benlessard

I just think that we should be in GF and 2NT shouldnt show a minimum hand but is just uncertainty about the contract. With all the bidding space you have here you shouldnt play the wrong game too often. Wing it here should look like Jumping to 3NT would strongly 2D stop and no S fit or 1.5 stopper and no S tol. 4S would suggest 3S and the A of D and a min. 3S would suggest 3S a doubleton but positionnal D. 3K a max hand.

Good point, I feel rebidding 2M on 5 is good at MP but im not sure its working in imps. It mean that we must also check 1m-1M-1Nt-2M vs 1m-1M-1NT. I dont really know if more and more offshapes hands (like 2236 or 2254) favor 1NT or 2M. The 5-2 become way more frequent than a 5-3 but its a 5-2 with ruffing potential.

Im wondering about the results for 1C-1S-1NT vs 1D-1S-2C or 1C-1S-2C. It seem it would be easy to check this on a database. I dont systematically rebid 1NT with a stiff I do it only when my minors are poor. Its not because I know whats best its simply because i didnt feel I had a lot of troubles after 1D-1S-2C.

Every 4 month I make a try to the browser version, I still prefer the windows version by a lot. Having a user friendly site with a nice design (like poker/casino site) is expensive. So in the short-middle run I don't think its possible. IMO they should work on making small server improvement rather than on design. Players rooms so that players of the same level play together and please find an automated way to make TM. Basically they should focus on stuff that should have been there 5 years ago.

For me there was a point where my hand evaluations went up a level or two without using any tools, as I look back reaching that point was way more important than anything else. I look at LTC,KR,Zar and SST and find that at one point these would have been worthwhile for me, but one or 2 years later they would be pointless. I know without any doubt that I bid better without them than with them. 1- Visualize partner hands, start with 3 sample hand and look how well do you fare. If the 3 hands fall on the same side and you tought it was a close decision you are unlikely to go wrong. If its 2/1 pick 3 new hands if you have time. 2- If your not sure post them or ask other players afterward. 3- Remember the hand where your bidding judgement was off and try to find out why you misevaluated. 4- build a collection of hand where you judgement is different than the majority. Revisit them once in a while. 5- If you have offbeat views about some situations keep a steady record of them. I think overcalling 1NT should be 16-19. I also think that its often better to raise with 2 cards than to pass. 1S--(2H)--?? Qx Axxx xx Axxxx I know very well that the majority doesnt see it that way. So I keep tracks of similar hand to make sure my judgement isnt off. 6- play it safe; if your not sure aim for the middle. You are used to need Y to overcall in a particular spot but see good agressive players do it with Y-2, try Y-1. You might be wrong but you will be off by just a little while staying at Y or trying Y-2 is risking to leak imps. I see this as a form of trust of the law of large numbers by using other players empirical results.

East was in first seat.

I dont see why responder cannot be quite weak, if the pts are splitted 13-6 rightsiding does have some value especially when its nearly free. With a 3416/3406 you can make a garbage stayman only if responder is expected to correct with 33, there is no danger of playing in a 6 card fit. 2C--2D-2H-2S-3C = to play. The problem with using 2C-2y-3m as to play is that its a lot of bidding space for non-game hands. IMO facing a passed hand it might make sense but otherwise its too costly.

1- It permit to make the difference between 5S+5m vs 5/6S+4m, 2- it keep a symmetry with 1NT--2D-2H--??; in that spot 2S or 2NT is available as a "gadget". So having the same "gadget" after a S transfer give some simplicity. 3- Also it permit opener to bid 3NT with exactly 5(332) allowing responder to pass with 3S and a square hand. Some bid 3m with any 5S??4 but I think its a poor method. In general having the cheapest call as forcing "catch-all" is very powerful since it nearly double the number of available sequences.

after 2C-2D-2H-?? you want opener to bid 2S more often than passing (33,32 vs 23). It will rightside 2M and allow responder to make a garb stayman with 3415/3406 hands. So its better to make stayman with 54?? than with 45??. IMO what need to be sim is what should you do with a 45?? vs a partner that will correct to 2S holding 33??/32??. Im strongly convinced 1NT-2red-2S should be inv 5S doesnt promise 4H. This allow 1NT-2H-2S-2NT to be forcing.

A more important question is ..is it ok to do Garbage stayman with both 54 and 45 ? or should you transfer with one shape but not the other. Also responder pts matter here, with some values like 6-8 pts maybe he can play it safe and transfer knowing 2M in a 5-2 fit is less likely to go down, the main fear would be to avoid the 4-3. The cost of missing the 4-4 is lower. With a weaker hand however aiming for the 4-4 fit has more upside since it could be your only hope to get a plus score. Also maybe with (54)22, 6-8 pts and poor majors maybe passing 1NT is the percentage call at imps if you play GS as 54 or 45.

Maybe x AKQJx xxxx Jxx is a preempt. I would have opened 1H but I have poor results with opening these no defense hand. Hyper concentration of pts at this vul might be a good excuse to preempt. I usually disagree about pulling the double unless we made an error with the opening wich might be the case here.

look like an auto X to me at either form of scoring. The harder question is what to lead. Leading the A of clubs first might deprive you from a D ruff if partner cannot read the 4d. But its possible you need a club ruff to defeat the contract if south got the A of D. I think i would lead the AC but im not sure.

Was That Sarcasm? --no Was That Sarcasm? --yes Was That Sarcasm?

http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscommentary.pdf "Redress is given only for damage caused by that infraction, not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error. This includes wild or gambling actions, and, for example, the loss of an extra trick as rectification after a revoke." If +500 in 4Sx -2 is easily available the damages cause from the infraction is 120pts (from +620 to +500). Your revoke in 4Sx costing 2 tricks will give a score of -790 going from +500 to -790 is self-inflicted damage and you do not get redress from this damage. The score need to be translated into MP or imps. Basically you will the the MP score of -790 (almost a sure zero) + the MP difference of +500 to +620 (wich is the MP damages that is inflicted by the infraction). If there is only one table a score shortcut is -790 + 120 = -670 for NS. I repeat you are protected from the damages cause by the infraction (from +620 to +500) you are not protected from not for damage as a result of a subsequent serious error (Going from +500 to -790). The 12c1b used to be called something like "no redress for failure to play bridge". Note that in all cases offender (EW) keep their -620 for 4H making.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/roll-it-back/?cj=156191#c156191 Conversation about 12c1b

Everybody agree that Sewog should have a bar quite high. Some say similar to a revoke and I agree, for me a serious error is a brain dead play not just an "C" level bad play. When the proper ruling is about -570 but 90% say the fairest score is +620 its a 1200 pts difference it cannot be clearer than this. At least 80% hate Sewog rules especially on hands where you give a game instead of making one. No matter how you look at it its obvious to me. None of the pro defended 12c1b, while it was blasted by M.Rosenberg, Kit Woolsey and others. They suggest that its only if a better score (like +800) was available that NS shouldnt be protected but if only +500 was available NS should be protected with a +620. Its a M.Rosenberg and Colker idea that was supported by B.Rigal too. The only players that defended Sewog is me, Ed Reppert and another player.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-do-you-consider-a-fair-result-for-ns-hypothetical-example/?cj=156382#c156382 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/69043-what-do-you-consider-a-fair-result-for-ns/page__mode__show Less than 15% think 12c1b is a fair rule on some clearcut UI/bit hands. I think its an ok rule but with a correctable flaw. Adjusting for sewog in a contract that shouldnt never have been played in the first place doesnt make more sense if you thikn about it, at least thats what bug 90% of the players Imo. They just say that NS should never be punished because they made a mistake in a contract that should never have happened if this mistake put them with a score under +620. Ive heard twice right now that the best procedure is to... The twist ive heard is that removing the 5Mp should be on the final score and not on the board score directly, its fairer because it keep a reasonnable score comparative for the other tables. This was confirmed to me by a top level director.

like I said if I know the score at the other table or the MP filed I can calculated it (but just learned that in MP the damages is calculated in the final score of the non offender not on theboard itself). With just one table I know my way is a shortcut. Well the serious error should get punished but it should be in the contract where it it would have the lesser consequence. all vul, NS reach 4H that is always making +1. opps used BIT,UI to bid 4S while passing would be la. non offender grossly blew a trick. What do you think should be the ruling here and do you think its fair ? My view is that since the revoke in 4H would cost only 1 imps I think its unfair that non offender may lose 7 or 8 imps for the revoke. If the revoke would mean that 4H would go from 4H to 4H-1 and from 4S-1 to 4S making than I agree that the cost of the Sewog should be high. Its to restore equity and to avoid that NS is in a position to take double shots.

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x41.htm http://www.rpbridge.net/rpme.htm Its the same 77,000 but it lead that opening 1m/1H instead of pass is +ev while in 1S/vs pass pass is the winner. However i dont think the number of hands is high enough.

Yes, your way is more precise since its imps-ed and take into account what happen at the other table, but i didnt want to enter another table into the discussion. The difference is often small if its a normal contract at the other table. ex If we assume that they are in 4D making +130/-130 at the other table, 4S-2 for +100 is "stealing" one imps. So the damage inflicted by the infraction is one imps. -420/-130 vs +130/-130 (NS self inflicted damage) is -11 imps but +1 imps is because of the offender infraction. so its -10 imps for the NS in the op table. While using -390 and +130 equal -11 imps. Yes assume that the stop was used unless its specifically mentioned. Very good point, I would need to change the rule so that the self inflicted damage is on the contract that provide the less damages for the non-offender. Im looking at a solution that keep the 12c1b spirit (punish Sewog) but make it more palatable. As it is now less than 10% think 12c1b is a fair rule, I think its an ok rule overall but its not fair on some specific hands.

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x35.htm Again very intersting stuff from Pavlicek website. I think its safe to assume that preempting before opponents open is a pretty good advantage. I think its also safe to assume that hands with 5+M are better in 1st seat than after opponents actions. If being first doesnt bring out a significant advantage over thousands of hands but some hand types have a clear advantage if they are dealer can we assume that some hand type that we open are at a clear disadvantage if they are in first seat ?? Is there a hole in this logic ?

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=3dp4d4sppp]133|100[/hv] West had a long hesitation after 3D and made a clear BIT. East clearly bid 4S using BIT and UI passing instead of 4S is clearly LA. NS Grossly (Serious error) blew 2 tricks in the defense and 4S is making, 4D would have been making. Under 12c1b the proper score is -390/-130. However a serious error in 4S is a lot more damaging than the same error in 4D. So I think -100 (for 4D-2 might be a more equitable result here.

I did spot many times where fairness = free from injustice or "in accordance with the rules". In fact impartial,fair,just,equitable seems to have the same meaning in english. So im simply puzzled. My knowledge of english isnt good enough. In french we say "Cafe de commerce équitable" wich is translated by fair trade coffee. It has nothing to do with laws or rules and of course it doesnt mean that normal types of coffee are illegal or are breaking rules it just mean that the transaction is uneven but legal. Juste et equitable could be translated as "right and just" or "just and fair" but it doesnt make any sense if both english words have similar meanings. "An owner whipping a slave is not justice. Slavery is an abomination." Well for more than 4500 years treating a slave as a commodities was common law in many civilizations. There are laws in the bible about its ok if the slave recover after 2 or 3 days but the owner may be found guitly if the slave dies (after a beating) etc..

I think "just" and justice are define by laws and rules and fair and fairness are above all laws and rules. wiki = Fairness or being fair may refer to: Justice · Equity (law), a legal principle allowing for the use of discretion and fairness when applying justice In french the distinction is clearer "juste et equitable" Anyway by fair I meant is has nothing to do with the rules, its more like what would you personnally consider an equitable/acceptable results for all, outside of written laws. An owner whipping a slave as much as he want was justice its wasnt fairness.

It has nothing to do with a real case, I just want to know how fair most players think 12c1b is. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/roll-it-back/ in this M.Rosenberg suggest that “YOU SHOULD NOT GET A WORSE SCORE THAN THE ONE YOU WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED AGAINST ETHICAL OPPONENTS.” Wich is clearly in contracdiction with 12c1b. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-do-you-consider-a-fair-result-for-ns-hypothetical-example/ My view is that NS already got a great a priori compensation as soon as EW bid 4S. 1- If 4S goes down 3 +800 is better than the normal +620 2- If 4H has no play, 4Sx going down would be better than the normal 4H going down. 3- If 4H was on a finesse or multiples lines of play was possible we will rule out that 4H is making while in a normal 4H it could have gone down. Each of these 3 advantages is IMO are fair enough compensation for the cases where the non-offender make a serious mistakes and doesnt get full compensation. Put the three together and imo NS cant complain hes getting a great deal. The problem I have is that sometimes the score cost of the mistake isnt in the same scale in 4Sx than in 4H. If 4H would make 5 even if I make a revoke im still going to be +620 while the same stupid play in 4Sx may cost 1300 pts. For other cases where BIT,UI or LA is ruled by the director/AC but not unanimous among the players I feel that giving an automatic good score to NS is WAY too generous. Michael Rosenberg and Rich Colker have a suggestion ; they suggest that if the non-offenders were not in a position to get a better score than they would have achieved without the infraction, they get rolled back. But if they could have collected +800 and didn't (be it +200 or -790) they are stuck with their table result the offender still get -620. I have some problems with this suggestion. Opps take a vul sac that is one trick too costly… +800 is available and I grossly blew a trick and get +500 instead of 620 a penalty of 120 vs the missed opportunity to win an extra 180. The same situation but not vul will look like +500 was available instead of my +420 game, the same gross misdefense will endup with a +200 score for a penalty of 220 vs a missed opportunity to win 80. So its a case of risk 120 to win 180 and risk 220 to win 80 not at all equivalent odds. Its just look a bit random to me that vul im having a great deal but if im not vul im getting 80 instead of 330 for equivalent odds. I also have problem on mistakes giving an entry to dummy (3+ tricks) So in a deal you could get +500 in defending 3NT but you make a gross mistake costing 3 tricks and end up protected and will get an automatic +620. Change the same deal a little bit and now +800 is available but if you make the same gross mistake you may end up with -750. So basically the extra 180 you could have won turn out to cost you 1370. I don't think these cases (where a mistake cost 3 tricks) are going to be frequent but I could see them happening. Are you really saying that are all laws are fair ? Here under the laws the proper ruling is -670/-620 (12c1) yet nobody voted for it.