Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(Confused comment removed by poster to avoid confusing others)
April 26, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adding to Danny and Benoit's points and trying to make it clearer:

Lets look at two cases, 16/10 high card points and 13/13.
- In the 16/10 case you have more than 4HCP on average because more of your cards are coming from the stronger hand. The SNT hand with 3 cards in the suit has on average 3.69 HCP (3*16/13) in the suit; the other hand with 10 HCP has on average .77 (1*10/13). The total holding is on average 4.46 HCP in the suit
- In the 13/13, the WNT hand has on average 3HCP in the suit and the other hand has 1, so in fact you do have 4HCP in that case
Further, even if you have 4HCP in the suit, to the extent they are more likely to be in the hand with 3 cards in the suit they stop the suit more effectively. I am sure you would rather have Axx opposite x than A opposite xxx at NT. Similarly Kxx opposite J is a better holding than Jxx opposite K. When the hand with 3 cards in the suit is stronger, it is more likely you will have the Axx or Kxx holding than when the high cards are divided equally.

Does this help?
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you change the diamond spots to give declaring side the 7 then it's quite reasonable to expect them to cash the A of spades then ruff out the Q before running the diamonds as the most direct line to claim the beer. I am not sure that the laws acknowledge beer-card-conscienceness as a part of the “class of player” involved…
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree on the preempt.

I think that level of excitement is possible but unlikely with 12 spades and a red K. But missorting a hand is also unlikely.

I think the missort is around 1%, times about 80 hands (I am assuming the missort is less likely if there are 2 kings for example). I think the red honor around 10% likely to generate that level of excitement in an inexperienced player times 2 hands. The club wins by .8 to .2, so I would say among hands with 12 spades it is 80% that the last card is a club. Of course these probabilities are subjective, but I don't think the chance of a red card is nil.

Even 12 spades and a low red card has imo something like a 1% chance of generating that excitement times a lot of hands so is a material possibility.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the red A is hard since it's in my hand. But compared to 13 spades that is not very unusual (even if not what I intended).

But still some mixup is for sure my bet and I agree that a mistaken club is most likely. But evenow AKQ-12 and a random red card “I just needed pard to cover one loser” from an inexperienced player is possible.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I very much agree directionally, but I can imagine other possibilities. What about AQ-12th of spades and the KH? 12 sure tricks and almost a 13th could provoke a mind loss… or pard somehow forgetting out system and bidding a natural 1C and opponent holds 12 spades to the A and a red A?

What I do believe with confidence is that he doesn't hold 13 spades. I am prepared to pay off if that ever happens in the history of bridge. 10000 tables at an NABC times 100 hands played per table after 100,000 NABCs worth of play it might happen. Someone made a mistake.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But even given that information I think the odds are still overwhleimgly against. If there is even a 1% chance they would preempt on 11 spades and out that is about 1500 times likelier (1 in a million hand times 1% action is one in 100 million). Across bridge players in a club I think the preempt may be more like 10% than 1% but certainly higher than. 01% which is all it takes to be much much more likely given the bid.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am one such fool. Do you really think they have 13 spades tricks, one in 150 billion?
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One beginners opinion:

Here without the inexperienced opponent jumping out of his seat I would pass even with a “stopper” (one spade). I think openers most likely holding (unless I know him to be very strong) is 11 spades and out, thinking with 6 spades would preempt 2, with 7 3, etc, so with 11 he should bid 7S. Not because I like the bid but because an ordinary bad bid with a 1-in-a-million hand is much more likely than 12 or 13 spades…

7S making feels too unlikely for me to want to sacrifice in 7NT and if pard could make 7NT opposite my hand I think they would have bid it.

All I can deduce from the X is that pard most likely has the spade ace or all 3 other aces and who knows what else, and doesn't have 13 NT tricks in his hand. I don't think I can have any confidence that pard holds a spade; maybe I am wrong but I would not pass 7S at matchpoints holding the other 3 aces and out.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bet on either a sacrifice or 11-12 spades and 1-2 clubs in RHOs hand.

If a missort of 12-1 is 1% and a missort of 11-2 is 0.1% the 11-2 becomes the most likely holding and I would double.

Also a not great player might get so excited looking at 12 spades winners that he decides to take a swing at pard having “just one trick”. That or a sacrifice with 11 seem very possible to me.

Note that in the 12-1 case 7NT makes about a third of the time when pard holds the spade (less than half because I know at least 5 of pards cards are non-spade honors). Depending on the odds of the human error I think ignoring the 11-2 case it is a close call.

In the end I would bet on egregious human error over a 1-in-150-billion 13-0-0-0 layout or a 1-in-a-billion 12-0-0-1 layout and a more garden variety error.

Yes, I may pay off to a deliberate sacrifice with KQ-11 spades and pard holding the A.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
27C seems clear enough 4D it is. Doh, of course the 2H bid makes right side irrelevant.
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I accept 3D they get to right-side the contract which they should not (insufficient bid or not). If the rules permitted it as director I would tell S to take his 4D bid back and I would explain the options. It seems like 4D serves no purpose other than punishing S for ignorance of the law around insufficient bids and doesn't improve a club game. The only circumstance in which I would not would be if I thought NS were trying to slide one past in an effort to reach 4HN but their suggestion of a director call indicates otherwise to me.

Is there clear law that the 4D bid must stand as the final contract and the director can't allow S to reconsider knowing N is barred?
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 4H by south feels like the right outcome. Since N is going to be barred I am not sure what “mess” is created by 4D beyond the one already created by 3D. Perhaps the rules specify otherwise but forcing 4D as the final contract seems beyond rectification of the error and not how I would want to win even against a more experienced pair.
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you mean that assertion to apply to just this specific situation? Certainly there are some situations with UI where borderline decisions become clear.

To take one example from my play last month: you are holding an 18 count playing with a pickup partner at the club. Over your 1S opening pard reaches for the pass card, then 2S, then back to pass, then grimaces and bids 2 spades muttering “what have I done”. While I had previously thought I had a decision between 3S and 4S I now felt, to quote an informal poll a friend once conducted about a lead, that I would rather cut my hand off than bid 3S. Are you surprised to hear pard held a 3 count and I was down?

In this (admittedly extreme) situation it seems clear that 4S is the ethical action. I think if the director had been called for a 3S bid I might be so embarrassed that I would have to lie and claim it was a mechanical error and I meant to bid 4S! (Kidding on the lying part)

What makes this situation different if hypotheticalay a) you judge that the UI clearly favors one action and b) you judge that you have a difficult decision which you could reasonably make either way?

(Edited to make pards bid a sufficient 2S not 1S, doh!)
April 4, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment April 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right in my view.

It is far too hard for new players to get started at duplicate. Anything that makes their experience better is worth doing. More that the score feeling the the game was friendly can make a big difference to a new player.

If you believe the results really matter then wrong. And probably wrong on the letter of the law but I think helping a new player get started is more important.

I have been on the other side of that with two kids who are just learning and a friendly opponent goes a long way.
April 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, sorry. Maybe the is standard and everyone more experienced knows it.

If I assume the X is slow then I think the tempo suggests passing and I have UI that requires me to bid if it is a logical alternative.

But could W have held the tray for whatever reason? This case does feel more like the UI than the 5C bidder and the doubler were screen mates but in principle the same issues exist.
April 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So then you don't know if it was a slow 5C or a slow X.
Assuming the X is not penalty I think both suggest passing.

Having not played with screens I have not thought about whether this creates the same obligation to bid 5S if that was a logical alternative as it would for me without screens. Since it could be a slow 5C bid my UI seems diluted but since I have either AI or UI suggesting a pass and I don't know which what am I to do? Finally it is also possible that both bids were in tempo and opponent decided to wait a while before passing the tray? If this is also possible and opponent can ethically do that for whatever reason then I should be able to choose freely, else opponent can push me into passing close calls if that is their desire?

Perhaps those who have played with screens can explain the ethics to those of us who are used to dealing with non-screen tempo issues? Do I just get to ignore the slow tempo as being of unknown origin? And can I ethically insert random delays before passing the tray in any circumstance or are there some in which I cannot? If the answer to the second question is“yes, always” then the seems that the answer to the first should generally be “yes” as well but perhaps there are exceptions?
April 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am new to bridge and to this site but I have found that often in life people find evidence for what they want to believe. Getting from that note to the site being profitable is a pretty spectacular double error - but making it up as a deliberate lie then posting this a “evidence” strikes me as even less likely. I am left believing that Nat has a deep distrust of the management of this site and finds evidence for it in mistaken interpretations.

@Nat, I don't know the history and there seems to be a lot of emotion on all sides but I hope that you might consider whether the two mistakes you made in suggesting that the site was profitable might be evidence that maybe you have read the hand wrong and need to reevaluate your views.
April 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Nat, I don't agree with the name calling and flagged a few of the posts that I think are ad hominem and inappropriate.

That said, while I don't have the facts to assess your comments with certainty they seem unnecessary and mean-spirited as well as not having an (admittedly subjective) ring of truth. While I don't think we should be calling each other trolls I do think those characteristics of your comments begged that description.
April 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why spade tolerance? What would you bid with
x
xxx
AKQJxxx
AKJ
April 1, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top