JLOGIC Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 I think there are 2 ways to play bridge. 1: Be scared to commit and make a bridge judgement on whether they are more likely to underlead the QJ or the A. Instead, orgasm about how smart you are to think of hypotheticals where non bridge judgement matters (or at least, repeat the same argument that others have given). If you are wrong, oh well you are a better team and achieved a push. Obviously you will always win, you are capable of thinking of these marginal spots! If you are right, hellz yeah. 2: Play bridge and realize that you can very accurately guess whether they are underleading the QJ or the A because you are a bridge player, gain huge edge and actually be a better team that is more likely to win because you pick up imps in these spots rather than pass on them and INCREASE your match variance because you are making the same bad plays every time for pushes, reducing the amount of chances you have to win imps. They have these arguments in poker all the time "SOMEONE GOES ALL IN IN THE MAIN EVENT AND FLIPS UP AK suited, DO YOU CALL WITH QUEENS?" which are also retarded but at least in poker you can actually know that something is 50 %, rather than arbitrarily assigning that probability because you don't want to risk looking dumb ever. Personally whenever something in cardplay seems 50-50 to me in bridge I look for more clues that I might have missed since I know it is not actually 50-50, I don't look for reducing variance. This IS your edge. I don't see how one could go about saying they think something like this might be 50-50 and keep a straight face. At least gnasher realized the error in his ways and immediately posted that he does in fact think that they are more likely to underlead an ace than a QJ. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkDean Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Definitely a guess about the opps distribution in the suits would help. For example, if I think LHO has 3, he is more likely to have underled A than QJ, but if he has 5, I think he is more likely to underlead QJ. All of this eliminating variance thing is kind of weird to me. I have enough trouble trying to get expected value decisions right, and now I am supposed to worry about the second moment too? And why is everybody always playing weaker teams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkDean Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Oh, and I forgot to add, not having the 9 or 8 makes it more likely LHO has the ace to me, as Mr. LOGIC mentioned, I think she is unlikely to underlead QJ with QJ9x(x) or even QJ8x(x). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Is there a smiley for "I think I've lost this argument"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.