Reputation
9,314
Next tag badge:
65/100 score
38/20 answers
Badges
3 25 73
Impact
~396k people reached

Dec
17
comment Why is this NOT joseki?
@Christophe: Sorry, make that P17, which has been fixed. Thanks for pointing out the error.
Dec
17
comment Why is this NOT joseki?
@Christophe:"One right of (White) 2." Here's a case where the board has the appropriate co-ordinates. boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/22627/joseki-question
Dec
9
comment Are there viable alternatives to a “three level pre-empt” with a good seven card suit?
Yes, vulnerability is an important factor, more, perhaps, than I suspected.
Dec
9
comment Are there viable alternatives to a “three level pre-empt” with a good seven card suit?
@PieterGeerkens: You mean xxx-xx-x "or better" in the side suits, right? Because you'd be happy with xxx-xxx-0 or xxxx-x-x?
Dec
7
comment Are there viable alternatives to a “three level pre-empt” with a good seven card suit?
If you say don't open AKQxxxx xx xx xx as "two," I'd go to 1S, not 3S.The reason I quarrel with opening AKQxxxx xx xx xx as "three" and KJxxxx xxx xx xx as "two" is because the former is the stronger hand, and yet I'm using the weaker bid. If you're using 6-10 for "weak two," I'd say that AKQxxxx xx xx xx is much stronger than any balanced "10," and I'd open 1S.
Dec
7
comment Are there viable alternatives to a “three level pre-empt” with a good seven card suit?
I was taught that "weak two" was anywhere from 6-12 points. KJxxxx xxx xx xx is "six" (counting distribution and with the side king removed) and AKQxxxx xx xx xx is "12," again counting distribution. So unless I was taught wrong, the "usual" remedies ought to apply. In a forced choice, I would open AKQxxxx xx xx xx 1S rather than 3S. It has seven probable tricks, and should make game opposite an opening hand (three probable tricks), even if we end up with only 21-22 hcps between us.
Dec
6
comment Is“ third seat, favorable vulnerabilty” the only appropriate time to pre-empt with “any seven” of a suit?
Strangely enough, I would rather defend than preempt with your KJTxxxx-xx-KTx. The two reasons are your side honors, and the K-J, K-T tenaces that are hard to overcome. This hand should prevent most slams, but it is vulnerable on offense to "offside" cards. You have 7 hcps (8 counting the T/s), not much below the average of 10. I "like" 1100 point penalties only when I see a slam for the opponents, here I don't.
Dec
6
comment Is“ third seat, favorable vulnerabilty” the only appropriate time to pre-empt with “any seven” of a suit?
Thank you for a long and informative answer. But with a hand like x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx, my inclination is to open a weak two with it. And save "weak three" for "no defense." Put another way, open 1 with 12-13 points, open 2 with 6-7 (and distribution), open 3 with 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. FWIW, I consider "single face card hands" in the same category as 8765432, which was just an extreme case. Maybe I need to revisit the distribution of weak hands.
Dec
5
comment Is“ third seat, favorable vulnerabilty” the only appropriate time to pre-empt with “any seven” of a suit?
@PieterGeerkens: 1) How is partner stacked in other suits if I'm doing this in third position because s/he passed initially? 2) To the extent that partner has tricks on defense, s/he reduces my penalty on offense. I can make up a scenario that s/he has "three queens" for defense that are worthless for offense, but that's rare.
Nov
28
comment If you decide to play for “top or bottom” in duplicate, are you supposed to consult with partner?
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Nov
27
comment If you decide to play for “top or bottom” in duplicate, are you supposed to consult with partner?
@PieterGeerkens: Thanks for your help. I do not expect to make the bad anti-queen plays that you mentioned, because that is irrational even in rubber (my "home") game, but I might end up making safety plays in duplicate because they are rational in rubber. Just not in duplicate. And when I talk about these behaviors, I'm thinking in terms of "one time, on my worst night." I wouldn't do this systematically like Cohen and Katz.
Nov
27
comment If you decide to play for “top or bottom” in duplicate, are you supposed to consult with partner?
@PieterGeerkens: Then "playing for top or bottom" is like a "psych" situation, where partner can't be in on the secret, right?
Nov
27
comment If you decide to play for “top or bottom” in duplicate, are you supposed to consult with partner?
So the essence of cheating is making technically inferior plays, and getting superior results, because the Bayesian information set has been illegally altered, right? And if I or Alexander made these "top or bottom" plays without illegal signals, we wouldn't necessarily be considered cheaters, but would run the risk of being tagged as inferior players.
Nov
26
comment In duplicate, is it ethical to base your play on other people's body language?
@AlexanderWoo: So then the ethical thing to do is to inform the tournament director as soon as you realize that you inadvertently have an 'unfair advantage," right?
Nov
26
comment In duplicate, is it ethical to base your play on other people's body language?
@PieterGeerkens: If there was no tangible evidence of cheating, how would you establish that the declarer who made the safety play was or wasn't in a "top or bottom mode" as he was claiming? By his play on other late hands?
Nov
26
comment In duplicate, is it ethical to base your play on other people's body language?
If an "onside" opponent at your table hesitated when you were playing a finesse, that would be a permitted inference, right?
Nov
24
comment Does a light fourth seat opening work on the same principle as fourth seat “balancing?”
Accepted for update.
Nov
10
comment How does US/UK scoring work for the invasion of Japan?
@Joe: I get a maximum of eight points per country. Eight points for U.S. using either (but not both of its routes), and eight points for the UK, if it arrives through Formosa. I amend my previous statements about "consolation prizes" for other countries. Russia gets eight points for advancing as far as Korea.
Nov
10
comment How does US/UK scoring work for the invasion of Japan?
@Joe: Here's my understanding: You get two points for getting to Iwo Jima. You get four MORE points (six in total) for getting to Okinawa (six in all). You get two more points (eight in total) for Japan. It's like a "ladder." Eight points for the top, six points for the middle, two for the bottom rung. Your point total is based on the highest point you reach on the ladder. But you do not get 8, 6, and 2 points for reaching the top, middle and bottom rungs of the ladder.
Nov
10
comment How does US/UK scoring work for the invasion of Japan?
@Joe:"A Front scores points for the furthest space it has advanced toward, or into, an Axis country." That much appears to be the case. It might be debatable whether the player loses points for previous "conquests." But if there is an eight point limit for conquering Germany, there ought to be the same for Japan, and letting the points "add up" beyond that for using the stopping stones, doesn't make sense