Chamaco

Vero, ma in questo caso ha una semibilanciata 5332, e non capisco perchè non abbia ridichiarato 1SA. La ripetizione del minore dovrebe - a mio avviso - mosrare una mano ben piu' sbilanciata di questa. A questo proposito, mi sembra ci siano 2 possibilità, che per la mano specifica mi lasciano entrambe perplesso: a. 6Q mostra una chicane GENERICA: questo trattamento m sembra poco efficace (consuma spazio); se proprio dovessi scegliere un metodo per mostrare caerte chiave dispari e chicane generica, userei il primo gradino sopra 5SA; b. il metodo RKCB proposto da Kantar, infatti usa: 5NT = carte chiave pari e chicane indeterminata, mentre 6 a colore mostra carte chiave dispari e chicane specificamente in quel colore, MA SOLO SE IL VUOTO E' UTILE (non in un palo 5o-6o del p).

3rd seat 1H or 2H both seem reasonable. 1st seat might stretch to open 1H if playing strong club, but I still lean towards a pass. 2nd seat, always a pass (2nd seat an opening must always be FULL, and a weak 2 must always be textbook, the chances of misguiding pard are to high when we make an ill-descriptive bid in 2nd seat). 2H has many many flaws: - bad suit: this is bad from 1000 viewpoints (opening lead, easier -psychologically -fotr opps to double us when they have to top honors in the suit, etc etc) - too much defense and wasted honors - 6322 crappy shape. I might open 2H only in a system such as Fantoni:Nunes, wghere suit quality and ODR are not requirements for a 2-level opening; and even then, I would not feel safe. Opening 1H depends on the partnerships requirements for a minimum opener. In a "standard"-ish system, the concrete (not hypothetical) risk is that pard, with some degree of fit and a god hand, might take off towards an unmakeable slam. Passing such hands is not a bad word B) But give me the same hand with a 3-6-3-1 (stiff club), and I'd stretch to open 2H in 1st/3rd seat (still a pass in 2nd seat).

3NT, the most likely game. Uninformative auctions in such hands should be a long term winner (defenders may err on opening lead and/or early switches), even if in a few hands we land in inferior contracts.

... la mia inventiva, e la mia conoscenza, possono essere limitate ad alcune possibilità... ma tu esponi tranquillamente qualunque significato possibile del 6♦ che integro il post... B) ... e pensare che a me pareva anche di averci anche "dato dentro"... sono il solito pigrone evidentemente... B) Ardfissimo, non dicevo che le tue spiegazioni fossero fuori luogo, ma intendevo dire che mi sembra molto difficile giustificare una dichiarazione di 6Q, anche con tutta la tua benevolenza e buona volontà: a. voglio giocare 6Q: questo presuppone che l'apertore sia in grado di prevedere cos'ha il rispondente, ma cio' nonn è giustificabile. Ormai il rispondente ha preso il controllo della licita, e bisogna rispondergli, sia pure a malincuore, secondo lo schema di risposte RKCB b. 6Q = carte chiave dispari e vuoto utile: in questo schema, si dichiara 6 in un colore dove abbiamo il vuoto; ma il vuoto a quadri non puo' essere considerato utile (tradizinalmente, il sing/vuoto in un colore in cui il p ha mostrato 5/6 + carte è considerato un elemento di svalutazione della mano, e non è assolutamente considerato "utile" ) c. tentativo generico di grande slam: anche cio' non è giustificabile: l'apertore ha perso il controlo della licita, e deve rispondere al p, non ibellarsi (vedi punto a). In poche parole, ormai i tentativi li puo' fare solo chi ha avviato la RKCB. d. misclick (o estrazione errata del cartellino): forse è la piu' razionale delle ipotesi. ============================= In realtà, giocando lo schema completo RKCB, l'unico significato DAVVERO utile di 6Q sarebbe, secondo me: - ho carte chiave dispari ed in piu' - ho un vuoto utile (in questo caso il vuoto nel colore avversario. ovvero fiori), ed in piu' - ho il complemento a quadri di onore (in questo caso il K) - pertanto, scegli tu lo slam migliore (che potrebbe essere grande o piccolo, a quadri, cuori, o SA)

Ci sarebbe molto da discutere sulla dichiarazione, ma date le premesse del sondaggio, confuso da una licita sconcertante sono indeciso tra 6 cuori e passo. Alla fine dichiaro 6 cuori, ma non mi sento di biasimare un passo. Tentare un grande slam dopo una dichiarazione incomprensibile (nessuna delle spiegazioni fornite sul significato possibile di 6Q mi sembra razionale in questo caso) mi sembra piu' azzardato di una roulette russa B)

Sorry, perhaps wrong terminology. My "bias" term referred to Trumpace premises which were as follows: "We have a coin which has 75% chances of showing heads and 25% chances of showing tails." it's obvious that the outcome of the the coin flip is "biased" (if it was a dice throw, the dice would be "loaded"), in terms of an "a priori" probability different from 50%, but feel free to use the most appropriate term, I won't argue about it :-) Of course, it is right to use the "biased" example, since both in the coin flip AND in the safety play, we have an a priori probability different from random. What I was criticizing is the fact that, in the analysis of the coin flip bets, one should take into account that, after each set of coin flips, the odds should be updated as a result of the previous flips. At the second, third, fourth, etc set of coin flip sequences, the odds for head and for tail will be different than 75% and 25% based on the previous outcomes. This alters considerably the cost benefit analysis, even in Trumpace's example.

Cynical jokes are fine, I like them , but in my opionion they should not hit open wounds. E.g. if you joke about the wars in the middleage, it's fine, but if you make a joke about, say, the war in Vietnam or in the middle east conflicts or the 11 september, that's worse: many people are still suffering about its consequences. Similarly, the Buratti Lanzarotti case - as all the cheating cases - is still a defeat for the bridge world, whether they are guilty or not, and is still a fresh and open wound for the bridge community and for them (especially if they were innocent) I'd say it's a painful case, in the limited context of bridge competition and the prestige of the game. Secondarily, even if they are cheaters, I think that the statement that they can't beat anyone is way out of place, so this does not make the joke funny, or at least well-directed. Finally, if the joke had to be realistic, it should take into account that in Italy every court appeal takes about 10-20 years to complete ;)

I duck a club first. If opps do not return trumps, I have 2 clubs entries to hand to ruff spades. If opps do return a trump I win in hand and ruff a spade, cross to hand with a diamond, and run trumps, hoping for a minor suit squeeze on west. ==== EDIT: hm, seems like adam' line is better than ducking, as it avoids the not unlikely club ruff

One further point of agreement is whether one should splinter with a stiff honor. If we do splinter with such a hand type, pard is likely to deevaluate the hand if he has fitting honors there, and misjudge the combined potential...

If you run it over a long timeseries, we get closer to the mathematic odds, that is, the example of the insurance company, who is willing to risk to pay a big amount for a very low frequency risk, but cash in in the rest of the cases. I think the example of the insurance company is much better than the example of the coin flipped: the insurance can be one-year only, 2 years or longer, and the risk calculated on a 1 year period can be an analogy to the risk computed of the short-term" match (or set of matches) in bridge. ==== The exmple of the biased coin flip is not well posed, because: 1) at the end of a single set, before we start a new set of coin flips, the % of outcomes are not the same as at the start, because the probability "a priori" has changed because in the previous set(s) the coin exited as tail X times and exited as heads Y times; so if you have won one set, you are almost sure to lose the 2nd and 3rd set; you cannot recompute the odds for the following sets with the original probabilities, the odds must be updated as a function of past results. 2) the % of risk is too high compared to the number of coin throws. If you run the same analysis with every set having, say, 6+ throws, we all know that my side would be a winner.

That's the point: 1-IMPS pluses , especially among comparable teams, are not irrelevant, or to throw away at the end of the match. Another way to view this is to ask a top level player: how many times did you lose a match by 1 imp? and how many times did you win a match because you made (or opps failed to make) a safety play catering for a <5% risk ?

We can also think the other way around: Insurance companies are ready to pay a big prize once in a while if a disaster occurs, if they can cash in a moderate amount on a regular basis. And insurances companies do have a sound budget, so, on balance, their approach should payoff: indeed, on many instances, they reckon that the low-occurrence disaster they cover, NEVER occurs at all during a lifetime. This suggests that even the opposite reasoning can be defended: we might want to cash in on a regular basis our 1-IMP pluses, ready to payoff to the low-occurrence 11 imps losses, just as the insurance companies do. This analysis should not be restricted to the single match, but, if we consistently adopt the same tactics, to all of the team matches in our life.

Auguri a tutti :lol:

I would like to ask a question: don't you think that the analysis should *not* be restricted to the single match (whatever the no. of boards) ? It seems to me, on afterthought, that the +1 imps pickups shopuld be accounted over ALL OF THE MATCHES where we will avoid safety playes vs a low %. The cost-benefit should not be restricted over a single match, but should include *all the imps TEAM matches in our life* where we shall adopt the same tactics refusing a low-risk safety play.

The idea behind the supersound Roth Stone system might not be as outdated as it may seem. It has been indeed revived lately. If you think of the Fantoni-Nunes system - which is NOT considered exactly oldfashioned - it has indeed a similar phylosophy: - all 1 level bids are forcing 1R and guarantee a balanced 15+ OR a good unbalanced non minimu opener (14+ or a very good 13) - 2 level bids are not real weak 2s, but rather a (9+)10-13 unbalanced hand - 1NT is 12-14. EDIT: OOPS, I had missed Marlowe's post ;) Of course this is a double-edged sword: you do not open REALLY weak 2 (<9/10 hcp), so you lose some preemption there, but with weakish but still sound hands (10-13) you can often rob space to opps without preempting too much pard (because the 2-level opener has a narrow hcp range). I agree that opening this hand 2D in a modern std american (or 2/1 ) style would be close to suicide, but not in another system. There are tradeoffs, but it has also its merits in other sequences.

Pass first hand unless play weak 2suited openings. But, playing BAM, and being behind in the match, first seat, nonvuln, opening it would be an acceptable gamble (ready to apologize to pard if this backfires). I open the second hand 1 spade in any seat/vuln.

1) Don't chat with these opps. 2) remain distant if they address the word to you, ask them to call the TD. 3) Invent some jokes about them, and laugh about it with pard 4) remember that "The mother of the idiots is always pregnant"....

Yes, the discussion was about: - "normal obvious" contracts, e.g. we might be pretty sure it was bid at the other table. - State of the match, normal. In short, nothing unusual would be called for at this point in the match, just optimal technique.

Hi all, last week I had a bridge conversation about a hand with a real expert. He is marked as star in BBO, has consistently participated to international events, writes a bridge column etc etc, so, shortly, he cannot be dismissed as one of those "BBO selfrated experts", who most often would be better labeled as "experienced". We were talking about a game contract, where there was available a safety play vs the 5-0 trump break. This safety play involved surrendering an almost sure overtrick, ti guarante 100% 10 tricks in a major suit contract. He said that- even at IMPS - the cost/benefit of these safety plays does not justify them, the reasoning being: say that a game is worthwhile 11 imps or so, and an overtrick 1 imp, these safety plays would be justified only if the risk they want to avoid is equal or higher to more or less 1/11. 1/11 = about 9%, and if we want to be conservative, we can reduce the % to 5% , meaning that a safety play will be chosen if it avoids a 5% risk, but not to avoid a risk of, say, 2-3%. He says that al these 1%, 2% , 3% losses of overtricks tend to add up in the long run (EDIT: not in the single match, but over many matches), more than a single bad break that causes an 11 imp loss. I replied that, according to some textbooks, when the bad break indeed occurs, it causes a loss of more of 11 imps, in terms of confidence, and harmony with pard and teammmates (EDIT: and does the opposite to opps, boosting their selfconfidence). He says that this is a feeble argument and that between two good players this should not occur. Comments ?

I think this statement was not phrased properly: a better one would be "by pushing opps to the 3 level you are more likely to force them to the limit of theit potential, hence gaining more chances to defeat their partscore" I mean, all things being equal, you are more likely to defeat them if they play at the 3 level than at the 2 level (yes, I felt a genius when I was typing this... :D ). So, on average, pushing them is not a guaraantee of a good board, but, NOT pushing them is - many times - the best way towards a poor score, at least at Matchpoints pairs.

Lo so che la % è bassa, ma se Est è partito con il doppio a cuori o singolo a fiori, il dichiarante riesce a scartare solo due quadri (una quadri, piu' uno scarto quando est taglia alto). La linea con l'impasse elimina anche questa piccola chance, o no? (da notare che non considero le linee con singolo a cuori perchè in questo caso, si corre il medesimo rischio effettuando l'impasse in atout, perchè ovest potrebbe tornare in taglio) ==== EDIT: OK, ora ho letto tutto, lo scarto della cuori sulle fiori di fatto elimina anche la chance di taglio a cuori, purchè proseguendo con l'impasse ;)

Addendum alla mia analisi: è anche vero che con la battuta immediata dell'asso in atout, se ovest non risponde il dichiarante non è obbligato a rimuovere atout, ma puo' andare al morto a cuori e provare a scartare le quadri sulle 4 vincenti di cuori e fiori. In questa linea ci sono buone chances di fare 10 prese, in QUASI tutte le varianti : per es, anche se est taglia basso la cuori oppure uno dei giri a fiori, perchè il dichiarante surtaglia, e gioca le quadri dalla mano "rassegnandosi" a perdere 2 quadri e un atout. Ma se est taglia ALTO, di K, e gira a quadri fintanto che il dichiarante ha ancora 3+ quadri, si ripropone il rischio del taglio.

Il numero di prese sicure a disposizione (5/6 picche, 3 fiori, 3 cuori, + un numero imprecisato di quadri), rende evidente il fatto che dobbiamo giocare "in sicurezza". Una tipica tecnica dei giochi di sicurezza con figure analoghe è battere lA sso e poi fare l'espasse alla Q. Ma siamo sicuri che qui sia questo il gioco di sicurezza ? Quale rischio corriamo ? Il rischio è perdere una atout, 2 quadri (AQ) e un taglio a quadri. Se io batto subito l'Asso ♠, per il gioco di sicurezza "classico", e rigioco atout (diciamo dal morto verso la Q, ma anche viceversa), rischio che Est metta il K, giri a quadri verso AQ di ♦ di ovest, e si faccia dare un taglio. =============================== credo invece chein questa mano il "gioco di sicurezza" consista nel non far prendere la mano ad Est, che è l'avversario pericoloso. Quindi, faro' l'impasse a picche: se questo perde, anche se ovest torna di singolo di quadri (oppure batta Asso di quadri e quadri per il taglio del p), la mia forchetta KJ♦ protetta fa si' che io perda, nella peggiore delle ipotesi, al massimo A♦, K♠ e un taglio a ♦. Il resto delle perdenti di ♦ se ne va sulle fiori. =============================== In poche parole, il tema principale della mano non è tanto il gioco di sicurezza in atout, ma piuttosto un problema di "fianco pericoloso".

My estimate is that for a league to be running on schedules , without being hindered by people not showing up on time (or at all), every team should rely on about 8-10 players (that is, at the very least twice the players needed), so that there are enough players to subtitute the missing ones at every round (remember that many pairs just retire after 1 or 2 round and never show up anymore). Secondly, my experience is that this sort of event should occur in a very short period of time, that is, at most 1 month.

Hi Arc ;), keep up the good review work. I think it is a good thing that you selected some concrete examples to explain your liking/disliking/rating of books, because, by doing so, you give the forum readers the chance to agree/disagree with you, and this is always extremely useful, even in the cases where the readers' opinion will differ from yours :)