Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - OliverC

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
31
IAC Matters / Re: Why I Want to Be a Member of IAC
« on: April 02, 2018, 05:18:26 AM »
No that is exactly how it should work, Ken: 9am EDT is 1pm UTC at present.


It would be helpful if a few people would try it (even just show that it's a test record rather than a serious one) and leave the record there even if it appears not to be working correctly for you. I have coded this page in a slightly different way to the way the rest of the site works because, as I said above, the normal way of adjusting the times for everyone doesn't work because there are no actual dates involved and I may have to tweak the code a bit.

32
IAC Matters / Re: Why I Want to Be a Member of IAC
« on: April 01, 2018, 09:20:30 PM »
Okay, first rough bash at this is up there on the site, see the "Play Calendar" link in the Learn Submenu. Please have a play and fill up some slots so we can have a better idea whether this format will work okay. You must be logged into the site to create or edit records, however.

Times and Days
Please remember that when you're look at the Calendar, times will be shown in your own local time (assuming that your Time Zone and Daylight Savings are registered correctly in your Site Profile). When you are creating or editing a record, however, times must be expressed in terms of Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC), which is not subject to Daylights Savings, and all Time Zones are expressed as an offset from UTC.

For example, Eastern Daylight Time is UTC -4. British Summer Time is UTC +1.

Days not Rolling over or Rolling Back
One disadvantage to this method of displaying records, is that times that cross Midnight will not cause the day to "roll over":

For example if you're in New York and want to set up a time slot of 10pm (EDT) on Thursdays, that's 2am on Friday in UTC terms, because you're 4 hours behind UTC, but there is no easy or elegant method by which I can cause the day to "roll over" to Friday for people who are in Europe, Africa or Asia if you specify Thursday, or for the day to "roll back" to Thursday for people in the USA, South America or Canada if you specify Friday. Some people, therefore, are going to see the "wrong" day if the time is on a different day from you in UTC terms, whatever you do.

This is because we're not dealing with actual dates here, so the normal method of doing date arithmetic that is employed throughout the IAC site will not work here. Sorry about that, but there isn't a huge amount I can do about that without writing a load of code which will slow the page down considerably (and which I don't currently have the time to do).

33
IAC Matters / Re: Why I Want to Be a Member of IAC
« on: March 31, 2018, 06:14:37 PM »
Okay, I'll have a bash some time (hopefully fairly soon) when I find some time for development stuff. :) I'll report in here when I've got something for you guys to have a look at.

34
IAC Matters / Re: Why I Want to Be a Member of IAC
« on: March 27, 2018, 10:44:33 PM »
Very interesting idea, Dick. Exactly what did you have in mind? Two possible formats spring to mind:

(1) Grouped by Days
Using this method, pairs or individuals would post their interest in playing at a particular time on particular days of the week, but not on specific dates. so all the expressions of interest relating to, for example, Fridays would be grouped in one section of the page, sorted by the approximate time, but without mentioning specific Fridays. This would work better for generating regular pockets of play each week, I suspect.

(2) Calendar Format
This would operate like a calendar, in which pairs and individuals would post their interest in playing at specific times on specific dates. We could, perhaps, allow them to specify every Friday at 3pm, for example, and get the Calendar to populate every Friday with their post. This method would allow more flexibility, in that pairs could say "I want to play this Friday, but not next Friday".

Either method would seem to be achievable. It's really a matter of which kind of format we feel would be more advantageous.

As Sanya says, I am very busy at the moment, not least because I am back working full-time, so my spare time for "other stuff" is drastically limited compared to how it's been for most of the last 10 years since I retired from the Police. I'm not sure how fast I can guarantee to complete such a project, therefore, but at least let's get the general discussion underway.

35
The IAC Café / Re: Defensive problem
« on: March 27, 2018, 07:44:01 AM »
One of the reasons I prefer to play Odd/Even signals with standard Count, is that very often I can encourage/discourage and give a count signal simultaneously. I'm aware, of course, that the ACBL have a problem with o/e signalling (not that I give two hoots what the ACBL like and dislike, because I don't live in the USA and never play in anything held under their auspices on BBO).

I'm a great believer in giving Partner the signal I think they need in any given situation if I can't combine them (ie: Attitude, Count or Suit Preference) in the belief that Partner ought (hopefully) to be on the same wavelength. Obviously, their expertise and experience is a factor in my expectations. Certainly I find Count signals from Partner more helpful, because I often have a good idea about their attitude from the bidding or early play. Counting the hand as accurately as possible is a really crucial aspect of the play of the hand (whether as Declarer or in defence), and something I do religiously on every hand as much as is possible.

Counting the hand is probably the single thing that distinguishes good players from average ones, and their inability to do so consistently and accurately (not to mention the ability to take all of the inferences and assumptions that flow from counting the hand accurately) is what holds probably the majority of players from really improving their card play.

Count to the exclusion of everything else does seem a little extreme, though, I agree. There are some times (particularly at trick 1 against a suit contract when you are leading a suit Partner has not bid) when their attitude to the lead can be critical, but even then, Count is also useful if you can do both.

36
The IAC Café / Re: Defensive problem
« on: March 25, 2018, 07:54:06 PM »
Ken, Obviously partnership style has a lot to do with this kind of problem. In the absence of that my tendency is to give Count more often than attitude, on the basis that helping partner to count the hand is usually more important than showing attitude. If partner can work out that I have a 3-card holding when they hold A1086 and Dummy has Qx, it doesn't really matter what exact Hearts I started with: he always needs to try to engineer an opportunity for me to lead Hearts through Declarer once, if not twice, whether I hold xxx, 9xx, or Jxx.


It's only when I hold J9x and they have A108x that dropping my 9 is a worthwhile option and when encouraging with the 9 gives us any real advantage. If Partner started with A10xx or A8xx, we're back to the original point of needing the two leads through Declarer.

37
The IAC Café / Re: Defensive problem
« on: March 24, 2018, 11:46:54 PM »
Hi Ken, playing Standard carding I would definitely be playing the 4 !H on trick one (ie: giving Count). Clearly North cannot have 5-card Hearts on this hand, so that places you with 3-card Hearts (if you had 5, it really doesn't matter WHAT happens on the next trick) and Declarer with K?xx.


If Declarer has KJ9x, then they'd have let the opening lead come round to their hand rather than going up with Dummy's Queen, so clearly they are likely missing the 9 or the Jack (or both). Either way, placing you with 3-card Hearts should help, because the likelyhood is that Declarer has either KJxx or K9xx in Hearts, so two leads through Declarer's hand is going to be essential to bring 3 tricks in in Hearts.


That will hopefully lead them to seek an additional entry in your hand in Spades or Diamonds (!S King Lead a good shot), or to simply play passively and allow that additional entry in the West  hand to develop if it's there.

38
Sleight of Hand / Re: 5C or 6C
« on: March 19, 2018, 10:25:53 PM »
I'm not an expert on Jacoby 2NT, Ken, because I never use it myself. What I was getting at was this: Over 2NT does Opener bid 3 !S with any hand that contains a Spade shortage, or does that 3 !S suggest a hand that might possibly be interested in something more than 4 !H? Would a sequence of 1 !H - 2NT - 4 !H or 1 !H - 2NT - 3 !H utterly any possibility of Opener having a Spade shortage?

39
Sleight of Hand / Re: 5C or 6C
« on: March 17, 2018, 07:48:44 PM »
Absolutely right 3 !D is looking for 3NT in the first instance but, knowing there's no significant wastage in Hearts, 5 !C is a good response by North. Yes, 6 !C might be there but North doesn't have that much to spare from his 3 !C bid.


 !S x
 !H AQJxx
 !D Q109x
 !C Q94


 !S xxxx
 !H Kxxx
 !D A
 !C AKxx


1 !H - 2NT
3 !S ( !S shortage) - ??


I guess this one comes down to what North's alternatives are to 3 !S : If 3 !S shows any hand that has a Spade shortage, it's quite difficult to construct a hand for North where 6 !H is unlikely to have a decent shot. I'd be tempted to ignore the scientific route here and blast 6 !H over 3 !S :)

40
Sleight of Hand / Re: 5C or 6C
« on: March 16, 2018, 08:23:42 AM »
LOL, a Heart shortage in the South hand is a racing certainty, so we're in 31-point deck territory. South clearly has a decent hand, and since we're in a forcing situation (new suit at the 3-level), even if not 100% game-forcing, I feel the Principle of Fast Arrival should be applying here, so I would treat 4 !C as stronger and more encouraging than 5 !C, which would definitely be "to play" and not looking for anything more. I have no idea whether your Bots will have any inkling of that - probably not.

A bid of 5 !C rather than 4 !C with the North hand over 3 !D is not unreasonable. Maybe 4 !C would be pushing a bit too much on North's hand with no help in Diamonds, given what I've said above. Partner is going to be 5134 or 5035, most likely the former, as with 5-5 and a decent hand they might well find 3 !C rather than 2 !C.

Looking at the 2 hands together, I think I want to be in game rather than slam. 6 !C needs a a fair amount of luck. :)

41
2/1 Talk / Re: Trying to play with GIBs, a minor rant
« on: March 08, 2018, 10:36:53 AM »
!S J765
!H Q9
!D AKQ9
!C 875

!S A32
!H A2
!D J865
!C AQ42

I find this kind of situation a bit of a non-issue, I'm afraid, Pam. It's your 2 !C bid that is the main problem here, in my view.

Playing 2/1, I respond 2 !D over 1 !D without a nano-second's hesitation and responding 2 !C is grossly dangerous and misleading, in my view, especially when you rebid 3 !D over 2NT, because that is, in my view, definitely saying "I fancy something other than or more than 3NT". Would you not be playing inverted Minor Suit Raises if you're playing 2/1? Why 1 !D - 2 !C rather than 1 !D - 2 !D?

Now the sequence goes:
1 !D - 2 !D(inverted)
2 !S/2NT - 3NT

3NT may well fail here (and probably will) but, crucially, there is no better game contract available here. 5 !D needs a huge amount of luck and 4 !S needs the same luck in both Majors that you're hoping for in Hearts in 3NT. If 3NT fails, you just shrug your shoulders and move onto the next hand, safe in the knowledge that 80% of the room are probably in the same contract.

Bidding Systems are not about reaching the optimum contract on a given hand (probably 1NT or 2 !D on these cards), but about reaching the best contract you can realistically achieve, given your system. Nobody is going to be stopping short of a game on these cards and 3NT is the game contract with the best chance of making, compared to 4 !S or 5 !D.

If I was playing 2/1 and the bidding started 1 !D - 2 !C - 2NT - 3 !D, I would not be rebidding 3NT over 3 !D and would also be showing my tolerance for Clubs, safe in the "knowledge" that you had a massive Minor 2-suiter and a hand unsuited to playing in 3NT.

42
The IAC Café / Re: We wil play this where?
« on: January 11, 2018, 10:45:10 PM »
I wonder what the Bots would have thought of 3 !S and then 4 !S , then :) .


I wasn't suggesting that Bots would dream of 4 !S being a splinter, but see above: If you and they consider that 3 !S is forcing for one round, what is the difference (in their system) between an immediate 4 !S, and 3 !S and then 4 !S over whatever they bid?

43
The IAC Café / Re: We wil play this where?
« on: January 11, 2018, 06:39:04 PM »
Interesting: 3 !S would have been forcing in most systems (new suit at the 3-level) and so I would take 4 !S as a splinter (in Spades or Diamonds or a cue-bid, depending on Partnership style) agreeing Hearts.

44
The IAC Café / Re: We wil play this where?
« on: January 11, 2018, 01:38:22 AM »
In the absence of a Spade fit, I'd say the North hand has to be at least as strong as it actually was, but a lot depends on your partnership style for overcalls. South's hand here ia a bit "quacky", but they're definitely good enough for a "decent" overcall. personally I think I would just bid 2 !D over 1 !S with the  North hand, intending to reverse into 3 !H over 2 !S (or anything else). That, of course, is another way to establish a GF sequence.

10 tricks in Hearts isn't completely straightforward, though. A Spade lead gives South their 10th trick, but on a Diamond lead, for example (or 2 Clubs followed by a Diamond switch), Declarer has to play exactly 2 rounds of trumps with the King and the Jack and then cross to Dummy in Diamonds and lead a Spade to establish their Spade trick before continuing. 3 rounds of trumps is no good, because now Declarer loses trump control when East takes their !S Ace and leads a Club. Not using the !D King and Jack to take the first 2 tricks likewise doesn't work, because a Club switch by East will promote a trump trick for Partner.

Bottom line is that lots of people will be off if they find 4 !H. 5 !D, 4 !S and 3NT are doomed from the off.


45
The IAC Café / Re: We wil play this where?
« on: January 09, 2018, 04:59:38 PM »
My whole point, Ken, is that if you are playing UCB's, any strong hand wishing to force to game, whether with Spade support or otherwise, will go via the UCB, because if Advancer doesn't support Opener's first suit at the 3-level or below on the 2nd round of bidding (ie a 3-level limit raise in Opener's suit), the sequence tends to be game-forcing:

(1 !C ) - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !S - Pass shows an invitational hand with Spades, but Overcaller declined the invitation with 2 !S .

(1 !C ) - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 !S - Pass: 2 !S shows an invitational hand with Spades, but Overcaller declined the invitation with their Pass.

(1 !C ) - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 !S - 4 !S : 2 !S showed the invitational hand with Spades and Overcaller accepted the invitation.

(1 !C ) - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 !H is GF with good long Hearts (Advancer could bid 2 !H or 3 !H over 1 !S with weaker hands).

(1 !C ) - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D - 2NT is Natural or Lebensohl depending on your style. If Natural, then this is probably a sequence you want to be non-forcing but invitational.

If you use UCB's like this, then any sequence that doesn't start with a UCB is, by definition, not forcing and not showing a strong hand, which broadens your scope considerably, in my view. :)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17