Mbodell

But most people don't. They have 11-12 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced. Obviously, on the 11-12 balanced the odds of clubs or diamonds is exactly equal. And IIRC you're actually more likely to have 11-12 balanced than 11-15 unbalanced. Here's what I get: A. Balanced 11-12: 8% of all hands, 54.4% of all 1♦ bids. All others are unbalanced 11-15 hands. B. 5431/5422/4441/5440, no 5 card major: 4.7% of all hands, 32% of all 1♦ bids. C. 5521, 6511, 6520, no 5 card major: .3% of all hands: 2% of all 1♦ bids D. 6+ diamonds, no other 5 card suit: 1.7% of all hands: 11.6% of all 1[1D] bids. Hands where clubs are better*: 44.2% Hands where diamonds are better: 55.8% I did it where there were no 'ties', the better suit if equal length. If I were to make 3 categories: equal length, clubs longer, or diamonds longer, none would be over 50%. Obviously, the numbers are very different if you use a standard Precision 1 diamond. Moving the 4441/5440 to another bid won't make a significant difference. You are right that shifts the numbers from what I play quite significantly (from favored 1.59 to 0.65), although I'd say diamonds are still reasonably preferred to clubs. I get balanced 11-12 is 54.4% of the 1♦ bids like you but still that the average diamond length is 3.92 while the average club length is 3.27 and I get clubs are better 32.7% of the time, they are equal 18.2% of the time and diamonds are better 49.1% of the time. Restricted to the balanced 11-12 case the average of both clubs and diamonds is 3.25 and clubs is better 38% of the time, diamonds better 38% and equal length 24%. Restricted to the unbalanced case the average of diamonds is 4.72 while the average of clubs is 3.30 and clubs is better 26.2% of the time, they are equal 11.3% of the time, and diamonds is better 62.4% of the time. [these numbers are a little different than the unbalanced above in my first post since in the first post I was using a more sophisticated selection than blindly 11-15 so very shapely hands that didn't have 11 hcp but also didn't get a different bid (I.e., long diamonds hands with 9 or 10 points) would be included].

My first instinct is to win the A♠ and play ♥ to the A and then ♥ to the J. Now if the finesse wins I have 3 heart tricks, 1 spade, and 5 diamonds for a safe game with chances for extras in clubs or 3-3 hearts and 2-2 diamonds (need both for safe transport if no clubs). I make sure to toss my high ♦ from dummy (5-9-10 in case singleton J drops and I can then have transport again for 3-3 ♥) to not block the suit on a 3-1 split. If the ♥ finesse loses the non-dangerous opponent is in who likely continues ♠ and I get a stopper with Jx when West leads, also providing the safe ninth trick. If West knows not to continue ♠ by not playing on ♦ yet the ♣ switch versus the ♦ switch isn't a given, and on a ♦ switch I can play the T from dummy and, if covered with the J, possibly set up transportation to the ♥ if they spit 3-3 by playing the second round of ♦ to the 9 after cashing the K♥. Of course all this business about 3-3 ♥ is likely useless since the 2♦ business promises 4-4 or better. But I still think this is a decent line for 9 tricks. We are only in trouble if West has the Q♥, K♠, and not A♣, and finds the ♣ switch to partner who continues ♠.

The normal good problem with weights and balls, of which this version is kind of a subproblem (with 8 balls, not 9, which is probably why this version only has 8 balls), is you have 12 balls and know that 11 are identical in weight but 1 is EITHER heavier OR lighter. Now with 3 weightings of the scales of justice style scale (I.e., one side goes up or down or stays the same but you don't get a number answer) you have to determine the defective ball AND if the ball is heavier or lighter. Many of these types of problems are fun to work on, but few make good interview questions IME (both as a candidate who nailed all of these questions when Microsoft used to ask them [but still though the a-ha questions were poor] and an interviewer who has interviewed a couple hundred technical people).

3 rounds of spades, followed by AK♦ and ♦ ruff. Play the Q♣. If RHO wins the A♣, we win. If LHO wins the A♣ and leads ♥ we must finesses. If Q holds, we are done since we can take the ♥ finesse and even if it loses we have no ♣ losers now.

This is a very decent auction, except opener would bid slam over 5♣. It is not worth worrying about the queen of diamonds after partner's jump to 4♦. He will either have the queen, six of them, or we might need a 2-2 break / singleton queen combination at worst. Hmm, I thought the problem for this auction with opener was hearts. In this auction you haven't learned about the heart stiff and have potential ♥ losers as well as the K of trump and possible Q of trump or K of ♣. I guess the fact opener is jumping and willing to cue tell us he's got extra 2nd round controls in something and partner has at least 9 and possibly 10 cards in ♠+♦.

We don't play inverted minors and, like many sayc-ish B/I players don't have great minor suit bidding auctions about what 1♦-3♦ or 1♦-4♦ would mean. I ended up trusting my partner meant the bid to be preemptive and passed. It turned out she did but I still felt bad when the beautiful: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa973h8dqj9742ct7&s=sk8ha62dat63caqj3]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] dummy came down. When west ended up with the Kxx in both ♦ and ♣ we were in the lucky right place. Partner's hand is only 7 points, but it is such a good 7 points that I think I would have wanted to splinter in ♥ which might have made the auction go: 1♦-3♥ 4♣-4♠ 4NT(1430)-5♣ 6♦ But since splintering with just 7 points is a stretch maybe 1♦-1♠ 2NT-4♦ 4♥-4♠ 4NT(1430)-5♣ 5♦ which again leaves us short. How do you think the bidding should have gone, especially not playing inverted minors?

Given you are playing sayc-ish but with weak nt and 1♣ could be short as 2 so 1♦ promises 4+ would you pass or go on with: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk8ha62dat65caqj3]133|100|Scoring: IMP S W N E 1♦ P 5♦ P ?[/hv]

So given the auction starts (1nt "15-17") 2♣!{1} (x!{2}) what would you play the following as: xx pass 2♦ other? where the alerted bids were: 1 - single long suit 2 - staymen and specifically how would you treat the following continuations: xx (2♥) p (p) x p (2♥) p (p) x xx (p) p (2♥) x Is rdbl points or club tolerance and which of the dbls, if any, should be penalty oriented? Would any of this change if the 1nt was weak 12-14?

I'm thinking of things like imagine playing with a new partner where you will play the intersection of your two methods except you each get to add your favorite treatment or convention. What conventions would you both expect weren't already in their methods but also would most want the person to play. Or else if developing a partnership what non-standard convention/treatment that you find useful would you want to adopt. Some simple ones that I know people around me would have as candidates include: - Bailey's cuebids instead of Michael's cuebids (cue bids show highest unbid suit + one other unbid suit - only different from Michael's in 1m (2m) auctions) - Using 1NT-3M to show gf hand with 4 of the other major My personal choice would be a form of BROMAD [bergen raises over major artificial doubles] where the response structure after 1M (x) is: xx - 10+, 2 or fewer cards in suit 1N - 6-9 and oM at least semi-stopped 2 or fewer card support 2c - 8 or fewer losers or 10+ points with 3 card support 2d - 9 losers or 6-9 points with 3 card support 2M - 10+ losers or 0-5 points with 3 card support 3c - 8 or fewer losers or 10+ points with 4 card support (or slam interested hands with 5+ support) 3d - 9 losers or 6-9 points with 4 card support 3M - 10+ losers or 0-5 points with 4 card support 4M - 5+ cards in suit, to play pass - anything else (0-5 w/ 2 or fewer cards or some 6-9 w/ 2 or fewer cards or occasional 0-5 w/ that decides tactically decides to pass) over the club response opener acts as if the responder was exactly 8 losers (10-12 points) and responder can correct if they were stronger. What are other people's favorites?

I play a form of precision that has the 15-17 balanced bid as part of 1d so our 1d bids are generally 11-15 (or weaker) unbalanced or 15-17 balanced and 2+ diamonds. The 2♠ bid would be 10+ relatively balanced and no stopper or possibly 13+ anything ready to act after next bid. Our dbl would show exactly 8-10 and 4 ♥ and 1nt and 2nt would cover 8-13 with a stopper - but possibly the likelihood of 15-17 nt hands effects this bid in our system more. The 3♦ bid would be 10-11 diamond support (could be 4). The 1♦ has more ♦ than ♣. We restrict the 2♣ bid to 6+ so 5 card ♣ suits are opened with the 1♦ bid unless they have 5 card majors or 1 or fewer ♦. In total the expected number of diamonds in the openers hand when he opens 1♦ is 4.23. The expected number of clubs is 3.27. About 40% of our 1♦ when it is the 15-17 balanced and only about 60% are the unbalanced sort. When it is the nt then ♣ and ♦ are equal and about 3.36 cards. So if I restrict my 1♦ to the unbalanced hands only then the expected number of cards in ♦ is 4.80 and in ♣ is just 3.21. So I'd say the average number of diamonds is certainly significantly longer than the average number of clubs (contrary to jtfanclub's assertion).

Growing up as a kid our family played a number of games including bridge. Bridge is hard to play because of needing exactly 4 players, but both my parents played socially and I have a sister so the 4 of us could sometimes play. We also played good pre-bridge learning games like screw-the-dealer, hearts, and euchre. I think euchre played 9-A followed by euchre played 7-A is a good intro into bridge like skills.

I want to double check what proper procedure is on when to call TD in acbl events. Defending against a 4♠ trump contract on trick 4 the declarer doesn't follow suit in ♣ and trumps, and then on trick 7 when I again lead ♣ to tap the declarer my partner overruffs but I now know someone hasn't followed suit (or my count is wrong). I ask my partner "no clubs partner" on trick 7 and she says "no clubs". Even though I know (suspect) that there has been a revoke (and suspect my partner) I shouldn't call TD right now, right? On trick 10 my partner discards the Q♣ on declarers running of a suit. Is this the place I should call the TD on the revoke? Very quickly there after the deal is over with declarer making 4♠ right on. At this point I did manage to call the director just before people picked up the tricks and the contract was adjusted 4♠+2, but was I later than I should be on my call? Would the point to call the TD change if I were declarer (who knows presumably any time past trick 10) or dummy (who I assume shouldn't say anything until the hand is done)? As an aside with respect to the "no X partner?" is that a legal thing to say as dummy and/or defender in the play of the cards in ACBL events, and if one does is it the sort of thing one should always do. I find I do it only some of the time right now which may give off UI since I do it always when surprised (and only sometimes when not) by the lack of cards in partners hand.

Because he's got 4 spades (maybe 5) and didn't want to preempt us if it was our hand?

I found this explanation of the rules.

If you had the Queen (which you did) and no side King (and you didn't have one), just bid 6 of the trump suit. Returning to FIVE of the trump suit means you don't have Her Majesty. I think you out-thought yourself on this one. :P . Partner wanted to know if you had her. You did. You made a bid that was liable to misunderstanding, and you didn't make one that would have precisely described your hand. Yes, I agree. Now I know I will talk over with partner what follow ups to Q ask are, and with this hand in the undiscussed case should bid 6S since some on this thread thought cheapest bid meant no trump Q. And in an undiscussed auction with ♠Q and the ♥K maybe I should bid 6♥ not 5♥ to avoid this problem as well, or might partner take that to be an offer to play in ♥ as well as ♠? Easiest action to help partner and self not make a mistake: discuss ahead of time. :P

So I was actually South on all 3 hands. Hand 1: I've most often played that cheapest non-trump means you have the Q, trump means you don't have the Q. This lets 5NT sometimes still be in the picture for K asks (and I usually do K count, not specific K, so this isn't redundant) and also sometimes 5 of trump as a bid to go if you've got undisclosed more partner. I've sometimes played trump means you don't have the Q, otherwise cheapest suit in which you have a K or NT with no K. On this hand I had AQ-sixth of spade, singleton heart, 3 low diamonds, J-third clubs and felt 5 H would be safe as if partner plays my number 1 way no confusion and if partner plays my number 2 way he would likely have ♥K, and not expect an additional K, and if not I do have second round control. Partner bid 5♠ and I passed. We made 7 which was good for 2/5 MP (one -100, one 680, 3 1460). If I had been N I would have opened 2♣ and everything would have been different anyways. Hand 2: We set them 3 for 300 for 0/5 MP (one pair found the slam, the rest in game our way). I knew my partners bid was a little silly after the fact, but wasn't sure if some would have tried an aggressive 2NT or 3♥ bid with my hand. Hand 3: I finessed for the ♥J and lost for -50, good for 0/5 MP. There was a 420, 170, and 3 100s our way. LHO had 2=2=4=5 distribution while RHO had 3=2=3=5. I had thought that beginner would have played J for QJ but partner also thought beginner would near 100% play Q from QJ to be "tricky". Also, give LHO had Ax of trump he may have lead a singleton to try to set up a ruff. Overall we still had a good night and ended up with 64.6% (so I stand by that partner and I are good NLM - in spite of evidence from these hands to the contrary), but these 3 were the problem boards (without them it was 71.9%).

Is it only played when pass out hand is a passed hand or is it also played on 1NT - P - P? It seems like it would have least downside if played only when a passed hand.

Playing with a good but unfamiliar partner in an ACBL club NLM MP game the following 3 bad hands came up. The basic system we were playing is 2/1 w/ 12-14 NT 1430 KC. Before the match we had agreed that we would play with a Q ask over 1430 but didn't talk about the meaning of the bids over the ask. So of course we play this hand: Hand 1: [hv=d=n&v=b&s=skj63hakqt76dak4c]133|100|Scoring: MP W N E S 1♥ P 1♠ 3♣ 4♣ P 4♠ P 4NT P 5♣ P 5♦ P 5♥ P ?? [/hv] What does partner's bid mean and what should be bid here? [Note: 4♣ is either a raise of spades or strength showing cb, 4NT is 1430 in ♠, 5♣ says 1 or 4 KC in ♠, 5♦ should be asking about the Q of trump] Hand 2: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=skha4daqt742ckq43&s=saj3hkqj973djc982]133|200|Scoring: MP W N E S P 1♥ 2♠ All Pass [/hv] North wanted to trap pass to defend 2S*, South didn't feel hand was worth a second bid even in the pass out seat. Apportion the blame. Hand 3: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=skha4daqt742ckq43&s=saj3hkqj973djc982]133|200|Scoring: MP W N E S P 1♥ 2♠ All Pass [/hv] W is new to duplicate (bid out loud, not with bid boxes, and was confused by the movement of players around the room), E is only slightly more experienced. T1 W leads ♣A - 6 - 8 - ♠2. T2 S leads ♠K - A - 4 - 7. T3 W leads ♦A - 6 - 2 - 3. T4 W leads ♠8 - T - J - Q. T5 S leads ♦4 - 5 - K - 9. T6 N leads ♥K - 2 - 3 - Q. East and West both followed very smoothly. T7 N leads ♥T - 6 - ?? East played smoothly. Go for the drop or the finesse? We need the hearts for 0 losers since we've lost 1 ♠, 1♦, and are missing the top remaining trump. 8 ever-9 never versus restricted chance, versus table feel judging non-experienced players.

I had a sort of misclick psych playing in IMP pairs against a novice player (partnered with a good player) SAYC in ACBL. The LHO novice opened 2C, partner passed, RHO bid 2H positive, I passed with a 15 count and 5 hearts, LHO passed, partner passed. The LHO had a weak-2 opening in clubs. I misdefended and let them make when they should have been down 1. Was a flatish result as most people were playing 2H our way down 2.

No, exactly what I said. Read the original post. "We consider event formats in which the sample statistic [swiss team results] closely mirrors the population statistic [skill level or ability of the teams] superior to formats in which {this is not the case}." That's a false issue that just has to do with applying the model to real life. Consider the population statistic that was used to be the teams raw "skill level" plus a modifier based on conditions of the day (I.e., current form). So a team that in the OP's model had been rated as a +2 team could be a +1.5 team that is "playing well" (well rested, good frame of mind, etc.) or a +2 team playing normally or a +2.5 team playing below their average skill level. Thus even if the "best team" according to the model won it doesn't necessarily translate into the best same 4 or 6 people winning. With respect to the more general point there is a procedure for this from the Chess world where many tournaments are swiss tournaments (and in fact where swiss tournaments began) with limited rounds and a 0-1 VP scale (with .5-.5 for draws) and further constraints (have to decide W vs B color issues with the pairings). Obviously in chess tiebreakers are pretty important since with a small range of scores many players can end up tied. See swiss perfect tiebreaking site for all the methods. The simplest method that sort of works to adjust the SoS that is even simpler than the OP is to simply take your cumulative score. This works as a proxy for your strength of schedule but is very simple to calculate since you only have to look at your own team's score. For instance if you went 20-0, 16-4, 11-10, 2-18 you would have 49 VP out of 80 but your cumulative score would be 20+36+47+49 = 152. If some other team scored 0-20, 11-9, 20-0, 18-2 they also have 49 VP but they were taking the easy side by getting blitzed in their first round and have a cumulative score of 0+11+31+49 = 91. Thus you win the tiebreak. Of course in chess this only works as a tiebreaker, not as something that gets added to your score. And the problem in bridge swiss events is that the victory points lead to an expanded range so what if that second team was 19-1 in their 4th round match and had 50 VP. Was that a more impressive finish than the first team who played up but only ended up with 49 VP? Probably not. But if you are going to make any adjustment at the end I think you clearly also want that the same kind of bonus/adjustment to be used after each round to set up the next rounds pairings. To the OP, what exactly was you adjustment formula? You said it depended on the number of rounds, but how did it work?