Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120 121 122 123
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a vacuum one might like a; for the relevant layouts where W has 3 small spades to E’s 1, there is one additional vacant space for the SQ.

In a game where you gain few matchpoints or IMP against the pairs in slam even when you finesse the SQ, it seems that b is the winner.

Since it’s only one vacant space different and 3:1 imp odds in favor of playing for the spade to drop, it seems that even a small slice of the field in slam should be enough to swing it?
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Donald,

I think a lot of people find humor *around* tragedy., which is different.

We are living through a true tragedy and it is the inescapable context and backdrop of our lives. It causes death, disruption, isolation, and for many financial catastrophe. It is the elephant in the room, and it is knocking over furniture, stepping on people, and crapping on the rug. None of that is remotely funny.

But sometimes life is still funny. People and organizations are funny. Yes, they can even be funny in how they react to this tragedy that is our context. For many of us, humor relieves stress. For many of us, humor works best when it connects with our lives.

As I read it, Steve wasn’t making fun of COVID 19, or of death and tragedy. He was making fun in part of how the ACBL might react to it, and in part of our preconceptions of how the ACBL might react to it.

I understand that distinction may not be significant to you right now, but I thought it needed to drawn. Now I will return to trying to stay out of it.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo,

Just because the profile says so doesn’t mean that the moderators (Steve in this case) might not post something without their approval, just giving them a heads up that there will be a prank posted in their name.

I still see no evidence than anyone but Steve is responsible for this.

Whether what he deserves is blame, credit, or some of each will be the subject of much debate, which I will stay out of and mostly ignore.

As for blaming the ACBL, which we seem to like to do, perhaps we should blame them for at times being sufficiently incompetent that this post could have fooled anyone.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve never said they gave permission, he said he gave them a heads up. Very different.

If I were him, I certainly wouldn’t ask permission, because anyone granting it then becomes potentially responsible.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still like yours playing IMPs - I just hadn’t processed it correctly at first.

On your line I think I pick up Qx of spades offside with the HQ wrong.

Lots to think about.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No I had a brain freeze. If *E* wins you might have a problem but that’s not what you said, nor is it what any sane person would have said, I should have re-read and seen W, or just been thinking sanely.

Your line seems clearly better at imps than cashing AK of clubs then taking the spade finesse; you succeed whenever the spade finesse was on, plus you also pick up Qx of spades on your left.

I also think that it’s better than my line of (despite the problem statement) ducking the heart.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I competent agree with the principle of considering the scoring strongly.

That said, your claim is only valid when the HK is right, and you can try for this chance at little cost playing imps by ducking the lead. When the HK is wrong and you play this way usually you go down 3. Unless you think it very likely they are in slam, it seems better to pick up the cases where the HK is right by ducking the heart lead, and to take one finesse rather than playing for both drops.

Edit: sorry misread. Yes if W wins you are fine. Nice line.
April 1
Max Schireson edited this comment April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it depends strongly on if it’s imps or matchpoints, and also on what contract you think the field reached.

First let’s think about matchpoints.

I expect the field to be in a spade contract, making 12 tricks if either finesse is on and 7 if both. +630 rates to be a poor board, and +660 not much better; I really need 690 of either finesse is on. If both finesses are on I want to go +720 and beat the pairs that aren’t in slam.

The simplest thing to do is win the heart lead and take the club finesse immediately, then after cashing a top spade overtake a diamond honor to repeat the club finesse while still having a diamond entry to finesse spades. It feels more productive to try the suit where i can set up more tricks first; for example if LHO started with Qxxx of spades and the KH, when I cash the last diamond from my hand he will be squeezed.

Another option to consider is ducking a heart trick to try to make when both black Qs are wrong. When I take this line I give up on getting any matchpoints when both finesses are on (25%), but I can take the club finesse and play for RHO to have the SQ and HK, in which case I am back ahead of the pairs in game. When both finesses are off and the HK is right I am a big winner, including against those in slam. I think I need about 2/3 of the room in slam for this line to be better?

IMPs is a different problem.

Here it is particularly important to make when both black suit finesses are off (worth 12 if they are in slam, where otherwise when they are in slam it only saves 4). It seems like the best chance of this is the heart being right, so I duck a heart lead and if they don’t continue hearts I am home; if they do I put in the J. I have some decent chance to make right there, even in the extra important both-black-finesses-off case.

It may be that the details of some of my analysis is wrong, but I think the theme of thinking about the scoring is super important.

I think in general it’s better to try clubs first because the extra trick you gain when it’s right, which might also create squeeze chances. That may have been the intended point of the question, but so felt compelled to comment on everything else going on.

Edit: typo
April 1
Max Schireson edited this comment April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think its important to distinguish the cases where you have a 4 card major from when you don't in terms of when you respond 1D.

If I do have a 4 card major, I will nearly always bypass D to bid the major. Even if I have an invitational hand, I will often bypass the D - typically when there are only 4 of them.

If I do not have a 4 card major, then I will use my judgement between 1D and some number of NT for hands that are suitable shape wise for both. Occasionally I might even bid 1D with only 3 of them, if I don't think its right to play NT from my side with 3=3=3=4.

For 3NT, which is 13-15, I generally prefer to not bid even when 3=3=4=3 unless either a) my hand is screaming to be declarer in a NT contract or b) they are favourable and I am worried about them getting in with one or both majors.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand.

Yes, I want to play with and against the “talent” - and to compete with them. Your movement means I not competing with them at all, and I am also never being defended by two of the top players. I would much much rather sometimes partner another sponsor than lose these aspects.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do think the movement merits thought.

That said, I am strongly against the idea that the pairs always being one top player and one sponsor. This means that there are effectively two competitions, one to see who is the top expert and one to see who is the top sponsor. If I pay to enter this event I absolutely want to be on equal footing (other than skill) with all the other participants, and win or (much much much more likely) lose based on my own skill or lack thereof.

If there is forced expert/client pairing:
1. I am deprived of the opportunity to compete with the experts, because I had stronger partners than them so the result comparison is meaningless
2. I am deprived of the opportunity to play against pairs of top players, since my opponents at the table always include only one top player.

I would probably still enter, but it would be a much less fun event, and the outcome would be much less meaningful. In fact I suspect a sponsor would likely win, because there is likely more range in skill between the sponsors than the other players?

That said I recognize I may be in the minority here, and if this were much more popular among sponsors (which it might be?) then it would be right thing for charity.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great idea!

Sadly you didn’t include me in the top 32 ;) but I will happily pay both to play in the event (your estimate of 1000 euro seems reasonable) and to support Coronavirus charities (potentially a lot more because it is a real crisis).

— Max
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My inclination/instinct for the DD problem was also to cash the heart first, which felt like it could be necessary because I wanted dummy down to one loser so that I couldn’t be hurt if N ruffed a heart.

As it turns out if you don’t cash one they won’t be able to pitch enough hearts to ruff the first round, so you will get you spade pitch later.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seemed to me to have the elements of a trump strip squeeze but I didn’t find it on this list http://rpbridge.net/9q53.htm

The trump plays an essential role in getting back to hand, and certainly N is being squeezed, and when he pitches two hearts in line a) it seems like a strip squeeze to me.

Happy to be informed about why you or others don’t see it that way, but it seemed to me like more than a typical just-ignore-the-high-trump? I am not trying to quibble for the sake of quibbling, I am seeking to learn from why more experienced players than me see things differently.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Li-Chung,

Thanks for posting, and for the game!

I just checked Richard Pavlicek’s catalog of end positions and I am pretty sure this one is not there.

— Max
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting.

“We don’t want to play in a section with too many A pairs and not enough C pairs.”:
Too bad there isn’t a way to request one way or the other; if there was I would gladly trade, if I wind up playing.

This brings up a general point, which is a bit of a tangent: I wish more open club games allowed for self-selection if easy vs hard sections. I know honors does, and I know that the masterpoint formulas might make that less appealing, but I wish that more clubs offered that option.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interestingly if you read the order carefully it is not immediately totally clear that an NABC is covered.

Sporting events without spectators are not considered mass gatherings.

The WBF, with funding from the ACBL, has long taken the position that bridge is a sport. They are part of the Olympic movement, and subject to the Court for Arbitration of Sport. In some countries bridge gets government sports funding.

If bridge is a “sport”, then the NABC is not a mass gathering, and would be permitted to occur.

I personally don’t think bridge is a sport, but I find the situation somewhat ironic given all the effort that has gone into attempting obtain “sport” status at the WBF level.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Say half the people think A is suggested and half the people think B is suggested.

They are probably both right in their partnerships. Should we allow both bids? Should the players whose partner makes a slow invite with a minimum get to keep their pass and the players whose slow invite shows a maximum get to keep their game?

What if slightly more than half think a slow invite tends to be heavy. Then the 30 or 40% whose slow invites are light get to keep their passes?

I hate these solutions - but I also hate disallowing both options.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intellectually interesting, not at all useful!!
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you only look at cases where they are 22, then definitely there is no advantage and it is 50/50.

Sorry if I made that unclear.

However I found it interesting that just deciding to finesse the Q for the hand that doesn’t have an arbitrary chosen card does indeed get 52%, just not in the 22 cases.
March 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120 121 122 123
.

Bottom Home Top