[rduran1216]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-29, 11:55, said:

What does "it works" mean? They play restricted choice? Well done!

easy turbo, just highlighting that its had success playing this scheme. This is one of the few poker aspects of bridge. Also helps to not keep your cards in sight when playing since most hawks stare at where u play from.

[rogerclee]

rduran1216, on 2011-April-29, 16:00, said:

easy turbo, just highlighting that its had success playing this scheme. This is one of the few poker aspects of bridge.

[NickRW]

leswt, on 2011-April-28, 07:59, said:

Is this actually the case? Many experienced players play random but what is your experience as to the actual play of the general bridge population?

To answer your actual question, which I am not sure anyone has really done, the general population (in my experience) play Q from QJ tight a lot. I wouldn't like to put a figure on it - but they think it is clever or something and do it a lot.

Nick

[CSGibson]

rduran1216, on 2011-April-29, 09:56, said:

I play the Q against bad players and the J against good players, works every time haha.

I can just imagine the table questions to highlight this understanding... "In your experience, does your partner play any specific pattern from QJ tight"... "Have you ever discussed whether I'm a good or bad player?"...

[leswt]

Thanks for all of the great replies

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2011-April-30, 01:30, said:

I can just imagine the table questions to highlight this understanding... "In your experience, does your partner play any specific pattern from QJ tight"... "Have you ever discussed whether I'm a good or bad player?"...

This might open up a thread on how far disclosure is required. Humor was intended by Gibson, but could the question about pattern of play (when not related to signalling agreements) be asked and expect an answer?

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-April-30, 10:10

[mfa1010]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-30, 10:08, said:

This might open up a thread on how far disclosure is required. Humor was intended by Gibson, but could the question about pattern of play (when not related to signalling agreements) be asked and expect an answer?

I would say no, and consequently I think it would often be ethical problematic to go ahead and ask questions like that. It is not poker. Playing mind games to induce an opponent to reveal his hand is not allowed.

[gwnn]

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.

[mfa1010]

gwnn, on 2011-April-30, 12:20, said:

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.

Not every vugraph commentator excel at objectivity.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2011-April-30, 12:20, said:

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.

Why should it piss you off? Isn't bridge more than mathematics?

I have seen many players who try to play bridge as a purely mathematical game. I have seen a few players who have the guts to go against clinical mathematics and follow their table presence or take the psychology of the game into account. These players are capable of winning with what others call "bad bridge".

Of course, I don't know what happened in the particular case that you saw.

Rik

[aguahombre]

From #17, on I would like to see another thread dealing with (Duran) poker aspects of Bridge; (MFA101) ethics of certain questions; and (Gwnn) side effects of long tanks.

Here, we are going off on a tangent. I would have opened a new one, but had trouble quoting posts from other threads, naming it, and wording the kick-off. It takes someone smarter.

[1eyedjack]

CSGibson, on 2011-April-30, 01:30, said:

I can just imagine the table questions to highlight this understanding... "In your experience, does your partner play any specific pattern from QJ tight"... "Have you ever discussed whether I'm a good or bad player?"...

I suppose it could be OK to ask and expect an answer to the first question but not to the second.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-30, 14:11, said:

From #17, on I would like to see another thread dealing with (Duran) poker aspects of Bridge; (MFA101) ethics of certain questions; and (Gwnn) side effects of long tanks.

Here, we are going off on a tangent. I would have opened a new one, but had trouble quoting posts from other threads, naming it, and wording the kick-off. It takes someone smarter.

I think it's fine to derail a train that has stopped.

[aguahombre]

True, but the stuff is harder to find later when thumbing through the titles.

[cherdano]

Imagine all the wisdom that gets lost if this thread will be hard to find impossible for anyone but gwnn to find through BBF's search feature! Terrible!!