This was my third full season representing the Harvard Club in the Inter-Club Bridge League. We were lucky enough to win the regular season by half a board (same result as last season), the trophy for best pairs performance, and a tie for the overall championship in the playoffs. Here is a key hand against the team we tied with. There were no hand records so details are as best as I can remember.
-100 turned out to win the board as our teammates played in clubs making +110. Of course if -100 was the goal to start with there was a much easier way to do that, but this deal illustrates how bridge is a game where more and more information is continually revealed and used throughout the hand.
Showing posts with label bridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bridge. Show all posts
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Saturday, April 23, 2011
A Fun Little Hand (bridge)
I really don't play much bridge these days. I continue to play for the Harvard Club in the InterClub Bridge League, but the season is wrapping up soon. I also play in an occasional rubber bridge game, and while I'm nowhere near the peak of my powers, I think I still have a little left in the tank.
As dealer, I picked up this hand for the first hand of the Chicago (hand rotated for convenience). With its prime controls and long diamond suit, this hand was too strong to just open 1NT with. So I opened 1♦ intending to rebid 2NT. The auction continued uncontested and I was declarer in 3NT on the ♠9 lead.
Even though dummy comes down with a hand that would've forced to game opposite a 1NT opening, some work will be needed to bring the contract home. I wasn't keen on committing to anything, so I ducked the first trick as East played the ♠10. East continues with the ♠Q as I win in hand and West follows low. Interesting play in the spade suit. It appears that East has started with all three honors, meaning he either has QJT tight, QJT8 and West led the 9 from 9xxx, or QJTxx(x).
Since I will need a heart trick even if I score 4 diamond tricks, I lead a heart towards dummy. West plays the ♥9 as I play the ♥Q which loses to the ♥A. Back comes the ♠J as I discard a small club and West follows with the ♠8. With nothing better to do, I play a diamond to the ♦10, losing to West's ♦Q. West goes into the tank for a little bit, and exits with the ♣Q. I take this in hand to test the diamonds. When I cash a high diamond, East discards a heart!
This was the position with me needing to take 5 of the last 6 tricks. It's pretty clear that East began with 5 spades and 1 diamond. What about his rounded suit holdings? If hearts began 3-3 I have no chance unless he blanked the ♥J for some reason. So did East start with 4 or 5 hearts? Is the ♥J dropping? The heart discard is actually quite telling. One of my favorite BOLS bridge tips is Terence Reese's "The discard tells the story". His main point was that some discards are much easier to make than others. For example, a defender will more readily discard a low card from Axxx or Kxxx than Jxxx. In this case, I reasoned that he was more likely to discard from an original 5 card heart holding because he could retain parity with dummy's holding.
Placing East with all the hearts, I can now count 4 tricks including the heart finesse. If I can score another club trick, I will actually make the contract. So what was the club position? I just could not see a case where West would exit with the ♣Q while holding the ♣J as well. So I played a club to the ♣A, dropping East's ♣J, cashed the ♣10, and finessed the ♥10 to make the contract. The full hand and play:
The defense was not optimal, but it often never is at bridge. Strangely enough, at the time that West got in with a diamond, I can always make it by a strip squeeze endplay if I know the exact position of the hand at that point.
As dealer, I picked up this hand for the first hand of the Chicago (hand rotated for convenience). With its prime controls and long diamond suit, this hand was too strong to just open 1NT with. So I opened 1♦ intending to rebid 2NT. The auction continued uncontested and I was declarer in 3NT on the ♠9 lead.
Even though dummy comes down with a hand that would've forced to game opposite a 1NT opening, some work will be needed to bring the contract home. I wasn't keen on committing to anything, so I ducked the first trick as East played the ♠10. East continues with the ♠Q as I win in hand and West follows low. Interesting play in the spade suit. It appears that East has started with all three honors, meaning he either has QJT tight, QJT8 and West led the 9 from 9xxx, or QJTxx(x).
Since I will need a heart trick even if I score 4 diamond tricks, I lead a heart towards dummy. West plays the ♥9 as I play the ♥Q which loses to the ♥A. Back comes the ♠J as I discard a small club and West follows with the ♠8. With nothing better to do, I play a diamond to the ♦10, losing to West's ♦Q. West goes into the tank for a little bit, and exits with the ♣Q. I take this in hand to test the diamonds. When I cash a high diamond, East discards a heart!
This was the position with me needing to take 5 of the last 6 tricks. It's pretty clear that East began with 5 spades and 1 diamond. What about his rounded suit holdings? If hearts began 3-3 I have no chance unless he blanked the ♥J for some reason. So did East start with 4 or 5 hearts? Is the ♥J dropping? The heart discard is actually quite telling. One of my favorite BOLS bridge tips is Terence Reese's "The discard tells the story". His main point was that some discards are much easier to make than others. For example, a defender will more readily discard a low card from Axxx or Kxxx than Jxxx. In this case, I reasoned that he was more likely to discard from an original 5 card heart holding because he could retain parity with dummy's holding.
Placing East with all the hearts, I can now count 4 tricks including the heart finesse. If I can score another club trick, I will actually make the contract. So what was the club position? I just could not see a case where West would exit with the ♣Q while holding the ♣J as well. So I played a club to the ♣A, dropping East's ♣J, cashed the ♣10, and finessed the ♥10 to make the contract. The full hand and play:
The defense was not optimal, but it often never is at bridge. Strangely enough, at the time that West got in with a diamond, I can always make it by a strip squeeze endplay if I know the exact position of the hand at that point.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The HP incident and the forums (bridge)
I've been more vocal than ever before on the forums in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40621&st=0 Please read through it to get some idea of what's going on before reading my thoughts below.
While I do not really care about the actual guilt or innocence of HP, the witch hunting and bashing in the early parts of the thread are extremely distasteful in my opinion, while some of the concepts brought up overall are disturbing to me in terms of my future enjoyment of bridge.
Let's start with my initial reaction. When I was first told about the hand, my reaction was not that something bad had occurred, but that 6D was actually quite a fun swing action. I asked about the state of the match conditions, while a couple posters kept saying the equivalent of "it didn't matter".
I have a couple of problems with the OP's posts, and I attribute that to how personally he took all of this. I have all the respect for JL as a player and he would actually be my first choice if I had the money to hire a pro for the long term. However, his first post sounded to me as an objective observer to be strongly accusatory: "Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen." Making such accusations in a public forum is quite distasteful to me, and I certainly could understand the subsequent reaction of HP, to want to speak directly to his accuser and defend himself.
JL then replied that he had not made any accusations, but was rather interested in saying that the bid and result in themselves should have led to investigative action. This is the part that I have the most problem with. So he's basically saying if 0 of 100 of his chosen experts would not have made such a call, it becomes highly suspicious and so action should be necessary. My point is that expert testimonial is useless here. Bridge is not a science. In subsequent private messages with JD, it seems to me that the disagreement at heart is with how extreme of an action the call was. JD said that in all his years of playing he had never seen anything like that bid, which happened to work perfectly on that hand. On the other hand, if I was down a bunch in a match and decided we needed to go swinging, I don't think the 6D call would've been out of the realm of my consideration. I also believe that my partners would agree with me on that and that those who have had experience playing with or against HP would agree that he's certainly creative enough to come up with a bid like that.
I just don't want to be in a situation where the future of bridge is such that I can't make a call like that because 100 experts told everyone that no one else would do it. That's pretty much what groupthink is. The real problem is that this is already occurring. Look at the appeals process in bridge, where the final adjudicators have their own biases on how hands should be bid, and the polling process is incomplete at best because they only take into account an idea of "skill" defined by strata, but not style. I have rarely been taken to committee or made many appeals, but at the same time, I've discussed certain hands with people frequently on appeals committees and often the answer I get back is that they would never take my side because they wouldn't think like me, and any descriptions of my own thought process would be considered self-serving. It's ridiculous. Essentially the highest form of adjudication in bridge belongs to those same 100 or so experts.
There's also an argument about the bridge logic of coming up with the call. People gave all sorts of stats and numbers, etc. However, I need to point out that the EV shippers are useless here. The only thing that matters is the EU of the call. That a swing is actually generated should he be right. The negative value of being wrong is almost marginalized at that point if he thinks he needs to go swinging.
While I do not really care about the actual guilt or innocence of HP, the witch hunting and bashing in the early parts of the thread are extremely distasteful in my opinion, while some of the concepts brought up overall are disturbing to me in terms of my future enjoyment of bridge.
Let's start with my initial reaction. When I was first told about the hand, my reaction was not that something bad had occurred, but that 6D was actually quite a fun swing action. I asked about the state of the match conditions, while a couple posters kept saying the equivalent of "it didn't matter".
I have a couple of problems with the OP's posts, and I attribute that to how personally he took all of this. I have all the respect for JL as a player and he would actually be my first choice if I had the money to hire a pro for the long term. However, his first post sounded to me as an objective observer to be strongly accusatory: "Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen." Making such accusations in a public forum is quite distasteful to me, and I certainly could understand the subsequent reaction of HP, to want to speak directly to his accuser and defend himself.
JL then replied that he had not made any accusations, but was rather interested in saying that the bid and result in themselves should have led to investigative action. This is the part that I have the most problem with. So he's basically saying if 0 of 100 of his chosen experts would not have made such a call, it becomes highly suspicious and so action should be necessary. My point is that expert testimonial is useless here. Bridge is not a science. In subsequent private messages with JD, it seems to me that the disagreement at heart is with how extreme of an action the call was. JD said that in all his years of playing he had never seen anything like that bid, which happened to work perfectly on that hand. On the other hand, if I was down a bunch in a match and decided we needed to go swinging, I don't think the 6D call would've been out of the realm of my consideration. I also believe that my partners would agree with me on that and that those who have had experience playing with or against HP would agree that he's certainly creative enough to come up with a bid like that.
I just don't want to be in a situation where the future of bridge is such that I can't make a call like that because 100 experts told everyone that no one else would do it. That's pretty much what groupthink is. The real problem is that this is already occurring. Look at the appeals process in bridge, where the final adjudicators have their own biases on how hands should be bid, and the polling process is incomplete at best because they only take into account an idea of "skill" defined by strata, but not style. I have rarely been taken to committee or made many appeals, but at the same time, I've discussed certain hands with people frequently on appeals committees and often the answer I get back is that they would never take my side because they wouldn't think like me, and any descriptions of my own thought process would be considered self-serving. It's ridiculous. Essentially the highest form of adjudication in bridge belongs to those same 100 or so experts.
There's also an argument about the bridge logic of coming up with the call. People gave all sorts of stats and numbers, etc. However, I need to point out that the EV shippers are useless here. The only thing that matters is the EU of the call. That a swing is actually generated should he be right. The negative value of being wrong is almost marginalized at that point if he thinks he needs to go swinging.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A little bridge and a little poker (bridge, poker, gambling)
First off, congratulations to my friend JLW and his teammates for making the semifinals of the United States Bridge Championships. The link to his bridge blog is on the right in the blog list.
Let's move on to poker for now. My main game is Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 8 or better. However, I will play some NL Holdem for fun, even though I don't think I have the patience to be consistently profitable at the lower stakes. The following was an interesting hand in that I made my decisions off time-based tells, which may seem foolish at first in an online setting where people multi-table regularly. However, I do find that there are some players who give off these tells and don't think about them enough because it is online and it is often only one table among many.
In a .5/1 NLHE 6-max game, hero has ♦3♣3 on the button. I'd raised preflop a lot during this 6-max game, and after three folds to me I continue the trend and make it 3 total. The small blind now reraises to 10. I call.
The flop comes ♦10♥7♣4 and the small blind bets out 10 rather quickly into the pot. A quick bet off the flop is often the sign of a continuation bet. Something that was planned ahead of time. It made me curious enough to call.
The turn comes ♣6. A bet of 25 came that wasn't as quick. Often, I find that someone trying to protect a big hand will often bet quickly and aggressively on the turn. The slower bet and the smaller bet size relative to the pot made me even more skeptical. It seemed to me that if you had an overpair, you'd need to protect against hands that picked up a straight draw or flush on this board. I called.
The river comes ♠K. Villain bets out a quick all-in of 68.5 into the pot. Again, the quickness is often indicative of a premeditated action, such as a bluff. I ask for time and go through his range. I still think that an overpair would have been more anxious to protect on the turn. AK and KQ/KJ were certainly possibilities, but so were AQ, AJ, and even QJ suited. While I know that I can only beat a stone bluff, I thought the range possibilities were not too far off from the pot odds I was getting, so I called. Villain showed ♠Q♠8 and started talking about how idiotic my call was.
Well, if you also thought my play/call was idiotic, then let's move on to PLO8, and let's see what you think of my thought process on this hand.
In a 15+1 turbo 9 handed sit n go with starting stacks of 1500 and initial blinds of 10/20, I held ♦A♦9♣4♥3 in early position on the second hand of the sng. UTG minraises and I call along with 3 others behind me. The blinds fold. The flop came ♦10♣8♦2. A pretty good flop for me as I have the nut low draw, the nut counterfeit low draw, and the nut flush draw. So what would you do after it goes check to you?
I can see the argument for betting pot, and I can see the argument for check raising pot. People like to be aggressive and get it all in when the EV is in their favor. However, I tend to take a different approach. First, it is important for me to maximize the chips I can take so I will let people freely draw to second best hands. However, since I know I am much better at this game than the average player, protecting chips also matters to me, even if I become a short stack.
So how did the play go? It checked around to the penultimate player who bet 180 into the 230 pot. The preflop raiser called. I also just called. The turn comes the ♠J. The preflop raiser checks and NOW I bet out the pot. From my point of view, if I get raised all-in, I'm in the same position as if I check-raised the flop. There is very little fold equity on the flop in a multi-way pot in PLO8. But by playing this way, I might get the best high hand on the flop to fold (I still haven't made a hand yet), or I could maybe bet him off it on a blank river. In PLO8, it is more important to have the aggression on the turn than on the flop.
Only one caller as the preflop raiser folds. The river is the ♦5 and I bet the rest. The other player quickly calls with a worse low and a worse flush and I scoop. This looks like it probably would have been the result no matter what I did, but I liked my line of play more. Thoughts?
Ok, back to bridge now. I'm not a big fan of opening borderline two-suited openers at the 1 level in general. In most of my partnerships, I tend to open sound. I also believe that most of the time, passing first will allow for a better description of the hand later, often by means of a two-suited bid in competition. One of the things that people use to determine whether they open is whether they have the master suit, spades. I was thinking about this and thought that perhaps another suit is important too. The club suit. If your two suiter contains the club suit, perhaps you should stretch to open too. It seems to me that it's very easy for your opponent to have a balanced opener and bid clubs, making it very hard for your side to get back into that suit. So what I'm suggesting is that perhaps with the 6-5 borderline opener with hearts and a minor, one should stretch to open with clubs but hold back with hearts and diamonds.
Let's move on to poker for now. My main game is Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 8 or better. However, I will play some NL Holdem for fun, even though I don't think I have the patience to be consistently profitable at the lower stakes. The following was an interesting hand in that I made my decisions off time-based tells, which may seem foolish at first in an online setting where people multi-table regularly. However, I do find that there are some players who give off these tells and don't think about them enough because it is online and it is often only one table among many.
In a .5/1 NLHE 6-max game, hero has ♦3♣3 on the button. I'd raised preflop a lot during this 6-max game, and after three folds to me I continue the trend and make it 3 total. The small blind now reraises to 10. I call.
The flop comes ♦10♥7♣4 and the small blind bets out 10 rather quickly into the pot. A quick bet off the flop is often the sign of a continuation bet. Something that was planned ahead of time. It made me curious enough to call.
The turn comes ♣6. A bet of 25 came that wasn't as quick. Often, I find that someone trying to protect a big hand will often bet quickly and aggressively on the turn. The slower bet and the smaller bet size relative to the pot made me even more skeptical. It seemed to me that if you had an overpair, you'd need to protect against hands that picked up a straight draw or flush on this board. I called.
The river comes ♠K. Villain bets out a quick all-in of 68.5 into the pot. Again, the quickness is often indicative of a premeditated action, such as a bluff. I ask for time and go through his range. I still think that an overpair would have been more anxious to protect on the turn. AK and KQ/KJ were certainly possibilities, but so were AQ, AJ, and even QJ suited. While I know that I can only beat a stone bluff, I thought the range possibilities were not too far off from the pot odds I was getting, so I called. Villain showed ♠Q♠8 and started talking about how idiotic my call was.
Well, if you also thought my play/call was idiotic, then let's move on to PLO8, and let's see what you think of my thought process on this hand.
In a 15+1 turbo 9 handed sit n go with starting stacks of 1500 and initial blinds of 10/20, I held ♦A♦9♣4♥3 in early position on the second hand of the sng. UTG minraises and I call along with 3 others behind me. The blinds fold. The flop came ♦10♣8♦2. A pretty good flop for me as I have the nut low draw, the nut counterfeit low draw, and the nut flush draw. So what would you do after it goes check to you?
I can see the argument for betting pot, and I can see the argument for check raising pot. People like to be aggressive and get it all in when the EV is in their favor. However, I tend to take a different approach. First, it is important for me to maximize the chips I can take so I will let people freely draw to second best hands. However, since I know I am much better at this game than the average player, protecting chips also matters to me, even if I become a short stack.
So how did the play go? It checked around to the penultimate player who bet 180 into the 230 pot. The preflop raiser called. I also just called. The turn comes the ♠J. The preflop raiser checks and NOW I bet out the pot. From my point of view, if I get raised all-in, I'm in the same position as if I check-raised the flop. There is very little fold equity on the flop in a multi-way pot in PLO8. But by playing this way, I might get the best high hand on the flop to fold (I still haven't made a hand yet), or I could maybe bet him off it on a blank river. In PLO8, it is more important to have the aggression on the turn than on the flop.
Only one caller as the preflop raiser folds. The river is the ♦5 and I bet the rest. The other player quickly calls with a worse low and a worse flush and I scoop. This looks like it probably would have been the result no matter what I did, but I liked my line of play more. Thoughts?
Ok, back to bridge now. I'm not a big fan of opening borderline two-suited openers at the 1 level in general. In most of my partnerships, I tend to open sound. I also believe that most of the time, passing first will allow for a better description of the hand later, often by means of a two-suited bid in competition. One of the things that people use to determine whether they open is whether they have the master suit, spades. I was thinking about this and thought that perhaps another suit is important too. The club suit. If your two suiter contains the club suit, perhaps you should stretch to open too. It seems to me that it's very easy for your opponent to have a balanced opener and bid clubs, making it very hard for your side to get back into that suit. So what I'm suggesting is that perhaps with the 6-5 borderline opener with hearts and a minor, one should stretch to open with clubs but hold back with hearts and diamonds.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Catching up (stock/trading, sport, bridge, food, tv)
The past week has been very busy for me, and I think it will continue that way at least until I've finalized the move. Unfortunately it has also been one of my worst weeks trading in a very long time. Volatility has certainly come into the markets with the VIX in the 40s again, but there's just something I'm struggling with that I need to work out.
One of the main bits of news related to the market has been the financial reform bill. I think that most of the time spent by these lawmakers is on coming up with cute names for these bills. I personally would like to see all the derivatives stuff (and even stock dark pools) moved onto exchanges with no grandfather clause. I also think that Fannie and Freddie need to be addressed, although it looks like that's not going to happen with the Democrat-led charge.
One of the questions raised about the financial reform bill is whether the lawmakers actually understand how the markets etc. work. Obviously they don't, and my question is why we can't change that? I propose that every politician (either before running or after winning) be forced to take and pass a test that is at least at the introductory college level on basic subjects such as economics. If the person gets reelected, he/she would just have to take a continuing education course like what the NASD does for registered reps. And if the elected official is to take part in a special committee/subcommittee such as banking and finance, environmental protection, or military spending, he/she must take an even more specialized course or test to show adequate understanding of the field. Is this so hard to implement?
Staying on the subject of serious matters, this sunday is the big Lost finale. My friend SM was nice enough to get tickets to a live interview with the co-creators of Lost. It was an entertaining evening moderated by a New York Times journalist and Michael Emerson (Ben Linus) and Jorge Garcia (Hurley) also showed up. We saw a scene from the finale and they took some audience Q&As. The biggest revelation to me was when they discussed the end with Jorge Garcia. Garcia is known not only to be an actor on the show, but a big fan as well. Lindelof and Cuse offered themselves to him to answer any questions he still had after they finished the finale. His response was along the lines of, "Well I have no questions really. I mean, I got it." To me, this means that the narrative will be wrapped up in a coherent way, even though some diehards might not get the answers to some small details.
Also on TV is the NBA and I've still been watching the NBA playoffs and they continue to be a treat. Boston has a good chance to win this series now that they won both in Orlando. For those who are even thinking sweep, you have to remember that this year the Celts have actually been a better road team than home team. One interesting note is that with a "healthy" (playing) Garnett, the Celtics have not lost a playoff series yet. A Boston-LA final would probably draw terrific ratings.
I was on the winning Harvard Club team for the 2009-2010 Interclub Bridge League, a casual league that includes many social clubs in NYC such as the Yale Club, NY Athletic Club, Harmonie Club, Regency Whist Club, among others. We won the regular season by a record margin, and won the playoff as well. The playoff was a 24 board 5 team board-a-match. At halftime, we had a score of 6.5 boards and were actually in the lead as the other teams scored three 6s and a 5.5. To celebrate, one of the team members will be taking us out to Daniel, which recently won a James Beard award for Outstanding Restaurant. Looking foward to it and hopefully I'll post some nice pics.
Speaking of food, here are some more pics of recent good food I've had.
This is as close as it gets to food that I would miss once I move out of LIC. While most of the places around here are overpriced Italian, there is some pretty good pizza. This combination, from the Food Cellar market downstairs (like a Whole Foods), was one of my favorites. Cooked shrimp and sliced potato provided a terrific range of textures with the slightly chewy crust and the fresh mozzarella. There was no red sauce, but some EVOO and arugula added at the end provided the perfect flavor notes.
I should have included this one in the sandwich post but forgot. It is an oreja cemita from one of the taco trucks along the 7 line. I'll be looking forward to much more of this type of food once I move back closer to the heart of Queens. While eating pig's ear is not new, I find that most Chinese preparations I've had are chilled, and so the melty gelatinous feel of the heated ear was a nice surprise.
There's a reason classics are classics. This is the oyster pan roast from the Grand Central Oyster Bar. A deliciously creamy soup/stew that goes terrifically with the plump oysters. I had to get more of the lightly toasted white bread to soak up all the sauce.
Another one that should have made the sandwich post but was hiding in my food pics folder. This is the grilled and sliced tuna sandwich also from the Oyster Bar. Perfectly grilled, still rare inside and served with a simple tomato salsa, this is a terrific value at $9 for simple, fresh flavor. They make a lot of these sandwiches during the lunch rush, so if you get there late, the main problem is that they might run out of bread to make sandwiches with (I got the last one that time at around 4pm).
One of the main bits of news related to the market has been the financial reform bill. I think that most of the time spent by these lawmakers is on coming up with cute names for these bills. I personally would like to see all the derivatives stuff (and even stock dark pools) moved onto exchanges with no grandfather clause. I also think that Fannie and Freddie need to be addressed, although it looks like that's not going to happen with the Democrat-led charge.
One of the questions raised about the financial reform bill is whether the lawmakers actually understand how the markets etc. work. Obviously they don't, and my question is why we can't change that? I propose that every politician (either before running or after winning) be forced to take and pass a test that is at least at the introductory college level on basic subjects such as economics. If the person gets reelected, he/she would just have to take a continuing education course like what the NASD does for registered reps. And if the elected official is to take part in a special committee/subcommittee such as banking and finance, environmental protection, or military spending, he/she must take an even more specialized course or test to show adequate understanding of the field. Is this so hard to implement?
Staying on the subject of serious matters, this sunday is the big Lost finale. My friend SM was nice enough to get tickets to a live interview with the co-creators of Lost. It was an entertaining evening moderated by a New York Times journalist and Michael Emerson (Ben Linus) and Jorge Garcia (Hurley) also showed up. We saw a scene from the finale and they took some audience Q&As. The biggest revelation to me was when they discussed the end with Jorge Garcia. Garcia is known not only to be an actor on the show, but a big fan as well. Lindelof and Cuse offered themselves to him to answer any questions he still had after they finished the finale. His response was along the lines of, "Well I have no questions really. I mean, I got it." To me, this means that the narrative will be wrapped up in a coherent way, even though some diehards might not get the answers to some small details.
Also on TV is the NBA and I've still been watching the NBA playoffs and they continue to be a treat. Boston has a good chance to win this series now that they won both in Orlando. For those who are even thinking sweep, you have to remember that this year the Celts have actually been a better road team than home team. One interesting note is that with a "healthy" (playing) Garnett, the Celtics have not lost a playoff series yet. A Boston-LA final would probably draw terrific ratings.
I was on the winning Harvard Club team for the 2009-2010 Interclub Bridge League, a casual league that includes many social clubs in NYC such as the Yale Club, NY Athletic Club, Harmonie Club, Regency Whist Club, among others. We won the regular season by a record margin, and won the playoff as well. The playoff was a 24 board 5 team board-a-match. At halftime, we had a score of 6.5 boards and were actually in the lead as the other teams scored three 6s and a 5.5. To celebrate, one of the team members will be taking us out to Daniel, which recently won a James Beard award for Outstanding Restaurant. Looking foward to it and hopefully I'll post some nice pics.
Speaking of food, here are some more pics of recent good food I've had.
This is as close as it gets to food that I would miss once I move out of LIC. While most of the places around here are overpriced Italian, there is some pretty good pizza. This combination, from the Food Cellar market downstairs (like a Whole Foods), was one of my favorites. Cooked shrimp and sliced potato provided a terrific range of textures with the slightly chewy crust and the fresh mozzarella. There was no red sauce, but some EVOO and arugula added at the end provided the perfect flavor notes.
I should have included this one in the sandwich post but forgot. It is an oreja cemita from one of the taco trucks along the 7 line. I'll be looking forward to much more of this type of food once I move back closer to the heart of Queens. While eating pig's ear is not new, I find that most Chinese preparations I've had are chilled, and so the melty gelatinous feel of the heated ear was a nice surprise.
There's a reason classics are classics. This is the oyster pan roast from the Grand Central Oyster Bar. A deliciously creamy soup/stew that goes terrifically with the plump oysters. I had to get more of the lightly toasted white bread to soak up all the sauce.
Another one that should have made the sandwich post but was hiding in my food pics folder. This is the grilled and sliced tuna sandwich also from the Oyster Bar. Perfectly grilled, still rare inside and served with a simple tomato salsa, this is a terrific value at $9 for simple, fresh flavor. They make a lot of these sandwiches during the lunch rush, so if you get there late, the main problem is that they might run out of bread to make sandwiches with (I got the last one that time at around 4pm).
Saturday, March 27, 2010
On in competition? (bridge)
Ok, so there were more bridge hands of interest from Reno than just one. The first two have the same theme.
1. Imps vul vs nv
AKxxx
Qxxx
xx
xx
You pass in first seat, partner opens 1C, RHO overcalls 1D, you bid 1S (do people double here?). Partner now bids 2H. What do you bid now, and more importantly, is lebensohl over reverses on in competition? With a clear long suit threat from the opponents, should we worry about using 2NT as a natural bid?
2. Imps vul vs nv
The auction goes 1H-(1S)-2C-(p)-3D
What's 3D? In an uncontested auction, 3D would be a splinter in support of clubs. Is that still on in competition? I personally don't think so, since 2C is not G/F, and so the auction should revert to a SAYC type auction. If the auction had gone 1H-(1S)-2C-(p)-2D-(p)-2N/3C-(p)-, would 3D now be forcing? I think it's more important to be able to set up the game force with a natural 3D bid immediately.
3. Imps both vul
You hold
xxx
Kxxxxx
x
xxx
LHO opens 1S, pd X to you.
A) What do you bid? 2H seems normal to me, but I can see someone arguing for 4H (would probably need to play in conjunction that any values-based jump to 4H goes thru the cuebid first)
Let's say you bid 2H. LHO bids 3C and partner bids 3D.
B) Now what? There's still a good likelihood that hearts are the better strain, so I think 3H here is normal.
Partner now bids 3S.
C) What does he have? Is this in support of hearts? Or is he showing a spade stopper and missing a club stopper?
You bid 4H and it goes around to RHO who now wakes up with 4S.
D) Now what?
i) double
ii) pass and pass partner's double
iii) 5H
iv) pass and pull partner's double
v) other?
1. Imps vul vs nv
AKxxx
Qxxx
xx
xx
You pass in first seat, partner opens 1C, RHO overcalls 1D, you bid 1S (do people double here?). Partner now bids 2H. What do you bid now, and more importantly, is lebensohl over reverses on in competition? With a clear long suit threat from the opponents, should we worry about using 2NT as a natural bid?
2. Imps vul vs nv
The auction goes 1H-(1S)-2C-(p)-3D
What's 3D? In an uncontested auction, 3D would be a splinter in support of clubs. Is that still on in competition? I personally don't think so, since 2C is not G/F, and so the auction should revert to a SAYC type auction. If the auction had gone 1H-(1S)-2C-(p)-2D-(p)-2N/3C-(p)-, would 3D now be forcing? I think it's more important to be able to set up the game force with a natural 3D bid immediately.
3. Imps both vul
You hold
xxx
Kxxxxx
x
xxx
LHO opens 1S, pd X to you.
A) What do you bid? 2H seems normal to me, but I can see someone arguing for 4H (would probably need to play in conjunction that any values-based jump to 4H goes thru the cuebid first)
Let's say you bid 2H. LHO bids 3C and partner bids 3D.
B) Now what? There's still a good likelihood that hearts are the better strain, so I think 3H here is normal.
Partner now bids 3S.
C) What does he have? Is this in support of hearts? Or is he showing a spade stopper and missing a club stopper?
You bid 4H and it goes around to RHO who now wakes up with 4S.
D) Now what?
i) double
ii) pass and pass partner's double
iii) 5H
iv) pass and pull partner's double
v) other?
Reno thoughts (food, entertainment, bridge, gambling)
Reno wasn't great in terms of results, but I had a fun time. Here are some random thoughts from the trip.
The ACBL nationals weren't the only nation championships being held in Reno during my stay. The guy sitting next to me on the plane in was there for the US Open, the largest amateur bowling tournament in the country. He said he had a 210 average and was just doing it for fun.
On the plane ride in from Dallas to Reno, they showed a movie. People groaned initially when they announced that the movie was "The Blind Side", but about 25 minutes in when the audio went out, half the plane complained. The Blind Side gets my vote as a great airplane movie. It's a very balanced movie, which makes it great in my view for showing on a plane ride. It's a good length, not too short, not too long. It's wholesome for the whole family. It has the right amount of drama, comic relief, and sports action. It's a sappy feel good story without necessarily pulling you too deep into the movie. It's just got something for everyone.
On the shuttle ride from the airport to the hotel, I actually heard someone use the Geico "ringity ding dingity dong" as their ringtone. I still think Geico should do the opening bell at the stock exchange one morning and just play that instead of the regular bell.
Poker:
Didn't play well and didn't play much. Also ran pretty badly in general. Here are two stories.
Five players limp (1/2NLH) into a pot with a TT3 rainbow flop. Everyone checks and the turn comes a K. Everyone checks again and the river is an 8. Three checks to a woman who bets 10 into the pot. One guy calls. The woman turns over KT and the man turns over KK. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa??????
Naturally, they're married.
Down to $60 in the big blind and with game time (bridge) approaching, 6 people limp to me in the big blind. I look at K3 suited and decide to make a play. After all, if everyone folds I add 20% to my stack. I raise to $20. I didn't want to go all in preflop (too suspicious) and wanted to leave a sizeable bet for the flop. One guy goes all-in for $29, a guy behind him (his bridge partner) calls, and I'm forced to call as the reraise wasn't large enough. I go all-in blind, and the flop comes J25. The other guy thinks for a while and calls with J6 suited. The all-in guy had QT. The turn comes an A and the river comes another J to finish the hand. Oh well.
Bridge:
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't play well. We still ended up in the overalls with a respectable 33rd in the Open Pairs (out of 300+ pairs) because seeded pairs kept miscounting their points against us. It was also my first experience with the bridgemate scoring system (entering results wirelessly from the table) and I liked it. It allowed me to forget previous hands for some reason. I entered the result, and then the hand went away. Didn't dwell on a single previous hand while I was controlling the scoring machine.
Only one interesting hand of note that I remember.
Red all matchpoints, you hold in fourth chair:
T
87
KT863
J8432
The auction goes (1C)-1S-(1NT)- to you and I'm going to make you pass.
The auction then continues (p)-2H-(p)- to you.
It seemed like a normal, in-tempo, pass at the table. Unfortunately, LHO reopens with a cooperative X and partner goes for a number. In subsequent discussion, it's been suggested that preferencing to 2S is the correct bid in this situation. Partner could be 5-4 and the 5-1 plays better. Partner could be 6-4 even. A chunk of partner's 5-5 hands are taken out of the equation because he could have bid Michaels. An immediate preference is harder for the opponents to double. Any thoughts?
The Hotel:
Turns out I was here 6 years earlier (last bridge nationals in Reno) when it used to be a Hilton (now Grand Sierra Resort). I didn't realize it until I tried to get a players' card and they had me in the system.
The place was just slow. As in lines were long at all the restaurants. It wasn't so much the actual service being slow as it was the seating situation. It just seemed like they were woefully ill-prepared for the large capacity that was the bridge nationals and people going for the first weekend of March madness combined.
They had three fancy restaurants: a Charlie Palmer steak, a Charlie Palmer seafood place, and an Italian restaurant. I only tried the Italian restaurant, and it was decent. Although I thought it was bad when the server was describing the carpaccio appetizer to one of my dining companions and failed to mention that the meat was raw. All my other meals consisted of the breakfast buffet (best value, and only time the buffet wasn't mobbed), Johnny Rockets (good value, all you can eat fries with the burgers), and a pan pizza place with a small unlimited salad bar.
The rooms were ok. There was a nice touch with a TV inside the bathroom. However, there was also this atrocious design:
Basically it was a faucet that was designed to splash water everywhere. If you held your hands high, the sink wouldn't cover all the water. If you held your hands low, the long descent of the water caused it to splash up and about. Idiotic.
Overall it was a fun time, despite my horrible results. Bridge nationals are always fun, and midnights and catching up with old friends certainly adds to that.
The ACBL nationals weren't the only nation championships being held in Reno during my stay. The guy sitting next to me on the plane in was there for the US Open, the largest amateur bowling tournament in the country. He said he had a 210 average and was just doing it for fun.
On the plane ride in from Dallas to Reno, they showed a movie. People groaned initially when they announced that the movie was "The Blind Side", but about 25 minutes in when the audio went out, half the plane complained. The Blind Side gets my vote as a great airplane movie. It's a very balanced movie, which makes it great in my view for showing on a plane ride. It's a good length, not too short, not too long. It's wholesome for the whole family. It has the right amount of drama, comic relief, and sports action. It's a sappy feel good story without necessarily pulling you too deep into the movie. It's just got something for everyone.
On the shuttle ride from the airport to the hotel, I actually heard someone use the Geico "ringity ding dingity dong" as their ringtone. I still think Geico should do the opening bell at the stock exchange one morning and just play that instead of the regular bell.
Poker:
Didn't play well and didn't play much. Also ran pretty badly in general. Here are two stories.
Five players limp (1/2NLH) into a pot with a TT3 rainbow flop. Everyone checks and the turn comes a K. Everyone checks again and the river is an 8. Three checks to a woman who bets 10 into the pot. One guy calls. The woman turns over KT and the man turns over KK. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa??????
Naturally, they're married.
Down to $60 in the big blind and with game time (bridge) approaching, 6 people limp to me in the big blind. I look at K3 suited and decide to make a play. After all, if everyone folds I add 20% to my stack. I raise to $20. I didn't want to go all in preflop (too suspicious) and wanted to leave a sizeable bet for the flop. One guy goes all-in for $29, a guy behind him (his bridge partner) calls, and I'm forced to call as the reraise wasn't large enough. I go all-in blind, and the flop comes J25. The other guy thinks for a while and calls with J6 suited. The all-in guy had QT. The turn comes an A and the river comes another J to finish the hand. Oh well.
Bridge:
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't play well. We still ended up in the overalls with a respectable 33rd in the Open Pairs (out of 300+ pairs) because seeded pairs kept miscounting their points against us. It was also my first experience with the bridgemate scoring system (entering results wirelessly from the table) and I liked it. It allowed me to forget previous hands for some reason. I entered the result, and then the hand went away. Didn't dwell on a single previous hand while I was controlling the scoring machine.
Only one interesting hand of note that I remember.
Red all matchpoints, you hold in fourth chair:
T
87
KT863
J8432
The auction goes (1C)-1S-(1NT)- to you and I'm going to make you pass.
The auction then continues (p)-2H-(p)- to you.
It seemed like a normal, in-tempo, pass at the table. Unfortunately, LHO reopens with a cooperative X and partner goes for a number. In subsequent discussion, it's been suggested that preferencing to 2S is the correct bid in this situation. Partner could be 5-4 and the 5-1 plays better. Partner could be 6-4 even. A chunk of partner's 5-5 hands are taken out of the equation because he could have bid Michaels. An immediate preference is harder for the opponents to double. Any thoughts?
The Hotel:
Turns out I was here 6 years earlier (last bridge nationals in Reno) when it used to be a Hilton (now Grand Sierra Resort). I didn't realize it until I tried to get a players' card and they had me in the system.
The place was just slow. As in lines were long at all the restaurants. It wasn't so much the actual service being slow as it was the seating situation. It just seemed like they were woefully ill-prepared for the large capacity that was the bridge nationals and people going for the first weekend of March madness combined.
They had three fancy restaurants: a Charlie Palmer steak, a Charlie Palmer seafood place, and an Italian restaurant. I only tried the Italian restaurant, and it was decent. Although I thought it was bad when the server was describing the carpaccio appetizer to one of my dining companions and failed to mention that the meat was raw. All my other meals consisted of the breakfast buffet (best value, and only time the buffet wasn't mobbed), Johnny Rockets (good value, all you can eat fries with the burgers), and a pan pizza place with a small unlimited salad bar.
The rooms were ok. There was a nice touch with a TV inside the bathroom. However, there was also this atrocious design:
Basically it was a faucet that was designed to splash water everywhere. If you held your hands high, the sink wouldn't cover all the water. If you held your hands low, the long descent of the water caused it to splash up and about. Idiotic.Overall it was a fun time, despite my horrible results. Bridge nationals are always fun, and midnights and catching up with old friends certainly adds to that.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Psyching a XX (bridge)
During a recent BBO ACBL speedball, I psyched a XX with 1 HCP on an auction that went:
p-(p)-1C-(X)
XX-(1S)-ppp
The director was called and ruled against me, saying that the psyche was illegal. I mentioned that psyching a redouble is certainly not an uncommon psyche, and the reply was that this was a GCC event. I then looked up the GCC which says, "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings."
I started a thread on the Bridgebase forums: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37861 and it brought up a couple of interesting points.
1. The director was under the impression that 1C promised 2+, which made it "conventional". My partner and I play standard convenient minor openings so I don't know where that came from. Anyway, this director cited from the ACBL active ethics page: "The latest version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge defines a convention as a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there." I don't see how 1C promising 2+ is not a willingness to play clubs, since it means I clearly can't open any other suit.
So first question: Is 1C showing 2+ a conventional call and should it be treated as such in all interpretations of law?
2. The director then cited the ACBL alert chart for his ruling that redouble was a conventional response: "A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." And followed that up by saying that redouble "artificially promises values in a suit other than the last named....so therefore conventional."
First of all, I think most people play that XX promises 10+HCP, and I don't think that necessarily means values in outside suits (it might imply it). Also, it isn't telling partner not to play the contract redoubled (like an SOS XX), and so should convey a meaning related to the last contract/denomination, right? (and hence not conventional)
3. Maybe the laws should be clearer about using two adjectives (natural/artificial, conventional) to describe what's allowed or not and that might clear things up a bit. I remember once an opponent overcalling 2NT with 19HCP but I was oblivious because none of the 2NT interpretations are alertable on the CC. I expect to ask a director or two about all this when I'm in Reno.
Comments/thoughts welcome either here or in the forum thread.
p-(p)-1C-(X)
XX-(1S)-ppp
The director was called and ruled against me, saying that the psyche was illegal. I mentioned that psyching a redouble is certainly not an uncommon psyche, and the reply was that this was a GCC event. I then looked up the GCC which says, "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings."
I started a thread on the Bridgebase forums: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37861 and it brought up a couple of interesting points.
1. The director was under the impression that 1C promised 2+, which made it "conventional". My partner and I play standard convenient minor openings so I don't know where that came from. Anyway, this director cited from the ACBL active ethics page: "The latest version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge defines a convention as a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there." I don't see how 1C promising 2+ is not a willingness to play clubs, since it means I clearly can't open any other suit.
So first question: Is 1C showing 2+ a conventional call and should it be treated as such in all interpretations of law?
2. The director then cited the ACBL alert chart for his ruling that redouble was a conventional response: "A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named." And followed that up by saying that redouble "artificially promises values in a suit other than the last named....so therefore conventional."
First of all, I think most people play that XX promises 10+HCP, and I don't think that necessarily means values in outside suits (it might imply it). Also, it isn't telling partner not to play the contract redoubled (like an SOS XX), and so should convey a meaning related to the last contract/denomination, right? (and hence not conventional)
3. Maybe the laws should be clearer about using two adjectives (natural/artificial, conventional) to describe what's allowed or not and that might clear things up a bit. I remember once an opponent overcalling 2NT with 19HCP but I was oblivious because none of the 2NT interpretations are alertable on the CC. I expect to ask a director or two about all this when I'm in Reno.
Comments/thoughts welcome either here or in the forum thread.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tough bidding sequence hand (bridge)
So here was the hand in question.
KQ9xx
Kx
-
AKQTxx
you open 1C, lho 1H, partner neg X, rho 3H
What would you do now?
I asked a few people. A world medalist decided to just bid 6S. The player at the other table just bid 4S. A grand life master wanted to bid 4NT blackwood (is it blackwood?), then bid 6S opposite a 1 ace response.
One other possibility was the convoluted auction mentioned in the previous posts. I was pretty sure my partner would read 5D as exclusion keycard for spades, but I also knew that a 1 ace response (5S) would wrong-side the eventual slam. It was just as likely that partner had the ♠A and I should just blast 6S.
After long long thought, I decided to bid exclusion. I figured I could win by staying out of slam when I need to, or if partner had 3+ clubs and we could back into a making 6C, or if partner had a stiff heart which is still not unreasonable given this auction. Partner corrected to 6S, had Axxx xx KJT9x xx, and went down on the heart lead.
KQ9xx
Kx
-
AKQTxx
you open 1C, lho 1H, partner neg X, rho 3H
What would you do now?
I asked a few people. A world medalist decided to just bid 6S. The player at the other table just bid 4S. A grand life master wanted to bid 4NT blackwood (is it blackwood?), then bid 6S opposite a 1 ace response.
One other possibility was the convoluted auction mentioned in the previous posts. I was pretty sure my partner would read 5D as exclusion keycard for spades, but I also knew that a 1 ace response (5S) would wrong-side the eventual slam. It was just as likely that partner had the ♠A and I should just blast 6S.
After long long thought, I decided to bid exclusion. I figured I could win by staying out of slam when I need to, or if partner had 3+ clubs and we could back into a making 6C, or if partner had a stiff heart which is still not unreasonable given this auction. Partner corrected to 6S, had Axxx xx KJT9x xx, and went down on the heart lead.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tough bidding sequence continued (bridge)
Didn't get many comments on the bidding sequences, so here's a reminder of the auction:
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
5D
Assuming you take it as exclusion keycard for spades, you make your response, and partner now bids 6C. So what is that? What should it be?
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
5D-(P)-5S-(P)
6C
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
5D
Assuming you take it as exclusion keycard for spades, you make your response, and partner now bids 6C. So what is that? What should it be?
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
5D-(P)-5S-(P)
6C
Monday, February 22, 2010
The fast GIB is still pretty good (bridge)
Playing in one of the robot races, GIB plays a hand that made me take notice.
After an uncontested auction GIB N ends up in 3NT on the ♣Q lead. Can you spot what GIB did that got my attention?
After an uncontested auction GIB N ends up in 3NT on the ♣Q lead. Can you spot what GIB did that got my attention?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tough bidding sequence (bridge)
There are many parts to this problem, so let's start with a simple bidding sequence.
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
3H is preemptive
1. What is 4D?
2. What is 4NT?
3. What is 5D?
Let's start with 1. Do your negative doubles imply diamonds? Or can the doubler have 4324? If they imply diamonds, does that mean 4D can be bid just competitively with say 2146? I assume that for most players, 4D here is natural and forcing.
2. At least one grand life master thought it was blackwood (RKC). Is this the best use of this bid? Is opener so worried about overcaller bidding 5H that opener can't bid 4H followed by 4NT? I remember discussing this auction a few years back and someone suggested 4NT was minors with an emphasis on clubs (2+ card discrepancy) while 4D would be 1 card discrepancy. Maybe that information is more useful?
3. Here's where the questions about this auction came from. The bid at the table was 5D. So what is 5D? I've heard three different interpretations so far. Exclusion blackwood (RKC), diamond void slam try without being exclusion, and natural. My first response would be to not play this as natural because 4D would be natural and forcing for me. But then I got to thinking, and what if the auction was this:
1D-(1H)-X-(3H)
Well now 4C isn't forcing, so 5C has to be natural, right? So should the two situations be considered similar or different? I still think in either case 4NT as showing a 2 card discrepancy is probably better than using it as RKC.
Thoughts are welcome in the comments section before I move on to the next part of the problems this hand generated.
1C-(1H)-X-(3H)
3H is preemptive
1. What is 4D?
2. What is 4NT?
3. What is 5D?
Let's start with 1. Do your negative doubles imply diamonds? Or can the doubler have 4324? If they imply diamonds, does that mean 4D can be bid just competitively with say 2146? I assume that for most players, 4D here is natural and forcing.
2. At least one grand life master thought it was blackwood (RKC). Is this the best use of this bid? Is opener so worried about overcaller bidding 5H that opener can't bid 4H followed by 4NT? I remember discussing this auction a few years back and someone suggested 4NT was minors with an emphasis on clubs (2+ card discrepancy) while 4D would be 1 card discrepancy. Maybe that information is more useful?
3. Here's where the questions about this auction came from. The bid at the table was 5D. So what is 5D? I've heard three different interpretations so far. Exclusion blackwood (RKC), diamond void slam try without being exclusion, and natural. My first response would be to not play this as natural because 4D would be natural and forcing for me. But then I got to thinking, and what if the auction was this:
1D-(1H)-X-(3H)
Well now 4C isn't forcing, so 5C has to be natural, right? So should the two situations be considered similar or different? I still think in either case 4NT as showing a 2 card discrepancy is probably better than using it as RKC.
Thoughts are welcome in the comments section before I move on to the next part of the problems this hand generated.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Playing the Slot Machine (bridge)
Played this one during the Saturday pairs. Nothing to discuss of bridge value, but cute. Check out the claim I made at trick 11.
And a beer too!
And a beer too!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Is it so hard to teach visualization? (bridge)
I read the ACBL Bridge Bulletin to kill time. Some of the contributors are great, including Cohen, Kantar, Stewart and Bird. Some I just don't bother to read. How is it that Karen Walker is still on habit 9 of her 12 habits dissertation? It seems like that thing's been going on forever. Then there are some that I read even though I strongly dislike what they're teaching.
One of those in the last category is Marty Bergen. I don't think he's been relevant to real bridge for a long time now, and I think the rule of 20 is one of the worst bidding ideas that hit the bridge world in the past decade. I believe that the key skill for successful bidding is the ability to visualize partner's range of hands and bid accordingly. I know it's hard for the I/N player, but I don't think what Bergen is teaching them instead is any better. In this month's article, Bergen discusses re-evaluating after a fit by using his Bergen Points. To calculate the Bergen Points, one only needed to do "adjust-3" (i don't know what that is, but it consisted of counting 5 upgrades and 1 downgrade on his example hand), then adding/subtracting points for "quality suit", "length points", "short suits", "6+ trumps", and "side suits". How is learning, memorizing, then calculating all these things for Bergen points easier than learning to correctly visualize how partner's hand might mesh with yours for trick taking purposes?
I just find it irresponsible that a famous bridge teacher continues to teach things that don't help improve the students' actual bridge game.
One of those in the last category is Marty Bergen. I don't think he's been relevant to real bridge for a long time now, and I think the rule of 20 is one of the worst bidding ideas that hit the bridge world in the past decade. I believe that the key skill for successful bidding is the ability to visualize partner's range of hands and bid accordingly. I know it's hard for the I/N player, but I don't think what Bergen is teaching them instead is any better. In this month's article, Bergen discusses re-evaluating after a fit by using his Bergen Points. To calculate the Bergen Points, one only needed to do "adjust-3" (i don't know what that is, but it consisted of counting 5 upgrades and 1 downgrade on his example hand), then adding/subtracting points for "quality suit", "length points", "short suits", "6+ trumps", and "side suits". How is learning, memorizing, then calculating all these things for Bergen points easier than learning to correctly visualize how partner's hand might mesh with yours for trick taking purposes?
I just find it irresponsible that a famous bridge teacher continues to teach things that don't help improve the students' actual bridge game.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
BBO Robot Races (bridge)
It all started with me reading JLW, and MOJO and Ashton off of JLW's links. They were talking about playing the robot matchpoint duplicates, and given that I'm on another poker hiatus, I decided to play some. I didn't get to play the ACBL 12-board ones, but played a good number of the 8-board ones that go off very frequently. When my BB$ balance started getting low, I decided to play some robot races which would actually pay out BB$. That was the start of ... something.
The robot races are amusing enough for me and with the fast pace, feed into my ADHD perfectly. I've built my BB$ bankroll from 2 to about 26 over the course of 2 days. I pretty much followed the basic strategy that JL mentioned on his blog (which he no longer updates), and after enough games, made some tweaks that I feel work really well. One of the things that I noticed was that because of the speed level of the GIBs in the races, they are very very very bad. Significantly worse than the ones that play in the matchpoint duplicates.
Some of their tendencies include almost always covering an honor with an honor (the old Zia Bols tip), switching suits against your notrump contracts even though you're wide open, rarely ducking, and rarely underleading an A or K in the middle of the hand.
So if you're interested in playing against the GIBS for bridge purposes, I would avoid these. Even if you stumble into some interesting play contracts, your aim is speed and the defense you receive will be poor. If you just want to do a lot of clicking, toss some virtual cards, and enjoy constantly playing hand after hand, then these might be for you. My full strategy really takes out a lot of what people consider to be fun at bridge, so I won't share all of it. I will say that to succeed at a high rate, you have to know when to bash slams and in general how GIB reacts to jumps in different situations.
The robot races are amusing enough for me and with the fast pace, feed into my ADHD perfectly. I've built my BB$ bankroll from 2 to about 26 over the course of 2 days. I pretty much followed the basic strategy that JL mentioned on his blog (which he no longer updates), and after enough games, made some tweaks that I feel work really well. One of the things that I noticed was that because of the speed level of the GIBs in the races, they are very very very bad. Significantly worse than the ones that play in the matchpoint duplicates.
Some of their tendencies include almost always covering an honor with an honor (the old Zia Bols tip), switching suits against your notrump contracts even though you're wide open, rarely ducking, and rarely underleading an A or K in the middle of the hand.
So if you're interested in playing against the GIBS for bridge purposes, I would avoid these. Even if you stumble into some interesting play contracts, your aim is speed and the defense you receive will be poor. If you just want to do a lot of clicking, toss some virtual cards, and enjoy constantly playing hand after hand, then these might be for you. My full strategy really takes out a lot of what people consider to be fun at bridge, so I won't share all of it. I will say that to succeed at a high rate, you have to know when to bash slams and in general how GIB reacts to jumps in different situations.
Monday, August 3, 2009
DC Nationals (bridge)
This was the first nationals I'd been to since the one in New York in 2004. I hated the weather, which was hot and humid throughout and very muggy. The hotel I stayed at was clean, but we had actual keys, not key cards, and the dampness was persistent in our room throughout. While it wasn't bad, I didn't think the price I was charged was justified. Food was pretty good overall. The nearby chinese takeout place was above average and there was a decent thai place and a pretty good falafel place within walking distance. There was one really nice expensive dinner, but that will come in a separate post.
I managed to get talked into playing one midnight loose and snooze KO, which we won. I also participated in a puzzle hunt, which we won. It's like a scavenger hunt where one clue leads you to the next and so on. It turns out that the puzzle hunt (mostly played by caddies) has always been a tradition at the DC nationals, especially since the setup of the Marriott is really nice for such a game.
Not much to talk about bridge-wise. I didn't play particularly well, but felt I was pretty good during the 2 day Open Swiss. I lost my mind on one board during the whole event, and that really was about it. We got blitzed in the penultimate round so we withdrew so everyone could catch their buses and trains. I'll describe three hands here, but only one of them would be a real bridge problem.
The first hand is from the midnight KO. Playing with a new partner with very little discussion besides 2/1 and DONT, I pick up ♠Ax ♥xx ♦x ♣AKQxxxxx. Partner opens 1♦ and I bid 2♣. Partner rebids 2♥ and I rebid 3♣. The auction then goes all pass. LHO leads the ♠K as dummy comes down with ♠J9x ♥KQJx ♦KQxxx ♣x. Partner says that she usually plays this auction as nonforcing, and we didn't have time to discuss it. I usually err on the side of bidding game in those situations, but it's ok because if I lose, I get to snooze. I win the ♠A and cash the top club. RHO shows out. Yup. 4-0 clubs and we win on the hand as well as the match.
The second hand is from the first day of the Open Swiss. Playing against a team of French nationals, I hold ♠Qx ♥KJxxx ♦xxx ♣Axx with favorable vulnerability. Partner passes, RHO opens 1♦, and I bid 2♥. I think the pros very much outweigh the cons for a bid like this. Partner is a passed hand so we're likely not missing game. The colors are favorable and make it harder for the opponents to double me if I bid too much. I gain the advantage of taking up space while partner won't hang me for preempting nonvulnerable opposite a passed hand. Also, in the Zia sense of things, declarer might misguess the ♠Q because of the preempt. In fact, that is what happened. The opponents pushed themselves up to 5♠, then misguessed the position as LHO held J87x opposite RHO's ATxx. Partner did a great job of covering the ♠J when it was led, and after I'd shown up with the ♥KJ and ♣A, declarer went up with the ♠10 on the second round of trumps.
The third hand was also from the first day of the swiss, and it was against a team that I knew well, consisting of Patrick Huang and client with a pair of Hong Kong players. I held ♠Kxx ♥Axx ♦AT98 ♣KQx V vs. NV. Partner opened a 15+ to 18- 1NT, and RHO overcalled 2♠, showing spades and a minor. I didn't think I'd pick up a suitable penalty, so I decided to ignore the bid. I think that normally I'd invite with this hand. However, I thought that it was close enough given our range that it was worth it to take a shot at 6NT given the extra information from the overcall. What would you bid?
So I bid 6NT and partner's hand was ♠QJx ♥KJxx ♦KQxx ♣Ax. Do you want to be in this slam?
Well, either way, the hearts were Qxx offside (RHO was 5305) so there was no play. At the other table, perhaps in response to having gone for 800 on their first board, the player holding my cards bid 3NT over RHO's 2♠ overcall. Talk about taking the low road, he was practically digging an underground tunnel.
One of the other things I noticed during the nationals was that the 0-5000 mini-Spingold lasted a full 6 days. Since I really like long KO matches, I started thinking whether I should consider entering that event next time. Actually, I came to this conclusion. I play very little bridge right now and assuming it continues, I'm never going to be in "fighting shape" when I get my ass over to a nationals. Half-assing it and then getting my head kicked in in the high level national events isn't really the way to go. Perhaps when this event rolls around next time if I am still not playing much bridge overall I should just put together a good team and play it and get some enjoyable long KO matches out of it.
I managed to get talked into playing one midnight loose and snooze KO, which we won. I also participated in a puzzle hunt, which we won. It's like a scavenger hunt where one clue leads you to the next and so on. It turns out that the puzzle hunt (mostly played by caddies) has always been a tradition at the DC nationals, especially since the setup of the Marriott is really nice for such a game.
Not much to talk about bridge-wise. I didn't play particularly well, but felt I was pretty good during the 2 day Open Swiss. I lost my mind on one board during the whole event, and that really was about it. We got blitzed in the penultimate round so we withdrew so everyone could catch their buses and trains. I'll describe three hands here, but only one of them would be a real bridge problem.
The first hand is from the midnight KO. Playing with a new partner with very little discussion besides 2/1 and DONT, I pick up ♠Ax ♥xx ♦x ♣AKQxxxxx. Partner opens 1♦ and I bid 2♣. Partner rebids 2♥ and I rebid 3♣. The auction then goes all pass. LHO leads the ♠K as dummy comes down with ♠J9x ♥KQJx ♦KQxxx ♣x. Partner says that she usually plays this auction as nonforcing, and we didn't have time to discuss it. I usually err on the side of bidding game in those situations, but it's ok because if I lose, I get to snooze. I win the ♠A and cash the top club. RHO shows out. Yup. 4-0 clubs and we win on the hand as well as the match.
The second hand is from the first day of the Open Swiss. Playing against a team of French nationals, I hold ♠Qx ♥KJxxx ♦xxx ♣Axx with favorable vulnerability. Partner passes, RHO opens 1♦, and I bid 2♥. I think the pros very much outweigh the cons for a bid like this. Partner is a passed hand so we're likely not missing game. The colors are favorable and make it harder for the opponents to double me if I bid too much. I gain the advantage of taking up space while partner won't hang me for preempting nonvulnerable opposite a passed hand. Also, in the Zia sense of things, declarer might misguess the ♠Q because of the preempt. In fact, that is what happened. The opponents pushed themselves up to 5♠, then misguessed the position as LHO held J87x opposite RHO's ATxx. Partner did a great job of covering the ♠J when it was led, and after I'd shown up with the ♥KJ and ♣A, declarer went up with the ♠10 on the second round of trumps.
The third hand was also from the first day of the swiss, and it was against a team that I knew well, consisting of Patrick Huang and client with a pair of Hong Kong players. I held ♠Kxx ♥Axx ♦AT98 ♣KQx V vs. NV. Partner opened a 15+ to 18- 1NT, and RHO overcalled 2♠, showing spades and a minor. I didn't think I'd pick up a suitable penalty, so I decided to ignore the bid. I think that normally I'd invite with this hand. However, I thought that it was close enough given our range that it was worth it to take a shot at 6NT given the extra information from the overcall. What would you bid?
So I bid 6NT and partner's hand was ♠QJx ♥KJxx ♦KQxx ♣Ax. Do you want to be in this slam?
Well, either way, the hearts were Qxx offside (RHO was 5305) so there was no play. At the other table, perhaps in response to having gone for 800 on their first board, the player holding my cards bid 3NT over RHO's 2♠ overcall. Talk about taking the low road, he was practically digging an underground tunnel.
One of the other things I noticed during the nationals was that the 0-5000 mini-Spingold lasted a full 6 days. Since I really like long KO matches, I started thinking whether I should consider entering that event next time. Actually, I came to this conclusion. I play very little bridge right now and assuming it continues, I'm never going to be in "fighting shape" when I get my ass over to a nationals. Half-assing it and then getting my head kicked in in the high level national events isn't really the way to go. Perhaps when this event rolls around next time if I am still not playing much bridge overall I should just put together a good team and play it and get some enjoyable long KO matches out of it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why I'm thinking about playing the lottery (gambling, entertainment, bridge)
I've been thinking about this for a while, but first, a topic that's indirectly related. While discussing my post Poker at South Point: The Normal, my friend, who plays a lot of poker, had some thoughts about a couple of the hands. Regarding hand 1, he said, "I can't believe that nit folded for 30. that's an awful raise - and you're not raising for info, you're raising for value. TPTK is the nuts live, so overpairs are the supernuts." Then he said, "hand 2, you absolutely have to bet middle pair for value on the flop. you have the best hand here an overwhelming majority of the time at 1/2." The thing in common I noticed about the two comments was the use of the term "value".
I know that poker players love talking about EV and I certainly know enough about it, with my Bayesian stats background. Also, as another friend said, "In poker, EV tends to equal EU. It won't always, but on any given hand, it probably does." But in this case, it really was about EU. It's about utility. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice expected value for other things that mean more to my personal utility. I wasn't out there to play 3000 hands/week and grind out a second living. I was out there to have some fun, play some cards, and maintain a +EV without risking much capital if I could avoid it. Keeping the pot size variance down when the hand was speculative was very important for me. Everybody has their own style that maximizes their playing ability, ie. personal utility.
This topic also comes up in bridge. While discussing bidding with a potential partner, he would frequently retort, "Bob Hamman doesn't bid like that." Bob Hamman also plays Flannery and I believe he is the only world class player that plays standard carding. Two things that most modern experts would classify as technically inferior (and hence not maximizing EV, right?). But when you play as well as Hamman, the things that matter are comfort and reducing randomness. The marginal return on pressing that edge is much smaller than the utility created from avoiding randomness and additional comfort. I've read somewhere that the Italians tend not to preempt at the 3 level for fear of generating random results.
Okay, back to the lottery. I was once told the story of a statistics professor who won a third prize in the lottery. One of his students asked him, "Sir, you're a statistics professor. You know that the odds are against you. So why did you play?" The professor replied, "Well, somebody's got to win it." That is true, and you only have to win it once. Or maybe not. There have been many stories and documentaries about people who won the lottery only to end up worse than before. What's the problem there?
The point I want to make is that I think more middle-class and upper middle-class folks should be playing the lottery. These are the people who, if they won the lottery, would buy real estate, spend on education, invest in businesses, and donate to charity. I think it would be better in terms of both personal utility as well as social utility. However, it is also in these educated circles that people think of playing the lottery as a waste of money and think of its horrible expected value. Insurance, however, is also bad from an expected value point of view, and yet everyone has it or wants it. I just want a dollar and a dream.
I know that poker players love talking about EV and I certainly know enough about it, with my Bayesian stats background. Also, as another friend said, "In poker, EV tends to equal EU. It won't always, but on any given hand, it probably does." But in this case, it really was about EU. It's about utility. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice expected value for other things that mean more to my personal utility. I wasn't out there to play 3000 hands/week and grind out a second living. I was out there to have some fun, play some cards, and maintain a +EV without risking much capital if I could avoid it. Keeping the pot size variance down when the hand was speculative was very important for me. Everybody has their own style that maximizes their playing ability, ie. personal utility.
This topic also comes up in bridge. While discussing bidding with a potential partner, he would frequently retort, "Bob Hamman doesn't bid like that." Bob Hamman also plays Flannery and I believe he is the only world class player that plays standard carding. Two things that most modern experts would classify as technically inferior (and hence not maximizing EV, right?). But when you play as well as Hamman, the things that matter are comfort and reducing randomness. The marginal return on pressing that edge is much smaller than the utility created from avoiding randomness and additional comfort. I've read somewhere that the Italians tend not to preempt at the 3 level for fear of generating random results.
Okay, back to the lottery. I was once told the story of a statistics professor who won a third prize in the lottery. One of his students asked him, "Sir, you're a statistics professor. You know that the odds are against you. So why did you play?" The professor replied, "Well, somebody's got to win it." That is true, and you only have to win it once. Or maybe not. There have been many stories and documentaries about people who won the lottery only to end up worse than before. What's the problem there?
The point I want to make is that I think more middle-class and upper middle-class folks should be playing the lottery. These are the people who, if they won the lottery, would buy real estate, spend on education, invest in businesses, and donate to charity. I think it would be better in terms of both personal utility as well as social utility. However, it is also in these educated circles that people think of playing the lottery as a waste of money and think of its horrible expected value. Insurance, however, is also bad from an expected value point of view, and yet everyone has it or wants it. I just want a dollar and a dream.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Running score (bridge, sport)
Just finished watching the early afternoon vugraph on BBO of this year's team trials for selecting the representatives for the US in this year's world championship. In two of the round of 32 matches in this session, there was a "state of the match" gamble on the final board.
In one match, one player made a leap to slam which made on some helpful lies and won the match despite trailing by 5 imps going into that board. While the auction made it seem that the jump to slam was a calculated risk, it was still very likely that the perceived score influenced the decision.
In another match, one player bid a grand and went down while the other table bid and made the small slam which decided the match. I did not kibitz this match, but I was told that bidding the grand might have also been a "state of the match" decision. The problem was that the team that bid the grand was actually up 5 imps going into that board!
This brought up a very good point among the specs. Bridge is the only sport (or mindsport if you want) where there is no running score known to the players up to the last decision to be made. In all physical sports there is a running score, in poker there are chip counts, and in a race you can always look back and see where your opponents are. In bridge, depending on the number of boards designated per set, you can only know the running score up till that last set. The only argument for a sport where the running score wasn't known was boxing, but that score is a subjective tally and I think that's different.
What's also different with bridge is that it's the only sport where there are a set number of boards that are played. Because of the need for comparisons across the duplication, this is different from a "timed" event. I'm not sure I know any other sport/game that does that. In the end, bridge cannot do a running score without slowing the game down tremendously. Because of the duplication, both sides would be restricted to playing each individual board within a specified time frame, or else the table that plays faster would be disadvantaged by the lack of score comparison. This is also why a barometer style pairs is ok, because it's normal to expect all pairs to finish a round simultaneously.
This is just something we all have to accept as bridge players, and it might also be another reason in support of why bridge is not a sport, but a game or mindsport if you will.
In one match, one player made a leap to slam which made on some helpful lies and won the match despite trailing by 5 imps going into that board. While the auction made it seem that the jump to slam was a calculated risk, it was still very likely that the perceived score influenced the decision.
In another match, one player bid a grand and went down while the other table bid and made the small slam which decided the match. I did not kibitz this match, but I was told that bidding the grand might have also been a "state of the match" decision. The problem was that the team that bid the grand was actually up 5 imps going into that board!
This brought up a very good point among the specs. Bridge is the only sport (or mindsport if you want) where there is no running score known to the players up to the last decision to be made. In all physical sports there is a running score, in poker there are chip counts, and in a race you can always look back and see where your opponents are. In bridge, depending on the number of boards designated per set, you can only know the running score up till that last set. The only argument for a sport where the running score wasn't known was boxing, but that score is a subjective tally and I think that's different.
What's also different with bridge is that it's the only sport where there are a set number of boards that are played. Because of the need for comparisons across the duplication, this is different from a "timed" event. I'm not sure I know any other sport/game that does that. In the end, bridge cannot do a running score without slowing the game down tremendously. Because of the duplication, both sides would be restricted to playing each individual board within a specified time frame, or else the table that plays faster would be disadvantaged by the lack of score comparison. This is also why a barometer style pairs is ok, because it's normal to expect all pairs to finish a round simultaneously.
This is just something we all have to accept as bridge players, and it might also be another reason in support of why bridge is not a sport, but a game or mindsport if you will.
Monday, May 4, 2009
An automatic psych (bridge)
While there's really no such thing as an automatic psych, the following scenario is what I believe to be the best controlled risk/reward psych available without it being a systemic psych (eg. pretending strength opposite a limited partner). I've discussed this psych before, but a similar hand (in the example that follows I'm going to use the most optimal hand) came up while I was playing this past weekend.
Say you hold ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQTx with partner dealer and your side not vulnerable.
The auction starts pass by partner, 1♣ by RHO.
I think the proper bid here is a psych of 1♠!!!
Let's first look at the obvious risk. Partner has spades and raises. If partner has a good hand and makes a limit raise with 2♣, no problem you pass. Let's say partner raises you to 2/3/4 spades. Because you have 3 of them, it's less likely for one of the opponents to have a spade stack which makes it easy to double you. Also because you have 3 of them, it could be a legitimate suit for your side to play in. 2♠ in a moysian fit wouldn't be so bad, and 4♠ if partner has 5 of them wouldn't be so bad either. This is one of the main reasons why I think it's better to psych in spades than in hearts, even though looking at your hand hearts might be more likely to be their suit. It's much more dangerous when you're wrong if you psych in hearts.
Now let's look at the secondary risks. Let's say you do pick off their spade suit. If it goes pass by your LHO and partner and RHO reopens with a double, chances are LHO had a trap and you can just bid 2♣. There are some partners who might not work it out, but I try not to play with them. Another secondary risk is that you cannot take advantage even when you have succeeded. You derail their auction, but they land in a different spot and partner makes a spade lead that is very bad for the defense. This is a big risk for a lot of psychs. However, one of the advantages of psyching with this hand is that it takes away one of those cases.
The main advantage of the psych comes from actually stealing the opponents' spade fit. The two most likely scenarios are:
1. LHO has 5 spades and decides to trap, opening bidder with 3-4 spades might not be able to reopen. You might get to play it in 1S undoubled (of course you could be down 250 on a partscore hand, but the chances of them missing a game on that auction have to be much higher)
2. LHO has 4-5 spades and decides to bid notrump, likely raised to 3NT at some point by RHO. This is the killing point of the whole hand. This is the reason why I advocate a psych with this specific hand. You can now DOUBLE to ask for a club lead. This mitigates one of the risks mentioned earlier of partner making the wrong lead against the opponents' contract in the wrong strain.
So it seems to me that the risk to reward for psyching here is immensely in your favor. There is a good chance for the opponents to miss their spade game or play the hand in a notrump game going down instead. At the same time, holding 3 spades and being able to subsequently ask for a club lead strongly decreases the likelihood of disaster, especially relative to most "normal" psychs.
Say you hold ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQTx with partner dealer and your side not vulnerable.
The auction starts pass by partner, 1♣ by RHO.
I think the proper bid here is a psych of 1♠!!!
Let's first look at the obvious risk. Partner has spades and raises. If partner has a good hand and makes a limit raise with 2♣, no problem you pass. Let's say partner raises you to 2/3/4 spades. Because you have 3 of them, it's less likely for one of the opponents to have a spade stack which makes it easy to double you. Also because you have 3 of them, it could be a legitimate suit for your side to play in. 2♠ in a moysian fit wouldn't be so bad, and 4♠ if partner has 5 of them wouldn't be so bad either. This is one of the main reasons why I think it's better to psych in spades than in hearts, even though looking at your hand hearts might be more likely to be their suit. It's much more dangerous when you're wrong if you psych in hearts.
Now let's look at the secondary risks. Let's say you do pick off their spade suit. If it goes pass by your LHO and partner and RHO reopens with a double, chances are LHO had a trap and you can just bid 2♣. There are some partners who might not work it out, but I try not to play with them. Another secondary risk is that you cannot take advantage even when you have succeeded. You derail their auction, but they land in a different spot and partner makes a spade lead that is very bad for the defense. This is a big risk for a lot of psychs. However, one of the advantages of psyching with this hand is that it takes away one of those cases.
The main advantage of the psych comes from actually stealing the opponents' spade fit. The two most likely scenarios are:
1. LHO has 5 spades and decides to trap, opening bidder with 3-4 spades might not be able to reopen. You might get to play it in 1S undoubled (of course you could be down 250 on a partscore hand, but the chances of them missing a game on that auction have to be much higher)
2. LHO has 4-5 spades and decides to bid notrump, likely raised to 3NT at some point by RHO. This is the killing point of the whole hand. This is the reason why I advocate a psych with this specific hand. You can now DOUBLE to ask for a club lead. This mitigates one of the risks mentioned earlier of partner making the wrong lead against the opponents' contract in the wrong strain.
So it seems to me that the risk to reward for psyching here is immensely in your favor. There is a good chance for the opponents to miss their spade game or play the hand in a notrump game going down instead. At the same time, holding 3 spades and being able to subsequently ask for a club lead strongly decreases the likelihood of disaster, especially relative to most "normal" psychs.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Why I play standard carding (bridge)
I am probably one of the few players left of my caliber who prefer standard carding. Then again, I'm probably also one of the very few players of my caliber who prefer sound initial action bordering on Roth-Stone.
The most obvious reason for my preference for standard carding is one of familiarity, as I've been playing it for so long it's harder to remember playing UDCA when I do agree to it. I understand the merits of UDCA (or those who play UD attitude with standard count), but I feel that not many people understand the merits of playing standard. Upside-down signals are technically superior, with some advantages mentioned originally by Sheinwold in the Bridge World back in 1954 http://www.acbl.org/play/in-their-own-words.php?convention=sheinwold2 . However, my preference for standard is not about technical merit but about the feel of the game.
Counting is important. It's not that I only value feel and don't bother to count. While I do play mostly standard carding, I also play 3rd/low leads against suits for a better count of the suit. One of the advantages listed by Sheinwold is that sometimes you just can't spare a card that high for an encouraging signal. Fine, then don't. But if you count the pips correctly and have a good feel for how the play goes, more often than not you will realize when to continue even if your partner doesn't give you an encouraging card. If I were to analyze this further, my guess would be that this advantage of an unspared high card is most important when the signaller has length in that suit, whereas the situation is almost detrimental if the signaller has a shorter holding especially with one or two lesser honors. So perhaps the solution is to combine the two. Perhaps play standard to an opening lead (from presumed length in notrump) and then upside down when we try to find partner's suit in the middle of the hand. Or another way would be to adjust based on how many cards are being held in the suit in dummy. If dummy in front of me has 4 cards in the suit versus 2 cards, I'll play upside-down versus standard, and if dummy behind me has 2 cards versus 4 cards, I'll play upside-down as well since I'll probably need all the high cards for leading through length in the closed hand.
I won't argue about the second advantage listed but the third one can be avoided with even more superior discard agreements than just UDCA. In fact, I've always had a belief that even if you don't play them at any other time, you should always play some version of a lavinthal discard against 1NT or 2NT because too often you'll need to keep the whole 5+ card suit to take enough defensive tricks while at the same time give a clear signal to partner.
As for the feel of the game, it's been a long long time since I've played with anyone who has agreed to really play every card to the max on defense. That means not only the initial signals, but that every subsequent card also has a small meaning to the hand. Since most of us don't do that, we follow suit. Following suit has a flow and a rhythm, dictated by the pips we're dealt. When someone plays an unnecessarily high one, it draws my attention. This is especially useful if I'm playing online, because I'm probably doing 2 other things on the internet and watching TV at the same time.
Another reason I want standard encouraging cards to stand out is the way that I view defense. The opening lead is the number one card played in the hand with the least information available. Second on that list is breaking a new suit in the middle of the hand. Chances are you're going to be wrong more often than you are right just on that lack of information alone. That's why I would prefer a system where partner plays an unnecesarily high card to tell me I'm right rather than to tell me I'm wrong.
The most obvious reason for my preference for standard carding is one of familiarity, as I've been playing it for so long it's harder to remember playing UDCA when I do agree to it. I understand the merits of UDCA (or those who play UD attitude with standard count), but I feel that not many people understand the merits of playing standard. Upside-down signals are technically superior, with some advantages mentioned originally by Sheinwold in the Bridge World back in 1954 http://www.acbl.org/play/in-their-own-words.php?convention=sheinwold2 . However, my preference for standard is not about technical merit but about the feel of the game.
Counting is important. It's not that I only value feel and don't bother to count. While I do play mostly standard carding, I also play 3rd/low leads against suits for a better count of the suit. One of the advantages listed by Sheinwold is that sometimes you just can't spare a card that high for an encouraging signal. Fine, then don't. But if you count the pips correctly and have a good feel for how the play goes, more often than not you will realize when to continue even if your partner doesn't give you an encouraging card. If I were to analyze this further, my guess would be that this advantage of an unspared high card is most important when the signaller has length in that suit, whereas the situation is almost detrimental if the signaller has a shorter holding especially with one or two lesser honors. So perhaps the solution is to combine the two. Perhaps play standard to an opening lead (from presumed length in notrump) and then upside down when we try to find partner's suit in the middle of the hand. Or another way would be to adjust based on how many cards are being held in the suit in dummy. If dummy in front of me has 4 cards in the suit versus 2 cards, I'll play upside-down versus standard, and if dummy behind me has 2 cards versus 4 cards, I'll play upside-down as well since I'll probably need all the high cards for leading through length in the closed hand.
I won't argue about the second advantage listed but the third one can be avoided with even more superior discard agreements than just UDCA. In fact, I've always had a belief that even if you don't play them at any other time, you should always play some version of a lavinthal discard against 1NT or 2NT because too often you'll need to keep the whole 5+ card suit to take enough defensive tricks while at the same time give a clear signal to partner.
As for the feel of the game, it's been a long long time since I've played with anyone who has agreed to really play every card to the max on defense. That means not only the initial signals, but that every subsequent card also has a small meaning to the hand. Since most of us don't do that, we follow suit. Following suit has a flow and a rhythm, dictated by the pips we're dealt. When someone plays an unnecessarily high one, it draws my attention. This is especially useful if I'm playing online, because I'm probably doing 2 other things on the internet and watching TV at the same time.
Another reason I want standard encouraging cards to stand out is the way that I view defense. The opening lead is the number one card played in the hand with the least information available. Second on that list is breaking a new suit in the middle of the hand. Chances are you're going to be wrong more often than you are right just on that lack of information alone. That's why I would prefer a system where partner plays an unnecesarily high card to tell me I'm right rather than to tell me I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)