Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Kehr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you are asking the wrong question and should be asking:

Given that I want 3 to be forcing (or NF, or F1R as applicable), what strength range should my 2 be?

As perhaps the range you have chosen for 2 is incompatible with all these options.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly. I think if they lead 4th highest, then going up with the Ace is likely to be necessary more often than if they lead 3rd highest, for instance. But in both cases seeing a high card makes the Singleton relatively more likely than when seeing a low card.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just noticed over in the “What on Earth is going on?” thread, that Kevin Strangway has posted a list of Barry Crane's commandments, the 5th of which is “7's are singletons.”
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They're normally both wrong.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a thought:

Is the fact that the 7 is a relatively high card relevant?

The key cases are West is leading a singleton, or West is leading low from an honour. There are relatively few holdings where the 7 is the expected low card, compared to, say, a lead of the 3. So does this increase the chance that the lead is singleton?

So I reran my experiment with Jack 6.11 (see first reply in this thread), swapping the 7 with the 3. And lo and behold, now the finesse won by a small margin (about 3-5 total points) over the Ace.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just checked the results. They did ok - 4th with 57.5%.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But did partner have a negative double on those hands?
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While it is true that in general 10 points is neither here nor there, I'm not so sure that applies in this case.

We get, on average, 10 more points even though we guarantee to lose a trick. My guess is that the extra 10 points comes about not because we make an extra overtrick every now and then (which is neither here nor there); but because we concede -50 slightly less often (which is very much here and/or there).
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am no good at these sort of numbers.

But I did put this deal into Jack 6.11 and asked him what he thought of the various options at trick 1.

Assuming total point scoring, he reckons the A scores an average of 429.5 points; the Q scores 419.8 on average; and the 4 scores 419.6.

Just to check it wasn't a fluke, I ran the simulation about ten more times each time the Ace came out ahead by between 5 and 20 total points on average
May 15
Eric Kehr edited this comment May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an experiment I started a post mortem betwee 2 of our opponents last night. I was pleased to see/hear it was still going on during the next round (which they were sitting out).

I wonder how they did.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or perhaps you send the message that your partnership is so accustomed to frequent bad results that they no longer bother you.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of differences between this position and the normal simple squeeze position:

In the normal simple squeeze, declarer doesn’t have all the tricks in top cards, so needs the squeeze to gain a trick; in this position, declarer in some sense has all the tricks in top cards, but lacks the entries to cash them all.

In the normal simple squeeze declarer either wins both cards of his 2 card menace, or the top card of his 2 card menace and his 1 card menace; in this position he either wins both cards of his 2 card menace, or the card opposite his 2 card menace and his 1 card menace.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don’t have hand records then it can be very difficult to post mortem after a session is over.

Even with hand records, people don’t necessarily remember what their thought processes were, and that, often, is what needs to be corrected.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If that's your attitude, then this conversation is over.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I'm sure you used to think that conversing with people about topics such as bridge was a spoken endeavour. Yet here you are.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reasoning would be that if 2 is really our best spot, then it is very unlikely we ever get to play there. But if 2 is our best spot (and it might very well be playing T-Walsh), we might well be allowed to play there if only we had a way of reaching it. And playing the machinery of XYZ allows us to do that, as well as show invitational and GF hands at a low level.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer that all balanced hands either accept the transfer (weak NT, <4), bid 1NT (very strong NT, <4), or raise to the appropriate level with support.

So the 1S bid is unbalanced.

I also prefer to play XYZ in most sequences.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A clash menace is something like Q opposite Ax with one opponent holding K and the other Jx. So although the K is not a winner, it can't be discarded as declarer can win two tricks in the suit (entries permitting).

If you swap the T and J and swap the defender's hands you do get a Jettison squeeze. In “The Squeeze at Bridge” by Chien-Hwa Wang, he calls the position in the OP a “Nosittej squeeze” due to the similarity with the Jettison squeeze. This is probably the ugliest name I have ever seen for anything in bridge (and perhaps in any walk of life).
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You get a 2 opening about once every two sessions?
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I checked “Acol in the 90s” by Reese, and he says this bid is forcing for one round. He adds that this is an overdue change from previous versions, and responder should just pass with most hands of less than invitational strength.
May 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
.

Bottom Home Top