eyhung

I have to say one more thing: I hate North's 3S call. The hand has no shape, no controls, and 4 bad trumps. The vulnerability is also the worst for preemption. Fred has remarked earlier that a preemptive raise should have one extra value -- a fifth trump, a singleton, or a control (ace or king). This hand has no such redeeming value and should be passed.

You'll be down if East has the CK and West started with a doubleton diamond. This is good thinking but let's go one step deeper. LHO has ♥KQJxx(x) and ♦ Ax(x) for his overcall. He needs to have at least one of the two black kings for his overcall. RHO has the HA and has shown up with nothing else. If RHO raised on spade shortness and out, you're down -- you must lose a trick in every suit, so assume RHO has a black king and the kings are split. There appear to be two reasonable lines (remember you are stuck in your hand, not in dummy, so you cannot lead the CQ for a discovery play): (1) Clear trumps from the top. Obviously wins when RHO has the CK (50%) (2) Lead a club to the jack. Wins when [LHO has CK + diamonds are not 4=2 (so no diamond ruff) + nobody has stiff club] (<50%) OR [RHO has CK and LHO has singleton SK] (an extra small %). Which line is better? I don't think we need to crunch the probabilities. Rather it's better to think of it from a bridge perspective. Would RHO be more likely to raise to 4H on ♠ Kxx ♥ Axxx ♦ xx ♣ xxxx or ♠ x ♥ Axxx ♦ xxxx ♣ Kxxx ? In my mind the latter hand is far more likely -- the spade king looks far more dubious to me as advancer because the spade ace is likely to be sitting over it. This factor does not apply to overcaller's hand : the guarded spade king is not a negative sitting behind the 1S opener. So I would take the prosaic line (1) -- play overcaller for the SK and advancer for the CK.

The dealer CAN be assigned. Click Deal Source->General, then set Dealer to West (or East). Now if there were only a way to load dealer scripts from the hard drive.

Thanks for all the opinions. The actual hand result probably doesn't prove anything, but partner had : [hv=s=skxxxhxxxdkjxxcxx]133|100|[/hv] If you PASS, two more passes will follow and you defend 1C, down 2 or 3 for +100/+150. If you bid 1NT, all will pass and you will play 1NT, making 3 or 4 for +150/+180. If you bid 1D, partner will raise to 2D and it's up to you to decide whether the partnership will reach 3NT for +630.

A friend of mine asked me this question about Restricted Choice and I thought it was a doozy that should be shared. You need to play the following suit combination for 3 tricks: [hv=n=sa9xx&w=s&e=s&s=sk8x]399|300|[/hv] Assume that there are no other indicators from the bidding or other suits as to how the suit lies. Say you lead low to the 8, which forces the jack from LHO. LHO returns another suit, you win, cash the king and one of the remaining honors drops on the right. When you lead up to the A9, LHO plays low. Finesse or drop? Does the answer change if LHO wins with a different honor besides the jack?

On BBO yesterday, I was dealt a fairly familiar-looking nightmare hand: [hv=d=e&v=n&s=s7hakqdat97cat842]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO deals and opens 1♣. What's your poison?

Personally, I think a Wiki-style area would be best where we could upload scripts for people to share and download. I have around 20-30 scripts I wrote for Dealer several years ago that I'd be willing to share. People can choose the scripts they want -- there's no need to agree upon a standard.

Some mess -- 4S is down 4 on a diamond lead. That's double-dummy, but in real life, down 3 for +500 should not be hard to achieve (Heart, spade), win a return, two hearts and club ruff. In fact, you are unlucky that North does not have the Ten of spades, which would be another trick. And bidders are fortunate partner has a diamond fit instead of a misfit -- swap North's minor-suit holdings (North could easily have ♦A and ♣ KTx) and 5H is down off the top with 4S still going down.

And you are not listening to your partner. Your partner has jumped to 4H without cue-bidding and then doubled an unsupported 4S. He didn't pass. He doubled, expressing an opinion that 4S is going down. You have no call to override that opinion -- you have your 2 quick tricks and you have more offense, but not so much more that you can try for 11 tricks with your trump suit instead of 4 with theirs. So what if declarer ruffs a heart, you can use hearts as "surrogate trumps" to force him and make him lose control. This is not an auction or hand for you to stick your oar in. Partner knows more about your hand that you know about his -- trust his judgement! Maybe he was overbidding (he is vul at IMP after all) and is glad to take any plus. Maybe he has them set in hand with AQJT of spades. It's IMPs: +500 vs. +650 is not the end of the world. and +100/300 vs. nothing is huge. I will be happy to bet that neither 4S nor 5H are making -- i certainly cannot imagine a hand that passes as dealer, jumps to 4H, and doubles 4S has good play for 5H. I expect partner to have a hand like KQxx Jxxx x Axxx -- this is consistent with the bidding, and both contracts are going down.

BLUUUUHMERRRR! Ok I admit it, you lost me! He's talking about bluhmer bids, where you show a suit where you'd like your partner to have a singleton. http://www.bridgehands.com/B/Bluhmer.htm

Yes, this does depend on your opponents. If your opponent is capable of an atrocity like leading from an unsupported queen instead of a worthless major against 7NT, then you should probably take the more conservative line. But when your opponents are not Flight C, it pays to assume your opponents have a brain and are defending that way. After working out the squeeze position at trick 1, I would always fly ace [edit: king, sorry, i didn't remember which high honor was in dummy] here unless I had utterly no respect for my LHO. BTW, congratulations on your Flight C NAP win -- now stop playing against these opponents if you want to improve your game.

Good simulation. You've convinced me that PASS is not the correct call (vs 4H). Too bad, it would have been cool to see a situation where it was correct to never bid with a good 23 HCP hand.

You're going to need 3-3 clubs and you also want to play 3 rounds of hearts before running clubs so that East will ruff in with his master trump on the 4th club. You can use the club ace as a second entry to the board as long as you lose the first club trick. You also need to guess whether West has C KQx or R9x (R = royal, king or queen). Against an "intermediate" or even an "advanced", leading the C4 at trick 3 will tell you -- intermediates will split with KQx and play low with R9x. Against a world-class player, you have to lead the ten, because then West can play Royal from R9x to prevent you from winning and then finessing the 8 on second round. In all cases after the first spade is led, you must win ace immediately and finesse HJ to strip LHO of his trump and RHO of his trump guard. You then need to reach hand (usually with d ruff) and then cash your AK of hearts, setting up RHO's Queen. Finally, you then play up to 4 clubs, pitching 2 spades -- RHO can ruff the 4th club, but then he loses his natural trump trick. So the line against a normal West defender is: Ruff trick 2 C4 -- I: If West plays low, finesse the 8, playing West for R9x (so East wins Royal) 1) On a spade return, win, finesse HJ, ruff diamond, cash AK of H, finesse CJ, cash CA pitching spade, cash 4th club pitching spade as East ruffs in with master trump. Losing 1 trump, 0 spades, 1 diamond, and 1 club. 2) On a diamond return, ruff, finesse CJ, finesse HJ, club ace pitching spade, 4th club ruffed and overruffed, draw trump with AK, and use SA to cash 5th club, to lose just 1 diamond and 1 club. II: West plays Royal, you duck, playing West for KQx. Then execute a similar line as above, making sure to finesse HJ before cashing clubs. Against strong West defender, you lead CT, win if West covers, hook HJ, ruff diamond to hand, and lead club up to the J8, guessing whether West covered from R9x or KQx.

I may be prejudiced by knowing the actual hand (I held the preemptor's cards at the other table), but I think PASS has a lot more going for it than what has been stated so far. On surface PASS looks ridiculous. We have 23 excellent HCP and a good unbid 5-card major. But what are the upsides of bidding? If we bid 4H, it's unlikely we'll be able to get to slam -- partner is unlikely to be able to move given our excessive strength. There are plenty of hands which do make 4H, but opposite most of them, we are going +200 or better against 4C (lose 6). But there are also plenty of hands that don't make 4H -- you only have 5 hearts, after all. If partner is short in hearts, or broke, or there are bad breaks, passing will probably win 4-9 IMPs (4C is not going to make very often when 4H is making!) If we double, there's no guarantee we'll get to a making spot -- we'll frequently end up in spades when that's wrong, or in a tenuous diamond game that could be wrecked by bad distribution, or at too high a level in hearts. The fact that the preemptor lacks the AK of his suit indicates to me that preemptor probably has the controls we seek for slam -- preemptor is not going to have QJT-eighth and out at this vul -- and that will bode badly for our offensive chances. 4NT looks like a good call, except that you run the risk of partner misinterpreting it. I do think this to be the best of the bidding options if partner reads it as natural and can muster a pass with his 4-count, but that might be quite a parlay in practice. (In practice partner had KT9xxx x xxxx Jx...all contracts go down, but 4NT goes down less than the others.) So I think the upside of bidding is +420/450 vs. +200 on defense, and the downside is going minus when you reach the wrong strain or the cards are foul (as they frequently are after a 4-level preempt). Given the extreme conditions (opponents unfavorable, and IMP scoring), and the unlikelihood of reaching a good slam via bidding, pass seems to have better upside than downside. The downside from passing rates to be 6 IMPs at most [+200 vs. +450, with 3-4 IMPs from +300 vs +420/450 also in the picture] The upside of passing rates to be 7-9 IMPs when you beat up their 4C at 100/trick and the other table goes minus in the wrong game or in an unfortunate slam. If those are the correct odds, then passing doesn't have to be right a majority of the time -- just a significant minority of the time, sort of like bidding a vulnerable game. And it doesn't seem to me like bidding is going to lead to a large plus score often enough when we have a practically certain nice plus waiting for us via PASS.

I can confirm than Ace, then Jack is the best way to play the suit in isolation. Definitely not obvious but Justin was able to work it out when I gave it to him. His reasoning was: cashing both AK is strong (loses only to QTxx(xx) in the same hand), and A then J is clearly superior -- you gain vs. xx offside and lose vs. Qx offside. And yes, all will follow to the second round of diamonds, so you have some squeeze options. gnasher's line is pretty good -- I'm not sure if there's a better one...

Fred has stated in the past that thinking about suit combinations is a good way to improve one's game. Here is a good suit combination I hadn't seen before that came up in a club game Friday evening. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat8hj2dakqj5cj54&s=sk9hak986d73cak86]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] The bidding went, uncontested: 1♥ - 2♦ 3♣ - 3♠ 3NT - 4NT 6NT Lead is the ♦2. How would you play the heart suit in isolation for 4 tricks? Does that change how you would play the heart suit on this hand?

Very sad to hear about this. I learned bridge mostly when I was in San Diego and Grant was always the player. I remember when I was just learning the game, and went to a club game there. My partner and I were two college kids, and we whispered with excitement as we realized the great Grant Baze was in attendance. We had never played against him but we knew how good he was. We eventually made our way to his table and sat down for three hands against Grant. On the first hand, we bid to a cold game and made it. On the second hand we bid to a cold slam and made it. And then, the fateful third hand -- partner opened a strong 2C, Grant jumped in with 4D, and we lost our way and ended up in 7NT with a combined 30 HCP or so. Partner was declarer and tested one suit, it broke 2-2 with the QJ falling. Then he tested another suit, it broke 3-3 with the Q onside. I was staring slackjawed at my partner as he kept reeling off aces and kings and dropping queens and jacks. Then at trick 12, my partner claimed, showing two black 3s, and throwing one of them down to indicate he could reach the two good clubs on the board...but it was the losing spade 3! I admit I did not comport myself well at that moment -- I shrieked "what?!" and LHO, Baze's client, was like, "hey, I can win that spade! You're down 2!" But Grant, sitting North as usual, said, "No, we know what he meant to play." And he scribbled down +2220 E/W on the traveller, showing us youngsters that bridge is not about winning and losing, but about doing what is right. As we stumbled in shock from the table, he warned us, "You boys better not come play in my rubber game."

Grant Baze wrote on the Kaplan-Meckstroth incident in one of his Tel-A-Bridge articles from the mid 90s where he decries the NV scoring change. I believe the Tel-A-Bridge articles are still available to OKBridge members. If someone here also has an OKBridge membership, they might be able to check and find some more facts about the situation.

Well, I have to say I do like the idea of a Platinum Pairs. And having both major BAM events at the same nationals feels wrong too. I do agree with TimG's sentiments that it's not a good change for males under 55 -- I'd prefer to see some Open National Event available on every day.

I think the timing can be improved. Heart ace pitching club, heart ruff, spade to king. If West shows out, adopt the line Fred indicated (ST, S9, DA, DT playing West for doubleton diamond quack). However, if West follows, cash the diamond ace next, then finesse spade ten, planning to finesse the diamond ten later in the play (you can guarantee another dummy entry with spades at worst 3-1). This gains on the recommended line when west was dealt doubleton SQ and singleton diamond quack and doesn't seem to lose anything as you can try one round of spades before cashing the diamond ace. Eugene

Even though I'm not a fan of directly applying poker rakes to bridge, I would like to point out that this is why brick & mortar poker rooms don't offer tables with blinds in the penny ranges, but online poker rooms can and do. For example, PokerStars (http://www.pokerstars.com/rake.html) charges no rake for their microlimit tables because either the rake would be insignificant or the amount too expensive for players to win, while the cost incurred to them by these tables is negligible. A brick & mortar poker room simply can't afford to offer microlimit (under $1 blind) tables. I think it is important to differentiate between a rake model that is fair for the game (rake / hand to give players a reasonable chance of beating the rake) and a rake model that is fair for the service providers (rake / hand to recoup their costs of hosting the service). I am thinking Justin was citing Bob's idea of a rake policy that is fair for the game, not necessarily fair for the service. Justin, can you clarify? I also don't like the idea of charging people transaction fees for putting money in BBO. People are doing BBO a favor by letting BBO hold their money and earning interest on the float -- I do not think you want to disincentive them from doing so. If you want, you could impose a withdrawal fee to cover the costs of electronic transactions, but a deposit fee seems to me to be detrimental to the interests of both players and providers. Eugene

Uday -- I think Gerben was talking about end-of-trick delay, not end-of-hand delay. End-of-trick delay is also something I would like to see implemented (and I use pictures with very fast animations). Eugene

Fred -- I am sorry if my earlier posts came out as critical in tone or content, or did not clearly delineate between statements of opinion and statements of fact. This will teach me not to post replies hurriedly in the morning. I would be willing to continue this discussion if you wish, either in public or in private. I still believe I have made some valid points which have not been resolved. If you find them (correctly) lacking in hard data, then how about the idea to maximize participation via an initial no-rake policy? That will enable you to collect as much hard data as you can so that you can make an informed decision about the eventual rake. I will of course respect your decision should you prefer to consider this discussion closed. I would like to reiterate my support for both your service and your committment to innovation, which are still the best in the business. And I remain committed to helping you with constructive and (hopefully) intelligent feedback. Eugene

I wasn't trying to imply that you were consciously, maliciously comparing house-favorable structures to bridge -- just that while it seems like a fair comparison at the surface, it's not. And I speak as a player who regularly plays online poker and sometime plays online backgammon -- one who has shown willingness to wager one's money on the Internet, a trait that is rarer than one might think. (For example, I've had great difficulty persuading many people to play online poker, even though poker has a high attraction factor.) Yes, for the second type of player, the rake is not as important, but without a large enough user base, they don't get as much entertainment. And my argument is that the rake as it currently stands does not provide the first group enough of an edge to play, which impacts the second group. The bridge vs. poker skill advantage is well documented (ask Bobby Baldwin) or the bridge vs. backgammon skill advantage (ask Kit Woolsey). The reasons are what barmar wrote in his post : in bridge, one frequently loses a lot of points through no fault of one's own. BBO was founded with the model in that it's better to have a large user base (which results from free membership) with users who might drop extra money once they are dedicated to the server, than it is to have a small, dedicated user base (from pay membership). I think it's the right model given the status of bridge, and money bridge, in online gaming today. Another thing you might want to try is to have no rake for an introductory period. The biggest differential in all of business is free vs. not-free. The mere fact that money bridge requires people to open up the wallet to put money into BBO will significantly impact the number of people who try it, let alone the rake. Why not nurture your user base and collect statistics on how well people do without rake before imposing a rake structure that might be better suited to other games? You can also advertise that this is temporary, so that customers won't feel betrayed? (It would also encourage people to try while the rake is non-existent -- people like deals and sales.) Eugene

On fees: I think comparing your fee structure to live bridge clubs and online poker/backgammon is misleading. First: comparing to live bridge clubs. Live bridge clubs incur more scalable bridge costs than online bridge clubs. If BBO has 10 money bridge vs. 100 money bridge players, it probably doesn't make much of a difference to BBO's expenses, but a live bridge club has to provide more real estate, more cards, pay to replace cards 10x as frequently, have many more people there to adjudicate, etc. Also, live bridge clubs deal more slowly than online bridge clubs. You will note that online poker clubs charge significantly less than live poker, but they make more money due to higher volume and more scalable costs. Second, comparing to poker/backgammon. Both poker and backgammon have a higher skill advantage. Given the choice between making money purely by skill of play at poker/backgammon or bridge, most people choose one of the former because it's more consistent. (I'm not talking about being paid to play, I'm talking about actually winning money from the cards.) It would be better to compare bridge table fees to poker tables where one expects to earn the same rate. I do not expect a penny/point player to earn nearly as much per hour as a player at the $1/$2 limit poker tables online. (You can get statistics from pokertracker databases to see how much money people tend to make per hour at poker tables, and see the equivalent rake and earn rate--rake ranges from 4.5% at nolimit tables to 3% at low limit tables to 1-2% at high limit tables; earn rate is around 2-3 big bets ($4-$6 here) per 100 hands.) Also, the poker fees are dampened by the fact that you only pay the rake for pots you win. Most of winning poker involves avoiding a majority of hands, and thus avoiding the rake on most hands. When poker tables are played headsup (2 players only), players pay the rake much more frequently, and you will see that many cardrooms lower the rakes proportionally to make the game viable for its players. That being said, it is in general better to lower rakes than to raise them. So I understand why you are being conservative in your estimate. But ultimately I think you want to promote volume -- get people to put money into BBO, and then play the money game. Poker (and to a lesser extent, bg) has a large user base of money players. There is much less of a user base for money bridge right now. Having a rake that's too high will impact building this user base. I think the best business strategy here is to build the market by offering low rakes and then, if necessary, use your monopoly on the money bridge scene to raise them. People will grumble but if they're hooked, they'll keep playing. Right now you're supporting 2000-3000 play bridge players for free. Surely you can support another 100-200 money bridge players for a small cost to get the user base up and going. Eugene