the one thing Reese could not shake was the question (completely ignored by Foster Inquiry) as to why the odd finger yoga - which was NEVER displayed with any other partners. No bridge player could see the card holding and believe it was natural habits.

The main reason I believe his assertion (book material) is bogus is because Reese knew enough about bridge to know that would be impossible to prove the negative - that he did not use the information. How could anyone analyze 240 boards and show that you never benefited. If you made the bid or play consistent with that knowledge, there will be doubt. It is unavoidable. (Think UI issues - same thing)

Moreover, how did Reese intend to prove that they were signaling if no one saw them? And if someone did spot it, well the stuff just hits the fan, doesn't it.

The simple, foolproof solution is that to verify (a) signaling took place and (b) the data was never used illegally requires a third party observer. The observer would be easy to seat. They are briefed on the code and signaling method and take notes. (Just like Kaplan did, BTW, in 1955 at the behest of Mathe. Mathe thought something was up. Kaplan did not spot anything specific.)

And what does that data support? Hand strength, heart length. Shortness. You'd fire the cheat system up because you aren't going to sell books to the general public on just one piece of data that they wont grasp the importance of.

And how does one prove the information was not used? Because R&S are signaling about the hand they just played. Not the one they hold now. Your third party and his notes confirm it. Heck, your publisher even knows about it. But the “book deal” story never had any corroboration - or an ounce of sense that it could possibly be true when one starts to think about it.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the partnership discussion should start with methods over the ops 1NT overcall.

I play X is penalty over the 1NT overcall. But the North hand is not a double with shortness in the other minor. West likely has a good result if he just sits for the double white. If you don't have a source of tricks, you are not beating 1NT much, if at all, when they may well have a bunch of minor winners to run off.

The three main kind of doubles are takeout, penalty and random. IMO, a double with N hand is random.

Fairly standard(*) is to play the other minor as takeout for a major. That would be my choice here. It works very well when diamonds are opened. If there is no M fit, North knows diamonds will play well.

(*) there is very little expert “standard” these days. Just make sure you have fairly well understood general rules. You don't need the theoretically best agreements. You do need to know if you do something, partner will not misinterpret it.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the award for the best comment in the thread thus far goes to. . . Chris Miller for “We do not try to determine ”UI used“ ”.

It would be nice if at some point bridge players understood that UI situations have nothing to do with whether the person who had the UI did or did not do something wrong. THE PLAYER WHO PUT THE UI OUT THERE COMMITTED THE IRREGULARITY!!!!

Therefore, it does not matter what West does. It only matters whether the UI “could” have aided a decision. This is always a theoretical issue. Now, it does help when players have enough situational understanding to do something like pass the 5H bid. But then the TD would not have enough work to justify the enormous amounts of money they get paid.

This is easy:
Q: Was there UI?
A: Yes. Uncontested.

Q: Does it suggest bidding will be more successful than passing?
A: Absolutely. I do not need a poll to understand that.

Comment: polling is a waste of time. It only matters if you can find a statistically significant peer group that would naturally bid (or rather misbid) the hand with this start. If you would sensibly PASS, for example, over the X, by definition you are not in the peer group.

Q: What is the score adjustment?
A: Sensibly, 5H making 6. Though our idiotic, new-aged rules written by a group that cannot manage a simple KO event allows for things like 674 plus pi as the weighted score.

Counter argument to self-serving statements like “I was always bidding a slam” - Then why not 4NT over 4D? Especially since there is no chance for opener to know that there are no club losers.

Oh yeah, that was what the slow 5H bid showed. . . .
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to think some French plays were too weird and surreal. Then I became an ACBL member.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Confucius got it wrong at least once.

My all-time favorite score comparison was in the Reisinger:

“Plus 120”
“Plus 120, win.”
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Come on. It gets boring watching Kit win so much. OK, maybe not so much for Kit, but for us on the sidelines. . .

This is a really good team we have representing the USA. Congrats and good luck.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer transfers over X. XX=10+ HCP is one of the more useless methods in bridge. Whatever utility it does have (claiming HCP possession) is right out the window when you have a fit. So yes, don't do that unless it is “Be Kind to Opponents Week” and you believe in celebrating this way.

But I agree with Richard that you want to deny the ops the 2-level bids, especially given stiff spade. (If partner is the odd 4432, we still probably want to play 3). Ttocsurt better than other way around. Just because you can show a good raise to 2-level does not mean you should not have a good raise @ the three-level. Though I prefer over 1 that 2NT is weak & preemptive in clubs or GF. (My preferred 1D open is unbal, so no 18-19 bal). This leaves 3C=good D and 3D is weak. Ttocsurt only over clubs and it never comes up anyway :)

Note that with 11-12 HCP you can transfer to 1NT and raise to 2NT
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or 3. Thick as a Brick - Jethro Tull
(Given 600+ comments, you'll need a long soundtrack)
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were in a PTB position, I would not think it proper to comment publicly, especially if it were an on going issue that needed to be examined or ruled upon.

When judges start tweeting about cases before their bench then we can certainly give up on any hope for humanity.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Au contraire, I could definitely see myself in 6 and getting a 4-1 trump break :)

This is a reasonable slam (~65%) looking at both hands. But at the end of the day you need to join Barry, Alfred E Newman and me and not worry about trying to find perfect fits.

Once you have your super-advanced methods in place, try getting to 4H and not 6D if the E hand was: J10x / KJxx / Q1098 / AK.

There is more vig at avoiding a bad slam contract on these sorts of deals than finding an occasional perfect fitter.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't mind the 2 overcall. South was a bit off his rocker not passing 5 - it was not his decision - but I don't mind the final contract looking at N/S hands. You can take or leave any 50% slam. Although South might have passed up more than the game by acting unilaterally.
June 3
David Yates edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Eric. Bad 4 openings are generally the least effective preempts - unless they play 4NT for T.O. :)
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yet another idea relegated to the “not even up for debate” bin because it makes too much sense.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drop. It is slight favorite even without knowing vacant spaces. (It seems clubs are 4-4, but the I find the OP a bit confusing with the play)

Also, given the spots, how happy are you to lose to 10x?
June 1
David Yates edited this comment June 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 234 235 236 237
.

Bottom Home Top