Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am told it is seeded by results in previous years which has the effect of having a few teams that have done well meet later. I do think it is challenging to seed non-open events but I think the way you stated the problem could come across as a bit insulting to someone playing in the event (including me).

Fwiw I know that one of the pairs on the team that beat us made the quarterfinals of the open and along the way beat a team of Martel/Woolsey/Stansby/Stansby in a 3 way and Rosenberg/Rosenberg/Watson/Joel in another 3 way. If you are wondering who their ringer partners were in open they were on another team for flight B.

Yes, it is a challenge to seed these teams and I am not particularly happy with the way it is done, but the idea that all these teams could manage is a section top in a gold rush event is not accurate.
Feb. 28, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Feb. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was a captain and I was told by an experienced player to expect changes. We had been 21 playing 3 and wound up as 18 playing 6. Knowing the team that was seeded 3 I was relieved but it turns out we faced another strong team.

I voted back luck results stand.

Added: one factor that probably contributed to my not noticing the error is that the team we were playing was still “seeded” #3, in what appears to have been nothing more than a coincidence. It thus appeared to me that a few teams had dropped out above us and others had been added, presumably with low seeding for the late entrants.
Feb. 28, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 20% slam requires a much more specific reason to bid that just being up against a strong team in a Swiss. If the rest of the match was all flat boards and you came in with 67 victory points after 7 matches and this is the last board and you know you need about 80 victory points to advance to day 2 maybe… but even then you should be more than 80% sure that your opponents didn't blow a game at the other table somewhere earlier in the set.

I think you will get more out of playing up (which I really enjoy myself) if you mostly play normal contracts. As you keep doing it you will find that even the A teams make mistakes.

– Max
Feb. 20, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Feb. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a fan of saving neurons. Maybe just decide to bid them in a close call at imps especially vul without lots of detailed calculations.
Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that will be wrong at IMPs. When you are vul you will have to bid some where you are less than 50%. Let's say you have a (very) long (theoretical) match ad decide not to bid 20 vulnerable games that are 45%. Your opponents bid them. 9 of them make. You save 77 imps on the games that go down but lose 99 imps on the games that make. You are down 22 imps/ 1.1 imps per board on those decisions. That is a big deficit.
Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At matchpoints my threshold is somewhere over 50%; theoretically a 51% game is an advantage to bid but sometimes funny things happen at other tables so staying positive is maybe a little better than it ought to be, so I really want to be a favorite. I have dialed this back a little bit further against super strong fields thinking realisitcally I am likelier than average to go down in a hard contract eg in BRP field (where we did play Meckwell day two to your example).

At imps vul the 500 game bonus is +11 vs going down 1 for a -270 swing in 4M vs 3M at the other table is -7. That makes the theoretical threshold somewhere around 39%. That said sometimes there are victory point odds issues too; if you think you are well ahead in the match +11 may not pay off so you may be better off betting against a game that is 40-45%. Also you might think about whether your opponents are likely to bid it and if you want to be in the same contract and try to outplay them (usually yes if you think you play better) or would prefer an anti-field contract (if you are a big underdog).

Now if only I could know my odds accurately and play correctly!
Feb. 16, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As much as I like to celebrate an aggressive bid that works this one feels to me like it was too aggressive. I would guesstimate opponents have ~23 HCP to your side's 17. If everyone has normal values for their bids I'd say the range is 21-24 for opponents and 16-19 for your side.

It therefore seems to me that:
1. Your game making is very unlikely
2. You are reasonably likely to get doubled even when they don't have a game

If they have an 8 card fit and you have 9 and 17 tricks are available, often they will split 9 for them and 8 for you. 3S will be -50; 4S will be -100 if undoubled or -300 if doubled; 3H will be -140 and 4H will be +50. If this is the case you are clearly better stopping at 3S.

It seems that bidding 4S is betting that game will be bid and made at the majority of the tables, which seems like a risky bet to take. Keep in mind that their red suit fit could be in diamonds and they may not judge that they can take 11, or they may fail to find a 53 fit for 4H over your 3S bid. For that matter isn't it possible they misfit in the red suits and have a 44 club fit? I think 3S makes them make the last decision. Your side has too much strength to make bidding over 4S a hard decision for them unless their distribution is really unusual.

I agree that it looks like things may break for them and your values may be too concentrated in spades to defend well but I am still not sure this is a percentage action.

– Max
Feb. 16, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking at the letter of the law, 40A1a says partner has “no more reason to be aware”; this seems to indicate clearly that actual awareness is not required.

However although it is not explicitly stated it seems reasonable that “no more reason to be aware” be judged relative to the level of the player involved. A newer player struggling to get things right at the table won't notice a deviation unless it is dramatic and I view that situation very differently from a strong experienced pair that willfully ignores their partners tendencies when explaining bids to opponents but fields the bids with full knowledge.

Reading the law it seems that the opponents experience playing against the player in question is also relevant - especially when the partnership is relatively new.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will have to focus much more on my play than on results in measuring my progress over the next few years, those results were luck-aided for sure.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly the early learning curve feels steeper than any other game I have played. I think it has taken me 1000 hours over the course if a year to not feel confused most of the time and start feeling borderline competent. It's hard to compare directly with other games; I never played Chess seriously but Go certainly seemed easier to learn / faster progress - but 25 years ago when I was learning Go I was also younger and learned faster so it's hard to say what's the game and what's me.

It definitely feels like more fun than any other game.

Nationals was a great opportunity to see both how far I have come (even since Chicago) and how far I have to go.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting this, very relevant for me.

I am coming up on one year from my first masterpoint and I feel like my expectations of myself have progressed faster than my actual abilities. Going back and playing an I/N event with my daughter reminded me that I have made a lot of progress (even if less than I would have liked to have made).

Being mediocre after working at something for a few months was easier to take than after a year (and the realization that I will likely still be mediocre after 2 or 3 years). Seeing the progress helps, and reminding myself that regardless of my skill playing bridge is fun helps, but as a competitive person not being good at something I care about and do a lot is hard sometimes.

My enthusiasm is undaunted even if my ego is bruised by not meeting my own expectations of progress. Separating the enjoyment of the act and the enjoyment of success and progress is hard and I think worthwhile.
Nov. 20, 2015
Max Schireson edited this comment Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I am spoiled that this hasn't happened more often where I play. I am not saying it is perfect but it is usually much better than that.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not at all a beginner. Maybe not true expert but playing in A (>2500 masterpoints) so I felt should know better.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very good director. In the actual situation I chose not to call the director because I expected a big confrontation that would fluster me for the rest of the session.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct, it was a face to face club game.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, pard could ethically have catered to my possible mistake either on her bid or by runnng. That said since I am more interested in learning than results I am happy to have pard play me for having my bid even if (as indicated by her explanation) she suspects I got it wrong.
Oct. 13, 2015
Max Schireson edited this comment Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it not be an LA to leave the decision to run to pard given that I have already described my hand? Hard for me to believe that making that decision myself is the only choice and certainly is suggested by the UI. If pard is 4711 and wants to run she can. Certainly without the (correct) explanation and attendant UI I would have run.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Carolyn,
Thanks for the warning. I should have been clearer that this part of comment (which was not my main point) was not addressed at any individual but was an earnest effort to provide feedback on how *the proposal* looks from a distance. In fact you two personally strike me as being in touch and I wholeheartedly agree with your observation about likely attendance of top players regardless of this change.
I don't really feel qualified to address whether adding another NABC+ knockout is a good idea or not. I sincerely doubt it will move the needle on attendance and I hope it won't push mini-blue-ribbon to overlap Thanksgiving.
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom,

As a new and enthusiastic but definitely non-top player, I am certainly in the category of players who might or might not attend a nationals (or may only attend part of it). The factors that will influence my decision are:
1. Schedule. Overlap with Thanksgiving or another major holiday is an absolute non-starter for any bridge event.
2. Availability of challenging but not impossible events. 10k, red ribbon, mini-blue ribbon, mini-spingold etc are worth a trip. NABC+ is too hard (hopefully just for the time being!) and regional open pairs @nationals is fine for a day after being knocked out but is not worth a special trip.

My requests/recommendations are:
1. Fix the thanksgiving conflict
2. If you can't fix the thanksgiving conflict please please don't schedule the non-plus NABC events over thanksgiving; the audience for those events is probably more holiday sensitive than the NABC+ events
3. It would be excellent if there was real thought given to a sequence of such events that would be suitable for a non-top enthusiastic player; Chicago was great but there is nothing other than a regional or NABC+ at the end of Denver (unless you count NABC+ Swiss opposite Reisinger); similarly at the end of Reno if you are knocked out of 0-10k there is nothing besides a regional short of the Silodor.
4. When changes to the elite events are presented as designed to drive attendance recognize that while I believe your personal sincerity it looks at best out of touch and at worst disingenuous to many rank and file members

I know that many people find the idea of limited national championships silly; I think they are a great opportunity to develop new players who are serious but not ready for “real” national competition.

I hope you find this feedback helpful.
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this isn't the main point of the discussion, I would be very interested in the 2500 and 6k Blue Ribbons but the day after thanksgiving is a complete showstopper for me, I would sadly cease to even consider them as an option.

I have a feeling than many who are not full time bridge players would feel similarly. I do strongly suspect that schedule/Thanksgiving is a *much* bigger driver of attendance at Fall NABC than the lack of a 7 day event, which would impact at most a few hundred potential entrants many/most of whom would attend anyway. For me the Fall nationals is and will always be at most a 7 day event if held on the current dates due to conflict with thanksgiving weekend.

While I have great respect for the bridge skills of the committee, if you truly want to impact attendance the “when” of the Fall NABC matters much more than what is on the schedule.
Oct. 9, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top