joshs

Once again, the ACBL strikes. I am all for eliminating cheating, but this really is going rather far. I hope the ACBL sets up a way to check cellphones or attendence will probably seriously suffer. When I go to nationals: a. I almost never stay at the host hotel. Its too expensive. b. I rarely have a rental car c. I generally go to nationals where I have friends I want to visit with, or there are other things to do. For instance in San Fran I met up with friends a few evenings and went to dinner and then had to call a cab to get back to the playing site. This coordination is really hard without cell phones. d. I often like to go and kibbitz for an hour or so when I am not playing, andt hen go off and do other things. e. In the past, I had to be on conference calls for work before or between sessions on occasion, although this has not been happening with my current job. Putting this all together, if I had to leave my cell phone in my hotel room, it has a major impact on my enjoyment of nationals. Its not as easy as going upstairs to the room to get it, since the hotel room is often a 20-30 minute walk away. p.s. Arranging last minute partnerships for national events without a cell phone is kind of hard....

Its 666-4355

I heard that the Multi is going to be changed to being allowed only for 6+ board a round events, with 3 day national pairs as the exception. Did anyone know they were considering this? Is it just multi? Why would it be multi, and not the less common stuff on the midchart?

I wonder how well xfer then 3D will work, assuming that if you bid 4S next over a non-3N bid that partner doesn't take it as a slam try. I am just not tricky enough to bid a 2 card suit.... :) Personally, I think you should at least have a diamond honor in addition to perpetrate crimes like bidding a 3 card suit here, but I am endlessly curious. Anyway, unless I have machinery to identify a 4333 hand with all fast or all slow tricks opposite, I would probably just blast 4S....

No, no, no. An Ace paired with a second ace in the same suit=i

That's not my experience. Raising with three has often helped my game and slam bidding. Anecdotally a week or two ago we had the auction 1m 1♥ 2♥ 4♥ I had six hearts and some sort of distributional 8-count (two bullets). I don't have the exact hand at my finger tips. The reasonably competent opponents bid at the other table bid 1m 1♥ 2m 2♥ end Basically whenever responder has five or more cards in the raised major you are well placed early in the auction after the raise. Well this has been my experience. My opinion is: when partner has 5+ cards it helps your game bidding,(as long as you raise on 3 on the "right" hands) and hurts your slam bidding. When partner has only 4 cards, it hurts. This is a typical bidding problem: Axxx Qxxx KQxx x Partner opens 1D, and raises 1H-2H Opposite 4 hearts you have a game force, opposite 3 hearts and only 4D you probably want to stop in 2H or 3D. If you play 3D here as non-forcing (my preference, since I raise on 3 a lot), it hurts your slam bidding. If 3D is forcing, this bidding problem sucks and you might end up in 3H opposite xx Kxx Axxx AQxx. (OK, here you might bid 2S, and partner will bid 2N, which you might pass, and might make. Or you might bid 3D next and maybe you play that as non-forcing, but you get my point.) Anyway, I think its right to raise on 3 a lot. My point was merely that no matter how much you think its right to raise on 3 at IMPs, its right to raise on 3 even more at MPs, since the difference between the score for 1N and 2H is very significant at MPs, and you will do a lot better in 2H on average when your side has the typical half the deck.

In my experience, the right part score at MPs is a somewhat over-rated concept. Yes there are hands where you have 110 in a major, vs 120 in NT. Or 140 in a major vs 130 in a minor. But there are other hands where by playing in the 5-2 or 4-3 major suit fit you go minus, while you had a +90 or even +110 in a minor. Further, sometimes even if you are not in your best strain, the fact that you are not in your best strain keeps the opps from balancing, and gives you a decent score. Is it better to be in the right strain? yes, I just think that many of these decisions are swinging 1/5 of a board on average, and only occasionally are they really big swings. I would be interested in analyizing hands from national pairs finals on these. The biggest area where i think party score considerations really matter is 3 card raises: xx Kxx AKxx QJxx You open 1D, partner bids 1H, and I think its clear to bid 2H, even though raising on 3 cards, especially without a singleton, does hurt slam and game bidding some. 2H is really likely to be a better contract than 1N. So its a swing at both mps and Imps, but a bigger deal at mps. At Imps, you want to play 3N (instead of 4M) much more than at MPs, but many systems don't let you play 3N having found a major suit fit, so if anything such agreements are already MPs oriented, since 3N is rarely correct at mps when you have an 8 card major suit fit. The other thing is if you find a 4-3 major suit fit, have about 24-25 points, and don't think 3N is making, there is no reason to bid game at MPs. 3M making 3 or 4 will already be a good score. I am not sure what system changes are really necessary to capture all of these. I don't think they are big ones. Its mostly judgement... More or less, I think low information auctions with a lot of blasting are much better at MPs then they are at IMPS. Other than that...

I celebrated at 1:59 with some Pie....

Well, I have tried to submit hands but: a. I can't ever find the bulleton room b. If I do find it, I can't find someone to submit to c. there is no published email to submit to, so I usually need to email someone, who knows someone, who....

What I play with Marc is: 3S = Clubs or both minors 4C=Diamonds Over 3S, opener can bid 3N (most common), can bid 4C (likes clubs), or 4D(rkc in clubs). Over 3nt= not great for club slam 4c=club slam try 4d= rkc for clubs 4h=both minors, equal or better clubs, slam try 4s=both minors, better diamonds, slam try 4nt=mild quantitative with clubs 5c=to play 5d,5h,5s=exclusion rkc for clubs 5nt = grand slam force Over 4c = would accept a club slam try 4d = rkc for clubs 4h = both minors, equal or better clubs, slam try 4s=both minors, better diamonds, slam try 4nt=mild slam try with clubs 5c=to play 5d,5h,5s=exclusion rkc for clubs

Help with a calculation: Suppose I have a 7 count in 3rd seat under conditions described. Does anyone have a good way of calculating each sides expected HCP? Here is my loose calculation: Before looking at my hand the expectations were A:6.47 B:7.35 C:13.09 D:13.09 Now I see my 7 count and now I am 6.09 HCP short of my expected values. I think that these 6.09 points should be distributed proportionally to my aprior estimates for A B and D, Hence my new estimates: A: 6.47 +6.09*6.47/26.91=7.93 B: 7.35 +6.09*7.35/26.91=9.01 C: 7 D: 13.09+6.09*13.09/26.91=16.05 (I lost 0.01 do to round off) In any case this give our side an expectation of about 14.93. I am not sure this proportionality distribution method is exactly right, does anyone have an easy way to do this calculation exactly?

Sorry I thought of a different question, which seems the more relevant one to me. Say you have 7 hcp in 1st seat. Then obviously your side's hcp expectation value is 18 hcp. Now if you have 7hcp in 3rd seat and it went p-p and partner opens light, then obviously your expected number of hcp is a lot lower. That's why there is a lot more reason to open destructively in 3rd seat, and what your a-priori expected number of hcps is seems rather irrelevant to me. Yeah that is of course if I have a 7 count in 3rd seat the opps expectation is much higher than if I have a 7 count in 1st seat (26 vs 22). I thought we were talking about opening 1 or 2 points lighter and am not talking about outright psychs. The question here was what should the nominal opening bid range be for a 3rd 4'th suit opener in this light opening bid system and I was arguing for 12-16ish, and the debate was if it should include the 10-11 counts that normally get opened opposite sound openers. Now... If I held a 3 count with 5 spades in first seat favorable I probably will get my best results by opening the hand 1S. Of course, if partner has to cater to this my results on other, more common hands will be worse. But the results with that hand will be better. Similarly, if I have a 7 count with 5 spades in 3'rd seat favorable I probably will also get my best results by opening the hand 1S, at least if partner never hangs me. But again, if partner has to cater to this, my results on other more common hands will be worse. (You hold a 13 count here about 3 times as often as a 7 count) As usual its just a cost benefit analysis.... I know one pair here in LA who are very wild in 3rd seat and consistantly does terrible over there 3rd seat openers because they do not very often get to the correct contract when it is there hand. I think a lot of the success people have with wild 3rd seat actions is that their partner bases there decisions on their table feel of 4th hand (and perhaps via the old black magic, on partner)

Some Definitions: "Par" - The best possible double dummy score you can recieve on the hand if the opps pass through out. Note Par>=0 "Absolute Par" - A contract where neither side can improve their (double dummy) score by bidding higher. Note: Absolute Par is usually unique, but on rare occasion both sides can make say 1N or 3N double dummy, played from a particular side, and here its not very well defined, so you would assign the side in 1'st seat the unique ability to get to said contract, to make it unique. There still are rare cases where Passout is Absolute Par. Owner of the Hand: The side that went postive (double dummy) in the Absolute Par Contract Claim: Given a Fixed Distribution of the HCP (A against B=40-A) and ranging over all possible hands with said distribution of the points that if A>B, then P(A Owns the Hand)> P(B Owns the Hand) Three more definitions: Constructive - making a bid with the aim of reaching my sides par contract Destructive - makign a bid with the aim of preventing the opponents from reaching their par contract. Lead Oriented - making a bid with the aim of improving the effectivesness of your sides opening leads (Note this can be a bid that improves your partner's opening leads, or it can be a bid by you where the subsequent auction helps you figure out what to lead yourself) Let me combine Descructive with Lead Oriented and call these Defensive Goals. Ok that was preliminary, now my claim is: The More likely it is for your side to own the hand, the more important Constuctive Goals are to Defensive Goals. And Visa versa. Hence has your expected HCP decreases, there is some increase in the relative importance of Defensive bidding relative to constructive bidding. I just think: a. After PP, the probability that its your hand has only decreased a little bit from first seat, hence the importance of defensive bidding has only increased a little bit. b. Hence the more important consideration is effectiveness, not importance. Is defensive bidding more effective in this situation (because partner is a passed hand) than it is in first seat (where the opps have exchanged no information, but partner is unlimited)? I think most of the claims for the value of 3rd seat light opening bids is that they are much more effective than in 1'st seat since "partner can't hang you". I have been questioning this claim. I feel partner can't hang you only by giving up on constructive bidding, which really is not much less important here than it was in 1/2 seat. If you want to be able to retain some constructive bidding, partner will have to hang you sometimes. (Seriously, after P-P-1S-3H(Intermediate) and you hold Qxx x xxxx AQTxx I think you need to force to game) So the question is, what are the "costs and benefits" assocaited with opening 1-2 points "lighter than expected" on certain hand types in different seats. Also what are the costs and benefits of more outragous psychs.

OK I did the expectations calculation, under the following assumptions: A. in 1'st seat we open all 10+ hands and no weaker hands B. In Second Seat they open all 12+ hands, and half the 11's Here I am basically ignoring prempts. I don't think including them is going to change the conclusion much, but feel free. From a table of HCP probabilities, I computed E(HCP for A Given A passed)=6.47 E(HCP for B Given B passed)=7.35 Average for A+B=13.82 3'rd and 4'th seat have the same expectation=(40-13.82)/2=13.09 So 3'rd hand sides expectation=6.47+13.09=19.56 (I actually think this will go up slightly if you include premepts, assuming the prempting styles are similar since you are including some common hands, plus some hands that A opened 1 which B would pre-empt with) OK So I guessed 19.7. Seems like a rediculously bad guess to me.

1. More efficient can mean 0.1 imps/bd or it can mean 8 imps/bd. My guess is playing a 15+ 1C opener in 3rd seat under the stated conditions (partner can't have a 10 count) is something like a 3 imps/bd loser, and a pretty common bid. 2. People keep making claims about opening light in 3rd seat is important. Ok, just why is it more important (more effective) than opening light in say 1st seat? yes in 1'st seat your side's expected total HCPs are 20, while in 3rd seat while opening slightly lighter than the opps do, its only about 19.7 (my guess), but how much does that change the odds of whose hand it is? Does this outweigh the fact that the opps have had some exchange of information already via the second seat pass? 3 IMPs per board? Only 19.7 instead of 20? I think I agree with most of what you say but your numbers are ridiculous, to put it nicely ;) OK you play a strong club system where the only bid you are allowed to make over your strong club opener is 1D. You think you will lose by less than 3 imps/bd on the strong club hands? I was guessing at the 19.7. 3rd hand and 4'th hand have the same expected value (given 2 passes). 1'st hands strength distribution is 0-9 2nd hands strength distribution is 0- bad 11 (lets say half the 11's are opened) Compute A=E(HCP) in hand 1, and B=E(HCP) in hand2. 3rd Hand sides Expectation=A+(40-A-B )/2 4'th Hand Side Expectation=B+(40-A-B )/2 I was guessing that B-A was about 0.6. Do the calculation, how far off was I?

You can buy stocks on margin also. You just don't get the tax break that reduces the effective interest rate... But if you want to count the returns on your highly leveraged investment, ok but lets compare apples to apples. Also, Transaction costs of buying stocks are much lower (you are not paying 6% commissions...) Ooops, never mind I just read the rest of your post..

1. More efficient can mean 0.1 imps/bd or it can mean 8 imps/bd. My guess is playing a 15+ 1C opener in 3rd seat under the stated conditions (partner can't have a 10 count) is something like a 3 imps/bd loser, and a pretty common bid. 2. People keep making claims about opening light in 3rd seat is important. Ok, just why is it more important (more effective) than opening light in say 1st seat? yes in 1'st seat your side's expected total HCPs are 20, while in 3rd seat while opening slightly lighter than the opps do, its only about 19.7 (my guess), but how much does that change the odds of whose hand it is? Does this outweigh the fact that the opps have had some exchange of information already via the second seat pass?

Adam, of course knows my opinion. Let us start with the 1C opening after P-P Claim 1: The Conditional Probablity of having a 15+ hand after 2 passes, is much larger than it was in first seat. I would guess P(15+ Given PP) is about 4* P(15+) Claim 2: The Probability of Partner having a Positive Response to your 15+ 1C 3rd seat opener is much less than it was after a first seat 1C (In fact its only a subset of the 9 counts). I would guess that P(Positive over 3rd seat 15+ 1C) is about 1/10 P(Positive over 1st seat 1C) So what happens is you have frequent 1C-P-1D auctions, and very few 1C-P-Positive auctions. this is terrible inefficient. Anyway who claims that they can do better in there 1C-P-1D (negative) auctions than in there 1C-P-Positive auctions, please let me know, so I can give a basic lesson on information theory.... The result of this is thats its terribly ineffiecent to play 1C as 15+ in this situation. In fact if 1C is 17+ you still have P(17+ Given PP) > P(15+) But the difference is not huge, and the positives to 17+ 3rd seat opener turn out to be reasonably common. (I need to measure that probability at some point and compare it with the positives to the 1st seat 15+ openers) So now, to make the 1C auctions efficient, you are playing a 17+ or an 18+ 1C in 3'rd seat. Now if 1H is 10-16 or 10-17 you do face the problem that: a. an 8 or 9 count might want to invite game, which is especially problematic in competition or b. the maximum 1M openers have to bid past 2M all by themselves opposite a potentially weak hand or c. you need to give up bidding accuracy in exchange to the competative benefits of opening light (al least with good suits) OK, so maybe you decide that in fact playing a 10-16 range is in fact best here, because the advantages of getting in the opps face outweight the problems caused by the wider range. Well then why exactly didn't you play a 8-14 range in 1/2 instead of the 10-14 range?? When you open in 3 seat, 4'th seat know something about his partner, that partner did not have an opening hand. So with a weak NT they are not terribly worried about missing a game. You have no such luxury over a 1'st seat opening. In fact its the light first seat openings, coupled with a light response, that are best at stealing from the opponents, assuming that is one of your major goals. The light 3'rd seat openers are not nearly as effective at that goal...

I have no information from which to dispute what you say, but I find it surprising (I find lots of things surprising, mind), and it is at odds with my understanding of the general perception, although my general perception may be coloured by local property market trends. I expect that you calculated the expected return on the stock market by the rise in the index, akin to sticking a pin on the dartboard as an investment policy. Likewise I expect that you calculated the expected return on real estate by a rise in global property prices over a period. A particular individual who is considering this equation in relation to his personal affairs is unlikely to apply so random a policy to either medium. The attitude of the consumer to risk may also be a factor. Traditionally the equity market is regarded as a higher risk investment medium than the property market. If you limit the population of equity products to those with a comparable degree of risk you may find that the expected return drops to something more closely resembling that of the property market. I look at it in possibly overly simplistic terms: In any financial transaction, cutting out the middle-man is usually the winning option for the purchaser and vendor alike, the only loser being the middle-man excluded from the transaction whose profit foregone can then be shared between the remaining end parties. Taking this analogy to the property market, in order for a tenancy to exist there has to be a landlord. The landlord expects a return on his investment, which will come in part from an expected rise in property prices and in part from rental income. The landlord will have done his own sums to determine that the expected return is sufficient to make it worthwhile for him to be a landlord. That return is at least in part at the expense of the tenant. In this regard the landlord is akin to the middle-man, the exclusion of which would be of benefit to the prospective freeholder. Without doing any sums or market analysis, therefore, I would expect the outright purchase to be the winning option. Robert Shiller did a study on historical US home price appreciation, and found in constant dollars, over the last 100 years, homes have appreciated in value at 1%/year. The S&P on the other hand has been appreciating at more like 7%/year in constant dollars. Thus homes are not great as a pure investment. (Constant dollars means adjusting for inflation) The nice thing about owning a home is that its an asset that you can a. use (you get value from living there) and b. borrow against Its hard to understate the importance of b. Since its hard to move a home, it provides very good colateral for a loan. I read recently, that 70% of all business are started with a 2nd mortgage against their home. (http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/B0002X7VWU/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1) P.S. Wow, $1200/month for a 2 bedroom in the boston area! For Comparison here is a sample claculation: If you put 100K down on a 500K property Your mothnly Mortgage payment (@6%) would be $2400 which works out (initially) as $2000/month in interest and $400/month in principle. there is also tax and insurance which I will estimate at $600/month and maintance of $200/month (I am probably underestimating this). the principle amount you are basically paying to yourself, and you get about 1/3 of the interest, tax and insurance back as a tax break, so your net monthly costs are: 2/3*$2600+$200=$2000 Now if you rent, you didn't have to make the $100K down payment. Assuming that you make 6% a year on this money, you are earning $500/month. So your rental net is $1200-$500=$700 So in this scenario, buying requires almost 3 times the monthly spending, even after taking into account the tax credits. In order to make up for the $1300/month the home needs to appreciate at a rate of 12*1300/500000=3.1%/year just to break even. (Actually its a bit more than this, since the principle portion could have been invested at a higher yield rather than going into the house, but thats a second order effect). Over time, this required % will go down, since rents will go up, and the % of money you pay as principle also goes up.

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

My theory is that the Dane's are happy because of Legos. :)

What is time anyway? And why does time have a direction?

Dude, take any convention, and find how many people have discussed followups, let alone the 3 round of the auction.... Many people play methods which leave no forcing way of setting trumps below game, and end up in the tank at the table when they have extras in that situation. :)

I usually play these as 4441 (and have the both minors bid be either 54 or 55 with natural followups so we can locate a 4-3 or 5-3 fit in the fragment). But anyway the same principles can apply: Marc and my notes: Continuations over 3H (4-1-4-4, GF) 3S 4+ clubs ( 4C Waiting, forward going 4• RKC for clubs ) 3nt to play 4C 4+ diamonds ( 4• Waiting, forward going 4H RKC for Diamonds ) 4• 4-4 in minors( 4H Sets clubs as trumps 4S Sets diamonds as trumps 4nt Double RKC ) 4H 4 spades, extras( 4S To play 4nt RKC ) 4S 4 spades, minimum Continuations over 3S (1-4-4-4, GF) 3nt to play 4C 4+ diamonds( 4• Waiting, forward going 4H RKC for diamonds ) 4• 4 hearts, extra( 4H To play 4S RKC for hearts ) 4H 4 hearts, minimum( 4S RKC for hearts ) 4S 4+ clubs( 4nt RKC 5C To play )

Maybe you missed a card? Range of 2H=11-18ish Range of 3H=19-21ish It would be hard to convince me that a 19 count (and one with a 5 card suit and 3 aces) is closer to a 2H bid then a 3H bid. lets do some tests: a. is it in the range of 2H or 3H (answer: 3H) b. is is it closer to the mean hand for the 2H or 3H bid? (mean for 2H is under 14, for 3H is slightly less than 20) c. What is the probability of making game opposite hands that pass 2H? Well considering that x Kxxxx Kxx xxxx should pass 2H and slam is very good, I think not being able to make game is a bit pessamistic.... You have play for game opposite a single K and a fit! And Kx of spades and out means that 3N is not hopeless and partner has more then that... As to 2N non-forcing. if you don't think this hand should game force, isn't it at least worth 20? Isn't opening 2N (not my choice) better than opening 1S and rebidding a non-forcing 2N. I know that 1S-1N-3H is always an awkward auction since there is little room below 3N but, bidding 2 instead really does not solve the bidding problems in any way.