xcurt

Which is why you should super-accept if partner transfers.

i thonk all your choices were reasonable but the result isn't very satisfactory. if i had to guess i would say your bam equity is well under 50% now if partner has some x54x or x64x minimumish gf. there is something to be said for giving partner 3C and then 3H over 3D or 4H over 3H, particularly at this form of scoring. this slightly understates the hand, but assuming you have good teammates and your strong partner your bam equity against most teams in the field is probably well over 50% if the board is decided on the play and defense to 3nt or the decision to play 3nt or 4h. even in the 2-day nyc bam which is where im guessing this hand was played.

It doesn't make any difference to your conclusions, but I think your numbers might be a little out. I think your second term ((1-0.355)/2)*(1/2+1/4) represents squeezing LHO if he has 4 or more spades with either the ♥J or ♦QJ? If so, you are double counting the times LHO has everything. Also when a suit breaks 4-2, the chances of 2 cards (e.g the QJ of diamonds) being in the 4 card hand is much less than the a priori 1/4 (or 24%) - I make it 19% that they are with the 4 card holding, and 29% that they are with the 2 card holding. (similarly with a 5-1 spade break, it is 35% that they are both with the singleton spade compared with the 15% chance that they are both with the 5 card holding) Probably we should be making some vacant space adjustments because of the lead of the ♥K, but that gets a bit tricky. right. that middle term is 1/8th high due to sometimes lho has both key holdings. so subtract about 8%. i'll stand by my conclusion that the squeezes line is better.

Ok, I also thought that just playing clubs and planning on hopefully reading the situation and probably playing a double squeeze with a diamond pivot was the right line. I also noted what xcurt said about how the opps should play a diamond when in with the CQ, especially RHO. LHO might have to play an H from Hxx to give me a guess. Balicki chose to ruff a diamond, and then played AK of clubs followed by spades which I thought was the right line after ruffing a diamond. On the actual hand LHO has 4333 with one diamond honor and the CQ and no HJ, so after ruffing a diamond, playing clubs would have worked. If you pound 3 rounds of clubs it is not clear what would happen but you COULD make it obviously. OK, I thought through this some more. Agree with gnasher's point that the shotgun HK lead strongly indicates either ♥KQJ, or a natural trump trick. Also pretty sure RHO would always return a diamond after winning his trump (what else would he do?). LHO will sometimes return a diamond. So, if RHO wins the trump and returns a diamond, I'm going to be reduced to playing for either a heart-spade simple squeeze on LHO, or spades 3-3, or a diamond-spade simple squeeze on either opponent. I can combine all these chances. Without any vigorish for switching to the double guard squeeze line if I read their cards, or for the increased likelihood of the heart guard being isolated, I get (assuming we have a trump loser, if we have no trump loser then everything works) 0.355 + (1-0.355)/2*(1/2+1/4)+(1-0.355)/2*(1/4) = 0.68 when the CQ is on the right. Assuming LHO always has the HJ or the CQ, the above rises to 0.84. This won't always be the case, but sometimes I'll get to execute the double guard squeeze. If LHO wins the trump and returns a diamond I'm no worse off. I get some additional choices in the ending, plus some vigorish that LHO might not return a diamond. So I think my Line 2 (which I think is Justin's line) is something like 80% to make. Obviously, on the actual hand, you get into the area of game theory, because you need to give up on 3-3 spades to execute the double guard squeeze. Curt

True. My oversight was they are going to win the club and play a diamond, and now I don't have the AKx vs x menace any more. I come down to this. [hv=n=skqxhtdxc&s=sxhdktxcx]133|200|[/hv] I wrote out a long analysis but it's too lengthy to reproduce here. Assuming LHO has the spade guard, when LHO has HKQJ he has to come down to SJTx, HJ and either red pitch works. I can't very often pitch a spade since it gives up on S 3-3. Therefore, when LHO does not have HKQJ he will often pitch a heart, since this forces me to pitch the spade from dummy to succeed. All of this means I need the spades on the left and one of (HKQJ on the left) or (successful guess as to LHO's other card). I have some help with the latter because I get to watch for LHO pitching a diamond quack. So let's say I can read him more than half of the time for his other card. Let's say LHO has the HJ roughly half the time with his presumed HKQ. And I still can't do the math because of the need to pitch a spade some of the time....

Pooltunas line looks like the "normal" line, and it looks like it's basically on 4-3 diamonds, or 5-2 diamonds with the ♣Q falling before or after the third diamond is ruffed off. The alternative is to play high trumps and then play for either 3-3 spades (0.355), or * if only LHO guards hearts, many squeezes will work, probably you will play for a double squeeze with diamonds as the pivot * if both opponents guard hearts, then you need either -> a double guard squeeze (LHO needs to hold long spades and one of the two diamond quacks) -> a spade-diamond simple squeeze against either opponent (requires that opponent to hold both diamond quacks and the long spades) I guess the answer depends on what you think of the shotgun lead. Line 1 you are basically prostrating yourselves before the card gods. Balicki is a pretty good declarer (book recommendation -- The Bridge Magicians, btw, is excellent), so I guess he went in for line 2. Edit -- I'm pretty sure line 2 is better. You need to make about half the time spades aren't 3-3 to catch up to line 1. You're making basically all the time LHO has HKQJ and most all the time LHO has the long spades. Edit -- by "play high trumps," I mean 3 rounds. Curt

I do not expect this to happen, because the ACBL is forever tinkering with the masterpoint formulas to try to keep all constituencies happy with their chances to win points, relative to the points on offer to other constituencies. Since a fundamentally fair MP system is impossible, this tinkering will continue ad infinitum. It's not that different from our (US) endless tinkering with the tax code. The biggest problem with the MP system is that MPs won is dominated by how much you play. This immediately renders MPs useless for comparing abilities of anyone who isn't a pro and doesn't play bridge essentially to the exclusion of everything else. For example, Meckstroth won player of the decade with something like 7200 platinum points. Since he presumably intended to play all days of all 30 NABCs, he averaged about 7200/30*10*2 or about 12 PPs per NABC+ session. My average over the parts of two NABCs I played "seriously" this decade is about 3 PPs per NABC+ session. Sure Jeff is (a lot) better than me, but if you simply used PPs as a gauge of this you would seriously overestimate the ability gap.

I'll lead the spade. I really hate xx, there are just so many holdings it can pick up especially where RHO is likely to otherwise play me for any club honor. Of course the AJ-empty is unappealing too, but * Even if partner has the Q I might get the trick back by cashing the 13th spade. * If the opponents have the KQ but not the T, I could catch Hx on the left or HHx(x) on the right. Partner should have enough stuff to get in if we have deep spade tricks. * Other things being close, the spade lead is easier for partner to read.

One more thought and then I'll leave it. If someone were to reverse engineer Meckwell Precision and publish it, Meckwell would still have the advantages of * their understanding of the bidding system and their experience with it * their partnership * their superior card play None of these are embodied in their system notes. Of course, if someone did publish their system, they would lose (some of the) potential revenue from any book they might publish in the future, but in that case I think they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Actually in the real world of bridge writing, this goes on all the time and I have never heard of a bridge author who got punished in any way for engaging in this practice. I should have added "presuming he got caught" (and maybe presuming an original author made some noise out of it). I'm not a lawyer, but I have created a fair amount of intellectual property (patents and trade secrets). Maybe I have to live with the fact that other people will do this to me, but for me that does not justify doing the same thing to other people. Needless to say, I also do not find "because it is legal" to be sufficient justification. As someone who created IP, ethical and legal conduct is just as important to me. I think it's doubly so at the bridge table (and by extension, in the bridge sphere) because the rules that proscribe conduct in the bridge sphere tend to presume everyone will act according to the same. For example * I get UI through some action of my partner, and I take advantage of it. The procedure presumes I did not deliberately try to take advantage of the UI, it merely tries to restore equity. In the public sphere, the legal procedures include an element of deterrence. Ergo, a sufficiently skilled unethical player could exploit UI for their own benefit. * I think some opponents have a concealed partnership understanding. I am not allowed to approach you at a tournament and say publicly "I think Player X is cheating." But in trying to understand the rights and obligations that go with using third party IP I don't think you can separate moral and ethical considerations from legal ones. The two inform each other. And to the extent that the system we have in place promotes the sharing and bettering of human knowledge, I think it's a pretty good system. Curt

I think you are using a false analogy. In the newspaper column case: * the original deal is not a fact (it wasn't dealt in a bridge tournament), it's a literary or artistic work * presumably it was published by a publishing house that takes the proper steps to protect their copyrights * even if there is no legal copyright on the hypothetical bridge deal, the second author, who in your example did not contribute anything new, is presumably violating the ethical and journalistic standards of their own publication and would normally be disciplined (more likely, fired) for doing so This paragraph attemps to draw a parallel between a literary or artistic work (the bridge deal) and an invention (the Meckwell Lite bidding system, let's ignore whether this invention is actually patentable for a moment). However, the legal framework governing these two types of intellectual property are different. * As a third party, I am not allowed to reproduce the copyrighted work, but I may produce derivative works. An example would be if I took a published deal (ignore the fact that this deal is actually a fact, for a moment) that has a cook and modified it to make it more interesting I would be within my rights to republish. * As a third party, I am not allowed to use patented work unless I have a license from the owner of the patent. However, I am allowed to make further improvements and patent those improvements myself. Obtaining patent rights requires that the original inventor disclose the new know-how. I hope you are asserting that redistributing the original notes is wrong. If so, I agree with you (and redistribution probably runs afoul of copyright too). If, for example, you left your notes under my table at a NABC I would either return them or destroy them. On the other hand, if I played a Spingold match against you and noticed that, say, you had a really good defense to NT that nobody else was playing, I think I'm totally within my rights to figure out the method and republish it. If I reverse engineer Meckwell Precision 2009 and I want to write a book about it, all I have done is do something useful from knowledge that is in the public domain. jjbrr is different -- he accepted notes from a Meckstroth -- and if I were in that position I wouldn't feel free to publicly disclose anything related to R/M precision, and maybe to strong club bidding systems generally. I wouldn't publish even if I felt that there was no legal prohibition on me doing so, generally for the reasons you cite. Regarding the OP (stjk) I don't know where these notes came from, but I assume he is untainted unless someone produces information to the contrary. Finally, a comment. This is how intellectual property works -- if you want the benefits of public use (such as winning bridge tournaments) or disclosure (any of the bridge articles you've published, which presumably help you get sponsorships, better partners, ..., these are analogous to me giving a talk at a conference), you also accept that you can't always control what happens to your creative work.

But that means that either: a. everyone needs to learn how to read your statistical definitions of conventions, or b. the C&CC is approving conventions only for the specific pair that submitted them Perhaps we should admit the C&CC is making the best out of a bad situation. Regarding some who post here, I certainly don't think that if <pick name of player> could play <latest MidChart convention they are plumping here> they would all of a sudden be winning regularly at the NABC+ level. On the other hand, I agree completely with your comment about transparency.

Well I would hardly call a bidding system a fact. It's an interpretation. Meaning I could write a document saying Meckwell play 1C as ... Meckwell play 1C-1D as ... etc I don't see how they could assert copyrights to prevent me from distributing the document. One can also protect intellectual property using patent and trade secret rights, but I don't see how those apply to me, or any other third party.

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves. Even if they did have some mechanism to claim ownership I would imagine that trying to enforce it would probably run afoul of the conditions of contest of any bridge event -- and if not, the CoC would be amended as soon as the dubious rights were asserted. There are probably enough R/M boards in the various vugraph files that, given the right computational tools, it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer their agreements. Since the vugraph files indicate that they upgrade liberally on certain hands and are very aggressive in 3rd seat, I could imagine this would be useful information to have.

I DF'ed this deal since it was driving me crazy -- the line I gave earlier works (in fact, you can win in hand at T1 and exit a diamond and still make, since the inability of east to overruff clubs means that you can ruff two diamonds in your hand and play to elope with a club ruff later). On the other hand if you switch the CJ and a low H (and the DK and DQ so east has a 15 count, but that doesn't affect the analysis) you can't make on the trump lead, but only if east withholds the trump honors at T1.

f you are thinking this is a vondracek hand... sure if you were a little better and maybe 6610 and you are planning to tell partner to turn that trash over and play one hand vs two. butpartner might have any of d tricks c tricks a small trump you can use to ruff h so i dont think playing the weaker suit applies here

after s->j->a c s->8 c ruff hk c ruffed d this transposes to something like gnashers ending. im going to make the ha and small spade ep or the spades and long club. and no risk of -300. im also not getting overruffed on the third club. not sure why west bid this way. i was sure he had 45 not 54 in the roundeds.

Do you trust your partner?

OK, this is tough because both N and S are in between calls. I prefer all of these to the table auction, starting with the balancing call 3S-3N Dbl-(3D)-Dbl-AP Dbl-(3D)-Dbl-3S-3N Dbl-(3D)-3N 3H was the worst call by far, I think, since I think it's nullo with respect to the alternative of 3NT. Other calls are debatable. Hence my earlier quick comment.

Presumably your system doesn't prevent you from making a penalty double of 3♦?

If this is the case, then either the writeup is woefully inaccurate, or E/W lied (by omission) to the committee. If the latter, then I wouldn't be averse to, say, a 90-day ban. I'm also not thrilled with the constitution of the committee -- two players to (at least once, I don't know any more) were partners, and two more who are frequent teammates. Although, since this is mostly about bridge law and not so much about the table action, it probably wasn't relevant to the (IMO bad) decision. Lastly, isn't the IMP penalty for illegal convention woefully inadequate (omitting any consideration of the table results). I always thought that illegal conventions at matchpoints mean AVE+/0 for NOS/OS, whereas other infractions that result in an artificial adjusted score are typically scored at AVE+/AVE- for NOS/OS. In fact, the person who told me that is one of the commentators to this very appeal.

your sim assumption of a possible 6 card suit has a huge effect on the chance of a spade ruff -- we want lho to have Sxx in a trump contract the chance of them running spades in a notrump contract -- now we want lho to have Sx you know they rate to have a good suit -- we have two of the small ones i bid 4H against aggressive preemptors and 3nt against random preempters

I agree with you we need to bid -- it's exactly the kind of sick matchpoint position that makes matchpoints so counter-intuitive some times. I'm bidding 2H, though. Now if anyone bids* anything I'm golden, and even it goes all chance and if I'm wrong I have chances for -50 instead of -90 or -100 instead of -110. * I didn't say if nobody doubles.

I think he is talking about some kind of simultaneous event using the same boards over multiple clubs.

If top on a board is two MPs doesn't that mean that there are only twothree tables in play? A top is a top and is worth 100% no matter how many tables are in play. I don't quite understand your post. Because the other 12 tables who don't exist in your field are not always going to fall between the extreme results posted by the 3 tables that do exist in your field. This is the same reason that (at least in ACBL events) when you go +1100 on a partscore hand and someone else gets AVG+/AVG-, you don't get 38/38, you get 37.9-something.