[gwnn]

jdonn, on Jan 14 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

Gwnn I liked your first picture.

it was the absolute first hit for "flying elephant" on google. Its really not something worth posting.

[kenrexford]

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand. My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

If RHO in fact has AQx and mis-defended, then at the other table the defense will presumably go differently, forcing me into the normal line against normal defense. Therefore, the other guy at the other table will knock out the diamond Ace for a heart pitch and will finesse spades.

Assuming this, I am skeptical of the "gift."

I mean, RHO can be an idiot but the noral line works over the newly available line, anyway. At worse, I expect to push the board.

That said, I think the assumption of error when the error directs you into a line that could fail when the normal line would work is dangerous. Case in point...

[655321]

kenrexford, on Jan 14 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand.  My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

Don't agree with this at all.

Look, I haven't done the maths, for all I know the best line is to knock out the ♦A. But I do know that you should play the line that gives you the best chance of making 4♠ now, not the line that would have been best if opponents had defended double dummy.

[kenrexford]

655321, on Jan 14 2010, 10:40 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 14 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

I think y'all are looking at this the wrong way, actually.

My concern at IMP's (other than IMP Pairs) is not so much with what my RHO is thinking on this hand.  My concerns is with parity and what my known RHO partner at the other table will be thinking.

Don't agree with this at all.

Look, I haven't done the maths, for all I know the best line is to knock out the ♦A. But I do know that you should play the line that gives you the best chance of making 4♠ now, not the line that would have been best if opponents had defended double dummy.

If we assume that your assessment of how tricky this hand may be for the defense is accurate, you still end up with a completely different principle.

Suppose that the original line would have about a rough 50-50 chance of success. Suppose that the defense error gives you an alternative that has a 60% chance of success, but a third of the failing new lines would have meant that the original line would have worked. Plus, maybe a third of the original line deals would work on either line.

You end up, then, with some smaller percentage of layouts where the new line works but the old line would not, risking a few deals where the old line works but the new line does not.

Your end result is volatility. In the end result, perhaps you win more of the volatiles than the opponents. However, they seem to have made a mistake, suggesting that you are better than them. Don't risk volatility against a weaker team.

If they are in fact really good, better or equal to you, then they could have found this ruse, because you could have found this ruse. So, don't bite.

[jdonn]

Ken you are LOLing me. Sorry but what you are saying may be an interesting thought process but it's the opposite of winning bridge. And then you justify it by resulting?? And making a bad defensive play doesn't make someone an idiot or a moron, or we would all be morons every session we play. And if you want to say "we are" that just goes back to the point that that's what you should play to be happening here.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

Ken you are LOLing me. Sorry but what you are saying may be an interesting thought process but it's the opposite of winning bridge. And then you justify it by resulting?? And making a bad defensive play doesn't make someone an idiot or a moron, or we would all be morons every session we play. And if you want to say "we are" that just goes back to the point that that's what you should play to be happening here.

Well, I'll admit one huge foible. A common comment that I receive from one of my partner's is that I sometimes give the opponents credit for doing that which I would do on defense, when in reality they are just being an idiot. I sometimes undervalue the chances of a play being an idiot play rathetr than intelligent.

That said, I still think the parity idea makes sense here.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

I sometimes give the opponents credit for doing that which I would do on defense, when in reality they are just being an idiot.

Ah, the two ends of the spectrum. Idiot on the low end, what Ken would do on the high end.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

I sometimes give the opponents credit for doing that which I would do on defense, when in reality they are just being an idiot.

Ah, the two ends of the spectrum. Idiot on the low end, what Ken would do on the high end.

Sure. Of course, a circle has no end.

[billw55]

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

a circle has no end.

You found the second foundation?

[pooltuna]

billw55, on Jan 15 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

a circle has no end.

You found the second foundation?

Isaac who?