Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Diversions > Bridge
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Bridge Sub-Forums: Frequency and Severity

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #171  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:14 AM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

+27 vs Klaymen in a match that I thought bot's declarer play on one hand was absolutely awful, even though I capitalized for +13 and Klaymen didn't. Just in the diamond suit, he has AQ65 opposite 97432; is cold losing 1 trick but not 2. Then he managed to lose 2. Ducked the first diamond to me. Then entered his hand in a possibly costly way to hook on the second round, losing two tricks to my doubleton KJ. (Play of the same against Klaymen.) If he was going to risk losing two diamonds when they're 2-2, why not play the ace from dummy first? Answer (not a good one), he thought he needed to keep partner off lead, as he was vulnerable to a club shift. Yes, he could have been (on a different lie of the clubs), but the club shift would not necessarily be fatal (and wouldn't have been, here).

After winning the diamond, I found the return that gave him no chance, as the cards lie. Still, he misplayed the hand (on a percentage basis, didn't affect the result) after that return, drastically cutting his chances of a make.

New 2-way challenges issued. 24 hours left on the 3-way.

Last edited by Steve White; 10-21-2019 at 06:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-21-2019, 06:43 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Both 2-ways complete.

One fiasco board against Klaymen, but it won't cost much. Several questionable decisions in the bidding, but ended up on lead against a reasonably normal contract. Possibly but not necessarily gave up a trick on opening lead. Then later on defense did something as awful as anything I've done in any of the matches here, a mistake I should have known to avoid. Fortunately, only overtricks. Contract was always going to make.

One absolutely awful bot defense gave away a part score. Not optimistic at all on that one, since it should have gone down on any defense. Klaymen may defend differently, in which case CHO might not give the contract away. We could even have made our own contract higher than that part score, though I think it would have been bad bidding by one of us to outbid them. So at best a push, and unlikely to be that.

One very good result in the match, but it might be a push.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:16 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
Both 2-ways complete.

One fiasco board against Klaymen, but it won't cost much. Several questionable decisions in the bidding, but ended up on lead against a reasonably normal contract. Possibly but not necessarily gave up a trick on opening lead. Then later on defense did something as awful as anything I've done in any of the matches here, a mistake I should have known to avoid. Fortunately, only overtricks. Contract was always going to make.
Ouch. Lost by 24. Did lose 11 on that board. The call I thought was most tempting, but definitely at variance with the system notes, was very costly.

My hand Qxxxx H-xx D-8xxxx C-x. Favorable. Partner opens 1D in first seat. My RHO passes. Torn slightly between 1S and 3D, I chose 1S, as did Klaymen. My LHO doubles partner bids 2H. I wanted to bid 3D now, but system notes say it is 4+ diamonds, 4+ spades, 9+ total points. Seemed like a gross overbid, compared to the "agreed" meaning so I passed. Klaymen bid 3D and bought it (very strange pass by my LHO, IMO). At my table, my LHO jumped to 4H, P, P to me. Now I was really upset that that at favorable I had never showed my 5-card diamond support, but I elected to pass. Good idea; 5D doubled should go for 1100.

"Then later on defense did something as awful as anything I've done in any of the matches here". Exactly as awful, since exactly the same offense. I didn't learn. I conceded the rest when partner still had the high trump.

Quote:
One absolutely awful bot defense gave away a part score. Not optimistic at all on that one, since it should have gone down on any defense. Klaymen may defend differently, in which case CHO might not give the contract away. We could even have made our own contract higher than that part score, though I think it would have been bad bidding by one of us to outbid them. So at best a push, and unlikely to be that.
Not exactly the same defense, but again CHO gave it away. IMO I had made it far easier for him to do the right thing, but he didn't.

Quote:
One very good result in the match, but it might be a push.
Not surprised that it was a push, on exactly the same auction.

Also lost 8 on an NV 3NT game where looking at our two hands you would prefer not to be in 3NT (I think; it's close). Missing 6 spades, you need either exactly Qxx or stiff Q onside; you get the stiff Q.

I also lost 5 defending 2NT when dummy has KJ10xx of diamonds and CHO (behind dummy) decided to hop his Q from Qx in front of declarer's Ax. That seemed especially unfair since at Klaymen's table he led a diamond (from 9xxx) against 2NT, eliminating the guess but setting up a defensive diamond trick when declarer naturally covered.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:43 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

-2 vs procrastinator. Nothing unreasonable.

I lost 9, very reasonably, when I passed Jxxxx x Qx AK10xx in first seat, and it got passed out when we can make 4S. I was tempted to open of course, but with the diamond Q doubleton, I passed. Seems to me like a reasonably close call either way. to get the full 9 imps, procrastinator had to accept a limit raise. I probably would have, but possibly not. The hand has improved a ton when you know partner has 4+ spades.

Then I lost 5, somewhat unluckily IMO when I held QJxxx J109x 10xx x. Both vul, LHO opens 1S, CHO doubles, RHO bids 1NT. Clearly I pass, LHO bids 2C, partner bids 2H, RHO passes. Even though I would much rather have my QJ of spades elsewhere, I do have 4 trumps and a stiff club, so I raised. Wrong. 2H is the limit.

I got a somewhat lucky 6 imps on the last board, especially as I don't understand CHO's conservatism with procrastinator. He and I held 10xx Axxx x QJxxx. At favorable, LHO opens 1S, partner doubles RHO passes.

It's close (I think), but I stretched to 3H, LHO bid 3S, CHO bid 4C. Despite 3H being a stretch, I thought I was worth 5C.

procrastinator bid only 2H (reasonable), LHO bid 2S, CHO doubled again, RHO passed, he jumped to 4C (best, IMO), LHO passed, and CHO with x KQx AQ75 A10862 passed. (Maybe some chance he should bid 4H, but presumably procrastinator would go back to 5C since CHO doubled instead of raising hearts at his second turn). Passing 4C???. 5 clubs is cold if clubs are 2-1 and is great even if they are 3-0 either direction. 6 clubs is pretty good, on the bidding, and makes.

New 2-way challenges tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 10-22-2019, 10:48 AM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
Provisional +1.1 after in the 3 way after 4 players.. Only two results over 3.0 in absolute value, both probably the result of my making unpopular calls in the auction. Both calls certainly reasonable, even if not best.
Yes, time expired with only 4 having completed. Klaymen wins with the relatively low +9.33

Sure enough, my only two outlier scores were at least in part due to unpopular calls, one of which worked for Klaymen, though I refuse to agree that he deserved his win there due to better defense.

My hand: Qxx J109xx 9x AK9. Third seat, no one vul. Two passes to you. I chose to open 1H, as did Klaymen. oirg and the kinz passed. All reasonable choices, IMO. If you open, they reach 4S. (P-P-1H-1N-2H-2S-P-3S-4S) If you pass, they reach 2S. Against 4S, Klaymen and I both led club K. I shifted at trick 2 to heart J. He cashed club A and shifted to heart J. The result: Against me, declarer hooked my spade Q, with AKx opposite J109xx. Against Klaymen, he counted on dropping CHO's stiff Q, even though he should - 100% guaranteed - have exactly 1 loser outside trumps. (Though he misplayed for no reason at all, creating the danger of a second loser that he would have had to pay off to if he took the trump finesse later.) I lose due to that bot butchery? Losing to their reaching 4S is just unlucky.

The other was +10 to me on a solo action. RHO opens 1H first seat and I have AQ92 K3 J732 AJ5 at unfavorable. The three of you all doubled, which cannot be criticized. I overcalled 1NT, which perhaps can be criticized, but is not terrible. After Dbl, bots reach 4Hs, making. After 1NT, bots reach 3S, making. Much more an unlucky result for you guys rather than an earned result for me.

New 5-way and 2-way challenges issued.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:02 AM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
Provisional +1.1 after in the 3 way after 4 players.. Only two results over 3.0 in absolute value, both probably the result of my making unpopular calls in the auction. Both calls certainly reasonable, even if not best.
Yes, time expired with only 4 having completed. Klaymen wins with the relatively low +9.33

Sure enough, my only two outlier scores were at least in part due to unpopular calls, one of which worked for Runewell, though I refuse to agree that he deserved his win there due to better defense.

My hand: Qxx J109xx 9x AK9. Third seat, no one vul. Two passes to you. I chose to open 1H, as did Klaymen. oirg and the kinz passed. All reasonable choices, IMO. If you open, they reach 4S. (P-P-1H-1N-2H-2S-P-3S-4S) If you pass, they reach 2S. Against 4S, Klaymen and I both led club K, seeing Qx in dummy, I shifted at trick 2 to heart J. He cashed club A and shifted to heart J. The result: Against me, declarer hooked my spade Q, with AKx opposite J109xx. Against Klaymen, he counted on dropping CHO's stiff Q, even though he should - 100% guaranteed - have exactly 1 loser outside trumps. (Though he misplayed for no reason at all, creating the danger of a second loser that he would have had to pay off to if he took the trump finesse later.) I lose due to that bot butchery? Losing to their reaching 4S is just unlucky.
ETA: Actually, Klaymen and I could have beaten 4S by force, though probably should not have found it. Successful defense is the second high club at trick 2, and a third club at trick 3. Partner has 10xxx (and the diamond A) Declarer J8xx. If declarer pulls trumps before knocking out the A, CHO cashes the 10. If he doesn't, CHO forces him to ruff a club low. Bye-bye finesse opportunity.

That's what Klaymen's declarer did to himself. In hand with the heart K at trick 3, he cashed the club J, for no conceivable benefit. Bye-bye contract.
The other was +10 to me on a solo action. RHO opens 1H first seat and I have AQ92 K3 J732 AJ5 at unfavorable. The three of you all doubled, which cannot be criticized. I overcalled 1NT, which perhaps can be criticized, but is not terrible. After Dbl, bots reach 4Hs, making. After 1NT, bots reach 3S, making. Much more an unlucky result for you guys rather than an earned result for me.

New 5-way and 2-way challenges issued.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:29 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Looking really bleak against Klaymen. Little if anything good happened. One extremely well played hand which made no difference as the cards lie; I suspect he will play it the same, but he will get the same result even if he doesn't. One terribly played hand as the cards lie. Bidding also questionable on it, so chances of a push are low. One bidding decision likely to cost, abetted by CHO; at best a push there. Another bidding decision, purely mine, likely to cost, but decision certainly reasonable, so possible push.

ETA: Just remembered another misplay, where I could have taken a better line for an extra trick without jeopardizing the contract, and it would have succeeded. Hoping for a push on that one, as the line I took is not clearly inferior.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:32 PM
Klaymen's Avatar
Klaymen Klaymen is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Studying for this space for rent
Posts: 20,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve White View Post
he has AQ65 opposite 97432; is cold losing 1 trick but not 2. If he was going to risk losing two diamonds when they're 2-2, why not play the ace from dummy first? Answer (not a good one), he thought he needed to keep partner off lead, as he was vulnerable to a club shift. Yes, he could have been (on a different lie of the clubs), but the club shift would not necessarily be fatal (and wouldn't have been, here).
I don't know a lot of safety plays, but I am aware of this one.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 10-22-2019, 04:02 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaymen View Post
I don't know a lot of safety plays, but I am aware of this one.
Not that it would come up often, but I think his play is actually right if both of these exist: 3 diamond tricks are enough; and he can't afford to let LHO on lead. And if he can't afford to let LHO on lead, it might be best even if three diamond tricks might be enough.

Here the "can't afford to let RHO on lead" was not true. Nor was 4 diamond tricks sure to be enough, so he should have just hooked the diamond Q first. After than loses, with just J and 10 left out, he might as well play the A next since it never helps not to.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 10-22-2019, 06:32 PM
Steve White Steve White is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,427
Default

-24 To procrastinator, with luck perhaps in my favor. Let 3NT make on what was as best bad defense, and that would be very charitable. Missed a game because meaning of the bid I chose wasn’t completely clear, when if I had just checked the meaning of the bid he chose, it was beyond any doubt best.

Then I won 10 when I found a 4-4 heart fit which made, while he just bid 3NT on a 3=4=3=3 10 count. Probably 3NT a better contract, but 4H Is the one which did make. Opening lead made 4H must easier to play than a diamond would have been, but I think I would have worked it out. Still his 3NT decision was much more reasonable than the ways I lost imps.

New 2-way challenges tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.15036 seconds with 12 queries