rogerclee

Back for one last hurrah. I miss you buddy. Also for any of the really old timers, I'll give this one up: Justin and I were maggieb.

Betting markets have just placed brexit as being above 50% probability, compared to a low of 29:2 near the end of the US trading day. FTSE 100 futures touching below -5% for the first time today. Edit: Now -6%

IMO rogue is the best nzoth variant at the moment, but none is particularly strong. Dislike the unreliability of nzoth paladin in even its 'good' matchups. Cairne is pretty nice anyway in a warrior meta though.

WotOG is pretty fun. Been playing pretty much only standard constructed, it's nice that there is no single meta defining deck at the moment, gives the game a lot more variety.

OK, good tips, thanks everyone!

I want to take a week or two after the Denver nationals to learn Go since my dad has been playing a lot at something like a club level, so for our Christmas gift to him my siblings and I are considering learning the rules of Go so we can play a game or two with him. Is there something like Fred's LTPB software but for Go? What are the best online resources for someone who does not even know the rules? Is there a standard best beginner Go book that all good players recommend?

Haha, not surprised you like to play it also. It's a nice fun game and even though it seems casual and luck-based, there is a lot of room for improvement for basically all players.

I used to play a lot, now it comes and goes for me, but I somewhat regret not taking HS more seriously during the beginnings of the game. I think it's a great game. I used to play pretty much only arena, but the constructed meta is at a great point right now so that's what I had been doing for a few months. I think TGT will be an overall improvement.

I like 4H, I'm unconvinced that 5H shows no diamond control, so I am a bit scared about some kind of AKxx Kxxx xx Kxx type hand.

FWIW I changed my mind to 4S and think this is not so close after all, we just need a little bit too much IMO to be driving to the 5 level and inviting 6.

To be honest I don't feel like my example hand is a particularly good 4H bid, just that to me, that is somewhere around my "line in the sand". Passing with 16(42) is ridiculous to me. A good rule of thumb is that if you can make game opposite a reasonably fitting weak NT, then you should bid. Hands like Jxx xx AQxx KQxx are just so normal, yet 4H is a great contract, and even when 4H is down, it usually means 3S was making. Tthey will take insurance really often in 4S also (maybe too often), which is fine with us, since my partner's cards are over theirs. The downside of course is that after 3S 4H 4S, partner will be doubling quite a bit too often, and if he is stretching for 5H, it's probably wrong. Once in a blue moon we will have to eat 4SXX. I can live with all this in exchange for getting to a making game opposite a random 12 count that would not even consider balancing.

I would bid 4H with x AKQTxx xxx xxx

I like double then 5S, once in awhile partner will be a champ and bid 6C for us. Second choice is to just bid 4S, which is pretty reasonable IMO. I think doubling and then bidding 4S shows a willingness to play hearts.

I didn't mean that the % of the time I get doubled in 4S when I am wrong to bid it is the only important factor, it's just that if my estimates are somewhat accurate then to me it is just really obvious to bid 4S and see what happens. There is also huge correlation in the sense that I have no problem with down 3 doubled, obviously it's a minus position but to me if I'm down 3 doubled then they were overwhelming favorites to make 420 or 450. To me it is unnecessary to think about IMP expectation down to the last detail, just that to me, 4S is a big winner anytime LHO has a max 2H opener, since it is really likely that nobody can double but they are making 4H. If my opponents were very aggressive then I would pass since the % chance that 4S is a phantom, doubled or not, is very high -- and the chance that I am doubled in 4S is also much higher than usual.

I would definitely bid, I think down 2 or 3 undoubled is definitely in the game when they make 4H. Just out of curiosity to the passers, suppose I told you that you will take 7 or 8 tricks in 4S. What percent of the time do you think you are getting doubled? I would think about 40% of the time we are down 2 and maybe 70% of the time we are down 3.

Matchpoints [hv=pc=n&s=sq843htdat93ck954&n=sakhkj652dkqj2cq2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h2cdp3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv] They lead the ♣T and you cover, RHO winning the A. RHO then plays a club to your 9, LHO pitching a diamond.

1) Would have overcalled 2H, at this point definitely 2H. 2) 4th best heart, not a problem. Don't need to re-hash all the criticisms for why leading a dry ace is better double dummy than single dummy, but I would guess that a low heart is the best lead even double dummy. 3) Would have doubled the first time, now I pass. 4) 3N instead of 3H for sure (AT of clubs seems like a completely fine stopper). South is actually not too far from passing 3N, but anyway I would invite 4N which seems pretty descriptive (I have long diamonds and a balanced invite), and over that North can bid 6D. I don't really see anything too wrong with 6N, seems like they will seldom lead a spade, though 6D is better. 5) X is the only option. Thought all 5 of these were absolutely clearcut except that making a negative double on hand 3 is a bit questionable.

A few years ago my opinion was definitely to pass on hands like this, but Fred wrote something which could be summarized something like this: reasonable players who like to discuss bridge have deemed hands like this one a pass, but people who actually win at bridge just overcall and see what happens. I have somewhat come around to this point of view, and I would overcall, but it's close and I don't think it matters that much. There is something to be said for playing intermediate jumps vul at the 3 level, and then making the range of 2H a bit lighter. This is my agreement with one partner, but I have no strong feelings about its effectiveness so far.

I would say I usually play the jack in this spot and it's been awhile since I've had a good reason to play the Q, but it's come up before for sure.

Well, meh, maybe next year. The Nickell team played great and deserved it.

People who don't do vugraph commentary don't realize how hard it is, they think that just because you are a strong expert player, you will do fine. Here's what it's actually like being a vugraph commentator: 1) The players are taking forever, and you feel like passing the time by mentioning something small. 2) Some random kibitzer says something you know is wrong. You ignore it. 3) Some random kibitzer says something you think is wrong, but you don't know. You choose not to address it. 4) Some expert kibizer says something that you think might be right, but it's complicated and you don't know. You spend some time thinking about whether or not what they said is true. 5) While this is happening, the play continues and you want to comment on what the expert kibitzer says, but now it's too late and it doesn't matter anymore. 6) You're commentating for meckwell, so you sort of know their system, but not really. You spend some time finding an old convention card of theirs, but you don't know if it's up to date. 7) Oops, you missed the bidding while you were looking this up, and now you have to commentate on the play, and you try to do it single-dummy (like a good commentator would), but you are only human and there are now 1500+ kibitzers, so you don't want to say something stupidly and obviously wrong. I mean, it's basically like this the whole time. I used to want to be critical of vugraph commentators who I think didn't contribute much, but honestly, it's a hard and thankless job, and most people should feel fortunate that anyone is willing to do it at all.

The Nickell team isn't giving us anything, but we aren't giving them much either. Been a really good match so far, hopefully we run it up on them tomorrow. Also worth mentioning that jlall played amazingly well in our R8 match (as usual).

Two things: 1) Declarer (me) definitely wasn't swinging, I was up at the half, the set had been pretty plain, and my team was a favorite to win by just playing good bridge. 2) I made the declarer 3rd seat when in reality it was 4th. This wasn't for any real reason except I didn't want to discuss the merits of opening a good 11-count in 1st seat r/r.

[hv=pc=n&w=saqt9hj6da954c742&n=s832hq9842dj6ck86&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2np3dp3hp3nppp]266|200[/hv] 2N = 19+-21 You decide to lead the ♥J, rusinow (agree?). Declarer thinks for awhile and it goes low low low, partner playing the lowest outstanding spot (UDCA). 1) How do you defend? 2) If you're having trouble with #1, here's a similar defensive problem. I tell you that you have the Jx of hearts and 11 other cards outside hearts that you can't see. You have to play a suit. Which suit would you play?

Thomas Andrews said it very well. I think I remember you posted on /r/bridge that you were somewhat of a beginning/intermediate player. If your goal is to satisfy your curiosity about certain aspects of bridge, then the books you listed are interesting, though their methodologies are a bit flawed. My feeling is that if double dummy analysis shows that something is overwhelmingly correct then I will just believe it, but if it suggests that something is quite a bit better then I will think about it and usually come to believe it is inconclusive or wrong. However if your goal is to improve your skill at bridge, you want to work on the fundamentals. Stuff like this is interesting, but you should come back to it later. I only bring this up because many youngish, enthusiastic players, especially the mathematically inclined, are eager to prove something about bridge (see hrothgar above). It is easy to get lost in this pursuit, for the worse.