joshs

Misery loves company. Hmm, Middle of Connecticut, Do tell says the Wesleyan grad....

I think you will agree how humorous your assessment turns out to be. You state that the defense will cash one or two diamonds and then switch to a spade. If they cash two diamonds, like the Ace and King, I am left with the J9x with only the Queen outstanding above this. So, I win the spade and play the diamond Jack. At a minimum, then, I win two spades, three hearts, two clubs, and a diamond. If the fifth diamond establishes, I have my ninth trick without even touching clubs. I also win, now, if the hearts are 3-3 or the Jack drops doubleton. If neither of those work, I still have play, I think. So, I'm not sure that the obvious defense is all that obvious or costly. When I said 1 or 2, it depends on who wins the first diamond. If east wins the first diamond, they will never play a second diamond (will probably play a spade). And I mean NEVER. If west wins the first diamond they might lead a second diamond which forces dummy to split the J9. Come on ken, I am not playing against total idiots.

Well, for 400K I would expect God's recipe for Chocolate Bread Pudding.

In that line, you play a diamond, they play a spade, you cash a heart, the J comes down, you can no longer cross to the heart ten, and hook the Club 9 since a spade comes back before the clubs are unblocked. ??? You have just won the spade in dummy. You cash the second top heart and see the Jack drop. So, you win the heart 10, cross to the club King, cash the fourth heart, and lead the club 9 to the 10. When I win the spade continuation, I need clubs to be 3-3. If the QJxx in clubs was to my right, the 10 won. If the 8x was to my left, and the club was covered, I win and force out the remaining club. I mean, sure, if the Jack falls and I do not cash out in hearts before playing the clubs, then I create blockage. But, I think I work out to win the heart tricks now rather than later. Oh, I guess I misunderstood. You are playing clubs the inferior way (picks up 8x on your left and Q8 or J8 on your right=5 doubletons, rather than all the Qx's and Jx's on your left=8 doubletons )[both methods picks up both QJ doubletons] Exactly. I'm tossing away a few percentage points mathematically for a few practical points when the opponents must guess what to do next. OK, I think the defense is incredibly easy here, and that the defenders will cash 1 or 2 rounds of diamonds (depending on who wins the first diamond), and then lead an appropriate major , and if its spades I am worse off then before.

In that line, you play a diamond, they play a spade, you cash a heart, the J comes down, you can no longer cross to the heart ten, and hook the Club 9 since a spade comes back before the clubs are unblocked. ??? You have just won the spade in dummy. You cash the second top heart and see the Jack drop. So, you win the heart 10, cross to the club King, cash the fourth heart, and lead the club 9 to the 10. When I win the spade continuation, I need clubs to be 3-3. If the QJxx in clubs was to my right, the 10 won. If the 8x was to my left, and the club was covered, I win and force out the remaining club. I mean, sure, if the Jack falls and I do not cash out in hearts before playing the clubs, then I create blockage. But, I think I work out to win the heart tricks now rather than later. Oh, I guess I misunderstood. You are playing clubs the inferior way (picks up 8x on your left and Q8 or J8 on your right=5 doubletons, rather than all the Qx's and Jx's on your left=8 doubletons )[both methods picks up both QJ doubletons]

I am a passer. My x's are takeout oriented, and I can't handle partner bidding 5C (my diamonds are just not good enough to bid opposite a S-C 2 suiter)

In that line, you play a diamond, they play a spade, you cash a heart, the J comes down, you can no longer cross to the heart ten, and hook the Club 9 since a spade comes back before the clubs are unblocked.

I think it was J9542. I don't remember exactly. I know I did not have the 7 and the 8. Its remotely possible I had the 6.

Yeah I misplayed this the other day. I won trick 1 and went after clubs (hoping for 3-3 or 8x on my left, and if truth be told, I also forgot to overtake the 9 with the T). But if the heart J comes down doubleton (assuming the most brilliant false card ever didn't just occur) protecting yourself against Qx or Jx on your left is better than protecting against 8x. In the actual hand, there was Jx of heart on my right, and Qx of clubs on my left, so I needed the extra entry to my hand to pick up the suit. The false card (J from Jxx) is very interesting because this is a hand where I do not need a 4'th heart trick, I just need a second entry to my hand.... Note that the false card not only works in the Q8/J8 on my right (as justin pointed out) but also when there is 8x on my left. I just don't think it would ever be found. As to Phil's question about the auction, we had a strong club relay auction. All the opps know is we have values for game, and what I said before about what my hand showed.

You are in 3N after showing 5+C, 4S and about 8-10 HCP: [hv=n=skxhakqxdj9xxxck9&s=sa9xxhtxxdtcat7xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Heart 9 is led (Standard leads). Plan the play.

In my methods it would go: (Opps Silent) P-1D 1H-2N(ART,6+D, either 19+, or 16-18 with 6D and 3H) 3C(Relay)-3N(6+D, 19-21, semibalanced with stoppers) 4D-4H(rkc) etc. Or in more standard methods: P-1D 1H-2S 3S-3N(spades was not a real suit) 4D-etc But in standard I might just open 2N and miss slam....

Wine Tasting: Sat May 10'th Starting 5:30 My Place: 6172 Periwinkle Way (The Summit), Woodland Hills, CA Enter the Summit off of Oxnard between Topanga and Shoup. You need my Name, and Address to enter the complex My phone: 505-379-2896 I will be providing wine, so bring light food if you want to bring something (not necessary. We can order pizza if no one brings anything). If you have a bottle you really want to share with a group, thats ok to. The more the merrier. That way I can open more bottles..... My tentative tasting plans include: 2005 François Chidaine Montlouis-sur-Loire Les Tuffeaux 2001 Château La Roque Coteaux du Languedoc Pic St. Loup Cupa Numismae 2001 Henry's Drive Shiraz Reserve 2005 Giessinger Barbera Reserve 2003 Robert Foley Charbono 2001 Château Broustet Les Charmes

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on". THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. Yes, I hate him. No, you hate his partner. :P Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying. I dislike both of them pretty strongly. I hate everyone. Especially people who hate others. So you hate yourself? She catches on :D

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on". THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. Yes, I hate him. No, you hate his partner. :) Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying. I dislike both of them pretty strongly. I hate everyone. Especially people who hate others.

Well Roy Kerr solved the field equations for a spinning black hole, and as a coincidence this discussion is making my head spin.... P.S. When was the last time you folded 4 Aces?

Well for the record I found that over TOSR transfer style openings (where you either have 5+ in the implied suit, or 4 and an unbalanced hand, and also with both majors you always show hearts first) that the following 2 defense were roughly equivalent at IMPS (and much better then all the other schemes I looked at): Defense A: x=takeout 1 level overcall in the opps suit=natural other bids normal and Defense B: x=the x-fer suit 1 level overcall in the opps suit=takeout other bids normal But I have to note the following things: B was better at mps, for frequency reasons At Imps, A was slightly better over a 1D opening showing hearts, and B was slightly better over a 1H opening showing spades, mostly since 1H opening denied holding 4 hearts, so having a heart overcall was more frequent in this case then in the other case (and also showing hearts is more important than showing diamonds). So note for the record, what I use, and what I recommend is in fact defense B. Whichever you choose will gain on some hands and lose on others, so you will always find hands that you wish you were playing the other method... Also, if we compare defending against: a. A natural 1S opening that is potentially canape (5+S, or 4S and a longer minor) b. The exact same hand types in a 1H opening Clearly, no matter what defense you use, you get to immediately show 1 extra hand against the x-fer opener. Lets say you are playing defense B and hold: KQ9xx Axxx Axx x Over a natural 1S opening you pass for penalties, and then (predictably) here the auction: 1S-P-1N-P 2C(Canape)-? And you have a perfect x now. How are things different over a 1H openiong showing spades? Again it goes, 1H-P-1N-P 2C(Canape)-? So really the issues are that a. in either auction, responder might pass b. in either auction the may end up in 2S on a 5-2 fit which you can hit let me discuss a first: Playing a canape stype, when does responder pass 1S? You really do not want to end up in a 4-2 fit, so normally: 1. with a balanced hand with 2 card support you usually bid 1N to ensure you are in a 7+ card fit 2. So the most common hand to pass is a weak unbalanced hand with 2-3 card support. Perhaps 2551 or 2461. You might also pass with something like 3442 or 3451 if you want to stay off the 2 level (very weak hand). 3. You would strain not to pass red with a singleton. Further, if the auction happes to go 1S-P-P-x- with 4-6 opener will rescue himself and responder will rescue himself with the 2551 or 2461 type hands. So its hardly clear, you are getting rich from your penalty passes here, they will usually be in a 4-3 fit. Over x-fer openings there are two styles out there. In my methods pass shows 5+ cards in the x-fer suit, and a hand inappropriate for a bid (usually unbalanced). This creates some different auctions which might work out well for responder but lets compare the benefits: If partner is known to have 4+S, and 0-3 hearts and you have no other information about his shape would you rather have the ability to 1. play exactly 1S 2. play exactly 1H I think you will want to play 1S (and wit will be a winning spot) more often then 1H is. Passing 1H is a pretty random action even if you have 5 hearts and 1 only spade. Consequently, for the defense, on average you will do better when a 1H x-fer bid is passed around to balancer than when a 1S opener is passed around to balancer. I hope this clear. Yes, when you had KQ9xx x Axxx Axx you are pretty unhappy to hear 1H all pass, but it is to your benefit more often then it is to your detriment. (some might say if passing is bad for responder why does he pass. Well you pass when you have a higher expectation from passing then from bidding (given system constraints). Your action with the largest expectation might still have a negative expectation). Finally, lets suppose the opps have a 5-2 fit and you have a penalty pass, and partner has some values. Playing natural opening bids you might defend 1S-x and you might defend 2S-x. Against x-fer openers you always defend 2S-x, since they have no way of stopping in 1S (the point of the methods is to use a 1S response to show strength, not to play). So, I actually think the defense is better off over a x-fer opener (has one more hand to bid with, and does better when he passes) when it truely is there hand. While you do not do better on every hand, you do better more often then not, and on average. The main reasons to play x-fer openers are constructive reasons, so the x-fer openers gain when its Their hand. p.s. I did not discuss the more random pass method over x-fer openers (3rd hand passes with all bad hands). Clearly thats nuts red. Personally I think it gives pretty significant negative expectation white as well, but depending on your followups, might be the best option. But the point is, all these random passes have negative expectation, so thats good for the defense....

Why wasn't the change applied to everything that requires a pre-alert? (I would hate that but at least its consistant) When I pre-alert Multi, transfers over 1C, and Kaplan Inversion, the majority of the discussion time is not on the multi. 1D could be very short also generates more discussion than multi ever did.... Actually, when I play 12-15 or 13-16 NT, that generates more discussion then any of the above. In my case, I just can't play in these events with a number of partners. Multi is not just an add on. My canape system requires 2M as an opening bid, and you need weak 2 bids in the majors in pair events, so without the multi I am stuck....

This is definitely a confusing area, and despite a lot of effort the law is difficult to read. However, my understanding of what it means (and I think a careful reading will confirm this) is that you can change even a conventional insufficient bid to a different bid as long as the insufficient bid doesn't give your partner any information that isn't included in the sufficient bid. So, to take a simple example - I play weak NT and open 1♣ with all balanced hands in the 15-19 HCP range. Suppose that RHO opens 2♠ and I "overcall" 1♣. On it being pointed out to me that 1♣ is insufficient, and after the law is carefully explained to me, I change my bid to 2NT, which shows a balanced hand of 16-18 or so HCP. My second bid is one that was included in the hands shown by the first bid but is more precise, thus it is allowed - my partner doesn't have any information other than that provided by the 2NT bid. On the other hand, suppose that I play 2-way Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT opening bids (OK, that's not something anyone plays, but it makes the point). Partner opens 2NT and I bid 2♦ forcing to game and asking about Majors. I am not allowed to correct this to 3♦ even though that also is forcing to game and asking about Majors because the original bid showed a better hand than the new bid and so partner knows something about my hand that is not included in the new bid. The point is to be fair - did you ever get caught by the old rule when partner opened 2NT and you mistakenly responded 2♣ Stayman and now had no way to avoid a penalty? Yet allowing you to correct 2♣ to 3♣ wouldn't damage the opponents and would get things back to "normal." Should it matter that the bid isn't just one level higher in the same strain? For example, I play transfer responses to 1♣. A 1♦ response shows 4 or more hearts and says nothing more about the hand. If the opponent overcalls 1♦, my DBL substitutes for the 1♦ bid. The set of hands in DBL is a little smaller than those in 1♦ since I might respond 1♦ on hands that would pass over 1♣-(1♦) but there are no hands with which I would DBL but not bid 1♦ in the uncontested auction. So there is no harm done by allowing me to DBl when the 1♦ overcall is pointed out to me. I hope that makes it clear. And I really do think that is what the law says, admittedly using more words in order to make sure it is complete. I admit my logic days are far behind me, so I can't easily discuss it in terms of sets and intersections and exclusions. But the point is that the new bid is allowed so long as the insufficient bid doesn't provide any information that is not provided by the new bid. So there have to be no hands that are included in the new bid and not in the insufficient one, since those hands would be excluded by the information provided by the insufficient bid. There can be hands that are included in the insufficient bid but not in the new bid, because then the insufficient bid doesn't clarify the new bid. Example 1: 1C on Balanced 15-19, Then correct 1C to 2N over a 1S opener. I think you have eliminated : a. Hands with a 5 card spade suit b. 4441 hands c. 4351 hands from the 2N bid. While not likely, it does give some information. Example 2: As to 2N-2C , thats insufficient someone points out, 3C auctions. 2N-3C-3S-3N on average as a weaker hand then a hand that was bidding stayman over 1N. yes you might have a 3451 garbage stayman hand, but there is an increased likelihood of you having 8-11 points, relative to the 3-7 you might have had. Personally, I think you should allow the 2N bid and the 3C bid, but there is possible UI in these auctions which should slightly restrict partner. For instance, I would never allow opener to bid on over 3N in the example 2 auction.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage. Come on, I think you know that is not analogous. A beginner is no more disadvantaged if their opponent intrafinesses them than you or I are, whether they know what happened to them or not. Really? Ok, here is my bet. Take a pair playing in a national event for the first time. (We are talking about nationals, not about begginer events). In event A they face the multi every round. In event B they have to deal with a technical card combination, like intrafinesses. In which event do you think they get a better score?

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage. Bridge is a combination of skills. Memory. Understanding of bidding logic. Of system development. Of Table feel. Of card combinations. Different people have different skills. For instance, playing a GCC only event merely improves some players chances (say Michael Rosenberg or Geir Helgemo) and hurts others (say Meckwell). For newer players in national events, who for some reason havn't seen the Multi or an intrafinesse, you are at a disadvantage until you become familiar with them. And you only become familiar with them if you become exposed to them. And quite frankly that occurs pretty quickly. I also am pretty sure, even in day 1 of national events, the multi does not outperform natural weak 2 bids on weak 2 hands. The reason people play multi, is that it uses only 1 bid for both weak 2's, and thus frees the 2M bids for something else which is where your gain comes from. You talk about accidents when the opps end up in the weak 2 bidders suit. Well the weak 2's side missing game, or making the wrong opening lead has to be a much more common event then the opps playing in a blatantly wrong strain.

Well we used to plan things, but inevitably: a. someone would be late b. someone would be lost I think I managed to meet up with my friends, according to plan, less than 50% of the time. It was not that big deal if we had 5 hours blocked off for a 2 hour visit, but its not so good if you really had only 2 hours free so could not afford the inefficinecies of old. BTW, while I might be able to say to my college roomate lets meet at this time and place when I am in town, but there is a 50% chance they might have to change there plans at the last second, so being able to reach me was critical. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but public telephone booths have mostly disappeared. What would superman do....

can wait until someone invents legs Are you an idiot??? My dad lives about 30 miles away. I also have to cross a river.

What a tragedy. It is surely the end of the world. I promise to buy you a box of tissues the first time we meet (provided that planet Earth still exists of course) :rolleyes: Roland I truely hate people who impose there values on others. With my old job, for a while I had to be reached, it would mean that my choice would be: a. Quit my job b. Pay the extra $75 a day to stay in the host hotel c. Lose my dinner break since I had to go all the way back to my hotel and then come back d. not go to nationals e. Carry the cell phone anyway At the New York nationals my choices were: a. Stay with my dad in New Jersey for at least part of it b Be disowned c. Not go not nationals If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended. So I would have not attended NYC nationals under those conditions. Different people value having a cell phone (when away from home) at different amounts. What values means, is if you were giving a choice between a. Having the cell phone with you b. Recieving $X of cash You are indifferent (you would chose the cash for any value larger than X and the cell phone for any value smaller) You might assign a negative number to X, I might assign a $50 value to X, someone else (for instance, who's job requires it) might assign $5000. I would curse at you now, but it would just be deleted. Anyway, I honestly don't give a hoot what you think. I will choose to attend nationals less. Others will also. Thats the cost of the decision to the ACBL.

I guess I need to repeat myself. If I have two gates to a complex, and put an alarm at one but not the other it doesn't help at all. If I put alarms at both, but the fence is 2 feet high, and has no alarm, it still doesn't help. By, it doesn't help, I do not mean that it only improves security by "only" 1%. I mean it improves security by 0. I also brought up the issue of psychological deterrence. I do beleive that there are some things which do not help security at all, but reduce the likelihood of an attack. For instance, I can put up a sign on my house that says "protected by XXX alarm company" and not have an alarm. That clearly will reduce the number of breakins (at least initially) by non-professional thiefs. Its unclear if a specialist will be effected. Furthermore, does it decrease breakins? No, you merely break into a house without the sign (just as you would cheat a different way). How about if every house had such a sign? Probably that will have some detterence effect, if somehow every house had a sign, but none of the crooks knew that the houses did not have any real security (which really is not beleivable)...In any case, it really is much more cost effective to have security measures that actually improve security, rather than spending resourses on only those that give the appearence (to an untrained eye) of improved security but don't help at all. Effective security methods are things that either a. eliminates the n most effective ways to cheat such that the n+1'th method is measurably less effective than any of the top n b. improves your security against all forms of cheating (like paying soemone to walk around and look for cheating taking place) To make this concreate suppose there were 5 ways to cheat: A will be successful 90% of the time B will be successful 90% of the time C will be successful 89% of the time D will be successful 70% of the time E will be successful 20% of the time Eliminating A gains you nothing (I can do B instead) Eliminatating B gains you nothing (I can do A instead) (Same for C, D and E alone) Eliminating A and B gains you 1% which may or may not be worthwhile, depending on the costs of eliminating A and B, and the costs of successful cheating. Its a pretty exceptional case when this kind of improvement is really worth it. Eliminating A, B and C gains you 20%, which is probably worth it, but again you been to look at costs and benefits. I certainly wouldn't do this if it cost every ACBL member $5000/year. And so on. Most "improvements to security" do not decrease the probability that someone will be able to cheat and get away with it (and thus are a complete waste of money). The goal is not a 100% reduction. Its a credible ability to catch more cheaters (and a cost benefit analysis is required to determine if decreasing cheating by say 1% is worth the assocaited cost). Merely forcing people to cheat in a different way does not in and of itself improve your probability of catching cheaters. Having said that, I repeat that there are trivial ways to cheat right now that do not involve any technology. If you can't prevent those, eliminating things like cellphone use will clearly have no benefit... In your analagy, we had a sign that said "we can detect all cheating with cellphones". So lets grant that it will reduce the amount of cheating with cell phones even if the detection claims are phony (which is a claim that is not necessarily true). Reducing one form of cheating does not reduce cheating unless that form is easier an/or more effective than others, which in this case its neither.

I worked for many years doing security assessments, and developing software to identify security vulnerabilities (my software is now used by the departments of defense and energy).. From that I have two observations: People make the following FALSE claims: Claim 1. If you remove a security vulnerability (eliminate or make less effective some method that people use to break into a facility, to cheat, or whatever), that the overall security becomes better. This is totally false. If I triple lock my front door, people can still enter through the back door. This totally depends on if there are equally effective alternatives to the vulnerability that was patched. Claim 2: If I remove my most significant vulnerability, security gets measurably better. This is occasionally true, but usually there is something else that is almost as effective. Claim 3: Even if what I do doesn't help much, it doesn't hurt, and it makes it appear that secuirty is improved, and that reduces crime. Often putting in a new fence, has no measurable effect on the overall security effectiveness, but does make it look like security is taken seriously, so that probably reduces unplanned attacks (I have not seen the evidence, but I believe its true). It has hardly any effect on planned attacks. More seriously, there are always costs, so the "it doesn't hurt claim" is tenuous at best. In bridge, people can cheat by: a. talking to other people between rounds b. seeing hands (in pairs events) while walking around the room, either while the hands are being made, or during the session and many other ways. You would be hard pressed to convince me that eliminating cellphone cheating, without eliminating a and b above as well, will have any effect on the overall cheating rate. The "cheating by cellphone rate" is just irrelevent. Systems (such as security protocols) should be measured only in terms of its overall effectiveness. So I dispute the claim that eliminating cellphones decreases a. cheating b. accusations of cheating c. occurances of someones reputation being tarnished. Now on to the costs. First, unless they establish a method for collecting or checking cellphones the costs are asymmetric. If you happen to be staying at the host hotel, the costs are assocaited with the 20 minutes you lose going to your room and coming back 1. before the first session 2. after the first session 3. before the second session (which is still significant) If you are at another hotel, and don't have a rental car, the costs (time) are much higher. One wise ass here (I am paraphrasing), said poor babies, no cell phone for 3 hours. Actually it becomes no cell phones for 15 hours if your hotel is nowhere near the facility. My normal schedule at nationals is I wake up around 8. I go and be a tourist from 9 to 12, grab a quick lunch and I go play bridge. If its the first day of a national event, I will go out to dinner between sessions (and often see friends from the town nationals are held in), otherwise I go back to the room and rest. Then I play the second session. Both my morning and evening break are pretty tight, and I generally need my cellphone to make logistics work. Sometimes I have business to deal with, so I definitely need my cellphone. Without the cell phone I would not be able to do as many things in my off bridge hours, so would rationally decide to go to less nationals. I think its certainly clear that people select nationals to go to in part based on what else there is to do in that city (just look at attendnce numbers, and if you want you can restrict yourself to national events, even there people care about things other than just those events). Alternatively, I have to pay an extra $75 a night to stay in the host hotel. I am all for improving security, but ineffectual rules with significant costs, whose costs are mostly born not by the folks on the boards who are all staying at the host hotel is a serious mistake. I personally do not like the choices in the poll, since my vote would be I would (try to) follow the rules, but I would attend nationals much less often, since I could not "go see Pearl Harbour or such and such museum or this great bookstore and catch a cab back for the bridge event", since I could not get the logistics to work. I also could not decide to go to nationals at the last second counting on my ability to find a partner by calling people up, and when they bump into somone who is also looking connecting us (ok, I don't usually do this, but many players do, but my plans might fall apart when a partner does too well in another event....). I also could not spend my free day kibbutzing nationals for a few hours and then being a tourist awterwords, since it will require a trip to and from my hotel.... Anyway, thats my scoop...