b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 1 有对无，你坐北拿着：ＡＫＱＴ６ ／ Ｔ８６ ／ ４ ／ ＡＪ９６
叫牌过程：
Ｗ Ｎ Ｅ Ｓ
１Ｃ １Ｓ Ｘ ３Ｓ
Ｘ ４Ｓ ４ＮＴ Ｐ
５Ｃ Ｘ ５Ｄ Ｐ
５Ｈ ＡＰ
简单解释一下叫牌。西家１Ｃ自然叫，东家负加倍，南家３Ｓ为阻击性，西家的加倍显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌来看是方块／红心套。
你首攻ＳＫ，明手东家摊牌：
Ｊ
Ｑ９７３
ＱＪ９８６
８５４
同伴第一墩出Ｓ２，庄家跟Ｓ７。按照你们的风格，这时候的牌张有花色选择的味道。你如何继续防守？ |
g****o
发帖数: 1284 | 2 庄家像是2-4-3-4牌型。同伴即使H或D上有大牌也会被飞死，所以只能寄希望他有一张C
大牌。
但如果我们自己主动进攻C，庄家是KXXX的话就把定约送成了。
我觉得还是应该保守攻牌，庄家D能吃通的话也只能垫两张C，最后还是得自己动梅花。
显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌
来看是方块／红心套。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 有对无，你坐北拿着：ＡＫＱＴ６ ／ Ｔ８６ ／ ４ ／ ＡＪ９６
: 叫牌过程：
: Ｗ Ｎ Ｅ Ｓ
: １Ｃ １Ｓ Ｘ ３Ｓ
: Ｘ ４Ｓ ４ＮＴ Ｐ
: ５Ｃ Ｘ ５Ｄ Ｐ
: ５Ｈ ＡＰ
: 简单解释一下叫牌。西家１Ｃ自然叫，东家负加倍，南家３Ｓ为阻击性，西家的加倍显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌来看是方块／红心套。
: 你首攻ＳＫ，明手东家摊牌：
: Ｊ
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 3 有没有什么情况，你必须第二墩要打ＣＡ才能成功？
【在 g****o 的大作中提到】
: 庄家像是2-4-3-4牌型。同伴即使H或D上有大牌也会被飞死，所以只能寄希望他有一张C
: 大牌。
: 但如果我们自己主动进攻C，庄家是KXXX的话就把定约送成了。
: 我觉得还是应该保守攻牌，庄家D能吃通的话也只能垫两张C，最后还是得自己动梅花。
:
: 显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌
: 来看是方块／红心套。
|
v*******e
发帖数: 3714 | 4 首先，同伴顶多抓了两点，所以多半是五张黑心。
1) 如果同伴只有四张黑心，庄家几乎必宕。
2) 如果同伴有五张黑心，并且庄家抓了所有剩下大牌点
xx / AKxx / AKx / KQTx
这牌5H必成。
3) 如果庄家是
xx / AKxx / Ax / KQTxx
同伴为什么不首功草花？
4）如果庄家是
xx / AKxx / Axx / KQTx
我没看出做庄成功路线。。
总而言之，回黑心缩减明手进张，大概是我无聊之下的选择。。 |
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 5 因为同伴不想 lead out of turn.
【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: 首先，同伴顶多抓了两点，所以多半是五张黑心。
: 1) 如果同伴只有四张黑心，庄家几乎必宕。
: 2) 如果同伴有五张黑心，并且庄家抓了所有剩下大牌点
: xx / AKxx / AKx / KQTx
: 这牌5H必成。
: 3) 如果庄家是
: xx / AKxx / Ax / KQTxx
: 同伴为什么不首功草花？
: 4）如果庄家是
: xx / AKxx / Axx / KQTx
|
j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 6 如果庄家是：xx AKxx AK KQxxx
这种可能貌似很小。。。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 有没有什么情况，你必须第二墩要打ＣＡ才能成功？
|
v*******e
发帖数: 3714 | 7 那早知道就不double 5C了:)
问题在于，如果同伴不是单张草花，拔A几乎一定要吃亏，送成那种。。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 因为同伴不想 lead out of turn.
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 8 即便庄家是 xx AKxx AK KQxxx，消极防守还是可以打宕，因为你还有ＣＪ，right?
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: 如果庄家是：xx AKxx AK KQxxx
: 这种可能貌似很小。。。
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 9 你不加倍５Ｃ对方一样会叫到５Ｈ。我认为东家在叫４ＮＴ的时候已经准备５Ｃ后叫５
Ｄ了，显示Ｄ＋Ｈ。
从叫牌来看，同伴梅花单张的可能性还是有的，庄家２４２５的强牌，也多半３Ｓ后加
倍（以区分靠牌型为主的４Ｈ叫品）。但即便同伴梅花单张，拔ＣＡ就一定赚么？
【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: 那早知道就不double 5C了:)
: 问题在于，如果同伴不是单张草花，拔A几乎一定要吃亏，送成那种。。
|
v*******e
发帖数: 3714 | 10 我以为double 5C是指示首功。hehe 对这种高水平的比赛我不熟，也许专家想法就是不
一样吧。:)
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 你不加倍５Ｃ对方一样会叫到５Ｈ。我认为东家在叫４ＮＴ的时候已经准备５Ｃ后叫５
: Ｄ了，显示Ｄ＋Ｈ。
: 从叫牌来看，同伴梅花单张的可能性还是有的，庄家２４２５的强牌，也多半３Ｓ后加
: 倍（以区分靠牌型为主的４Ｈ叫品）。但即便同伴梅花单张，拔ＣＡ就一定赚么？
|
|
|
j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 11 right, 我错把D数成5墩了。
那么，找不出非得拔CA才能打宕的情况了，在这个叫牌序列下。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 即便庄家是 xx AKxx AK KQxxx，消极防守还是可以打宕，因为你还有ＣＪ，right?
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 12 个人意见：这个加倍有示攻的含义，因为在加倍的时候还不肯定是谁做庄，所以 just
in case 同伴首攻的话，希望攻出梅花。另外也告诉同伴梅花能守住，如果同伴有一定
的防守实力，也可以继续加倍对方的最终定约。
【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: 我以为double 5C是指示首功。hehe 对这种高水平的比赛我不熟，也许专家想法就是不
: 一样吧。:)
|
g****o
发帖数: 1284 | 13 呵呵，费了一点劲去找到了牌例。原来这里还有个ethical的问题...
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 有没有什么情况，你必须第二墩要打ＣＡ才能成功？
|
a****s
发帖数: 524 | 14 You got to play CA and another club, it can only lose when pd have
empty(no K) doubleton club and maybe diamond King. but it that's the case,
no one can find an excuse for S2 on the first trick.
Partner may well have a shortness for his vulnerable jump...
more importantly, partner did NOT double 5D even
after you doubled 5C，indicating that you are in
grave danger of declarer running the red suits,
(5 trumps + 5 diamond + 1C),
so cash the CA now.
显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌
来看是方块／红心
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 有对无，你坐北拿着：ＡＫＱＴ６ ／ Ｔ８６ ／ ４ ／ ＡＪ９６
: 叫牌过程：
: Ｗ Ｎ Ｅ Ｓ
: １Ｃ １Ｓ Ｘ ３Ｓ
: Ｘ ４Ｓ ４ＮＴ Ｐ
: ５Ｃ Ｘ ５Ｄ Ｐ
: ５Ｈ ＡＰ
: 简单解释一下叫牌。西家１Ｃ自然叫，东家负加倍，南家３Ｓ为阻击性，西家的加倍显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌来看是方块／红心套。
: 你首攻ＳＫ，明手东家摊牌：
: Ｊ
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 15 呵呵，早知道这么费劲，直接问我不就行了？:-))
实战中，同伴南家第一墩的Ｓ２有明显迟疑，这样就有一个ＵＩ的问题。如果说Ｓ２是
花色选择的话，那么迟疑就暗示一种不确定。从ethical的角度出发，北家应该忽略同
伴的迟疑，假定同伴确实希望换攻梅花。实战第二墩北家拔ＣＡ，导致庄家做成。庄家
持牌：８７／ＡＫＪ５／ＡＫ３／ＫＴ７２
这副牌结束后，现场的专家评论员一片赞叹声，认为北家体现了highest ethical
value，非常具有sportsmanship．但我在想，北家ethical这当然没错，但信号只是一
种suggestion，并不是command．这副牌不论同伴梅花持牌的情况，都不需要拔ＣＡ，
只需要将牌出手坐等赢墩。用桥牌裁判的术语来说，虽然有ＵＩ，但是ＣＡ不是
logical alternative．说得再明白些，即使同伴恰好有ＣＫ或梅花单张，拔ＣＡ不损
失，用高水准来衡量，这仍然是个错误，因为消极防守更灵活，可以cover more
grounds.
另外，更不理解的是南家迟疑了这么久，到底在想些什么。梅花上持Ｑｘ，让同伴转攻
梅花是非常危险的，尤其你明确知道梅花失张
【在 g****o 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，费了一点劲去找到了牌例。原来这里还有个ethical的问题...
|
j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 16 原来南家迟疑了。。
这是决赛牌例？昨天我还在想，虽然没有非拔CA才能宕的情况，但同伴C很像单张，北
拔ＣＡ也不失为节省体力的一种方法。
看了决赛第三节前面几副。Fred (BBO创始人）跑上来就连着弄砸3副，比分一下子被追
平。第二副（board 34)一个低级错误，被Sontag弄出一个criss-cross squeeze...
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，早知道这么费劲，直接问我不就行了？:-))
: 实战中，同伴南家第一墩的Ｓ２有明显迟疑，这样就有一个ＵＩ的问题。如果说Ｓ２是
: 花色选择的话，那么迟疑就暗示一种不确定。从ethical的角度出发，北家应该忽略同
: 伴的迟疑，假定同伴确实希望换攻梅花。实战第二墩北家拔ＣＡ，导致庄家做成。庄家
: 持牌：８７／ＡＫＪ５／ＡＫ３／ＫＴ７２
: 这副牌结束后，现场的专家评论员一片赞叹声，认为北家体现了highest ethical
: value，非常具有sportsmanship．但我在想，北家ethical这当然没错，但信号只是一
: 种suggestion，并不是command．这副牌不论同伴梅花持牌的情况，都不需要拔ＣＡ，
: 只需要将牌出手坐等赢墩。用桥牌裁判的术语来说，虽然有ＵＩ，但是ＣＡ不是
: logical alternative．说得再明白些，即使同伴恰好有ＣＫ或梅花单张，拔ＣＡ不损
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 17 就在决赛第三节。Fred基本上处于脑休状态，可能是体力问题。这副牌他坐南，出牌迟
疑且误导。当然，打了这么多天，犯错是难免的，他们的水平仍然远远高于我们中的任
何人。但是明明是错误，却变成学习的榜样，这就有点夸张了。
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: 原来南家迟疑了。。
: 这是决赛牌例？昨天我还在想，虽然没有非拔CA才能宕的情况，但同伴C很像单张，北
: 拔ＣＡ也不失为节省体力的一种方法。
: 看了决赛第三节前面几副。Fred (BBO创始人）跑上来就连着弄砸3副，比分一下子被追
: 平。第二副（board 34)一个低级错误，被Sontag弄出一个criss-cross squeeze...
|
w****b
发帖数: 623 | 18 There is no case that you need to cash CA and give pd a ruff to defeat the
contract. Since if that is the case, pd would be able to guard the D and
they cannot take 5 tricks in D. (pd should be 5-2 or 4-2 in majors, so a
stiff C would give pd a 5 or 6 card D). On the other hand you may give away
the contract if your RHO has something like xx AKJx AT KQTxx -- maybe pd is
trying to discourage from leading a D, knowing that you had stiff.
The only case that playing C is a winner is when pd has 4-2-
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 有对无，你坐北拿着：ＡＫＱＴ６ ／ Ｔ８６ ／ ４ ／ ＡＪ９６
: 叫牌过程：
: Ｗ Ｎ Ｅ Ｓ
: １Ｃ １Ｓ Ｘ ３Ｓ
: Ｘ ４Ｓ ４ＮＴ Ｐ
: ５Ｃ Ｘ ５Ｄ Ｐ
: ５Ｈ ＡＰ
: 简单解释一下叫牌。西家１Ｃ自然叫，东家负加倍，南家３Ｓ为阻击性，西家的加倍显示额外实力，竞争性，理论上黑桃张数不多。东家的４ＮＴ暗示双套，从后面的叫牌来看是方块／红心套。
: 你首攻ＳＫ，明手东家摊牌：
: Ｊ
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 19 Low C wins the case where partner has Kx or Kxx in clubs, but it loses when
partner has stiff club (not the 10). CA actually caters for both cases (but
gives up an extra under-trick when partner holds CK, which is OK since this
is IMP). However, as analyzed before, CA is never going to really gain
regardless of partner's club holding, unless declarer holds 3433 shape, but
the bidding indicates that declarer doesn't have that shape.
Therefore, neither CA nor low C is logical alternative.
away
is
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
: There is no case that you need to cash CA and give pd a ruff to defeat the
: contract. Since if that is the case, pd would be able to guard the D and
: they cannot take 5 tricks in D. (pd should be 5-2 or 4-2 in majors, so a
: stiff C would give pd a 5 or 6 card D). On the other hand you may give away
: the contract if your RHO has something like xx AKJx AT KQTxx -- maybe pd is
: trying to discourage from leading a D, knowing that you had stiff.
: The only case that playing C is a winner is when pd has 4-2-
|
p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 20 2-4-3-4 is certainly a possible shape. Also, the key in bridge defense is
not opp's possible misleading bidding, but partner's defensive signals.
There is just no point to assume that partner would make a wrong signal and
trust opp's bidding. This is a good lesson to all the bridge players that in
defense, one gotta be careful with his signals and trust partner's signals.
That's the only way to get out of the maze your opps set.
when
but
this
but
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: Low C wins the case where partner has Kx or Kxx in clubs, but it loses when
: partner has stiff club (not the 10). CA actually caters for both cases (but
: gives up an extra under-trick when partner holds CK, which is OK since this
: is IMP). However, as analyzed before, CA is never going to really gain
: regardless of partner's club holding, unless declarer holds 3433 shape, but
: the bidding indicates that declarer doesn't have that shape.
: Therefore, neither CA nor low C is logical alternative.
:
: away
: is
|
|
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 21 I don't get it. Why is CA necessary if declarer holds 2-4-3-4 shape?
Partner told me he has a club card. But that doesn't mean I have to shift to
club blindly.
is not opp's possible misleading bidding, but partner's defensive
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: 2-4-3-4 is certainly a possible shape. Also, the key in bridge defense is
: not opp's possible misleading bidding, but partner's defensive signals.
: There is just no point to assume that partner would make a wrong signal and
: trust opp's bidding. This is a good lesson to all the bridge players that in
: defense, one gotta be careful with his signals and trust partner's signals.
: That's the only way to get out of the maze your opps set.
:
: when
: but
: this
|
p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 22 The point is that partner can fully utilize the suit preference here, with
club K or C void, he would always encourage C. With D honor, he should
encourage D by his highest spades. Without D honor or CK, he should give a
card in the middle.
Then from opening leader's point of view, if he has CAJ, partner gives a
middle card, he shouldn't play C because he can usually wait to get two
tricks in C. If he has CK and D honor, he can usually wait to get two tricks
because opener shows some willing to
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: I don't get it. Why is CA necessary if declarer holds 2-4-3-4 shape?
: Partner told me he has a club card. But that doesn't mean I have to shift to
: club blindly.
:
: is not opp's possible misleading bidding, but partner's defensive
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 23 Why with stiff C, south cannot encourage club? Partner doesn't have to have
CA for the ruff to materialize. Partner may have HA for example.
I agree that with CQ only, it is wrong to encourage club switch. My guess is
that they had a screw-up in signal definition, one thinks this is suit
preference, the other things it is for spade continuation (meaning NOT to
shift to a club).
In any case I would rather make a defensive "mistake" that ensures beating
the contract in IMPs, than to play for down
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: The point is that partner can fully utilize the suit preference here, with
: club K or C void, he would always encourage C. With D honor, he should
: encourage D by his highest spades. Without D honor or CK, he should give a
: card in the middle.
: Then from opening leader's point of view, if he has CAJ, partner gives a
: middle card, he shouldn't play C because he can usually wait to get two
: tricks in C. If he has CK and D honor, he can usually wait to get two tricks
: because opener shows some willing to
|
p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 24 If partner holds HA and no C or D honor, it really doesn't take genius to
find out that to beat it, you have to hold a club singleton, because you
didn't encourage C and D.
have
is
instead
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: Why with stiff C, south cannot encourage club? Partner doesn't have to have
: CA for the ruff to materialize. Partner may have HA for example.
: I agree that with CQ only, it is wrong to encourage club switch. My guess is
: that they had a screw-up in signal definition, one thinks this is suit
: preference, the other things it is for spade continuation (meaning NOT to
: shift to a club).
: In any case I would rather make a defensive "mistake" that ensures beating
: the contract in IMPs, than to play for down
|
v*******e
发帖数: 3714 | 25 hehe talking about "bridge ethics"...
Corollary is, never play with a partner who you can't trust (such as most
humans) or who never plays a signal
(such as robots). But I'm still playing with robots, because I got to play
super fast games without being blamed.
lol
Anyways, about such kind of "hesitation" issues, I have something to say.
American bridge players are way too
paranoid about being "cheated" by others' hesitation, which is a mystery to
me why. The only possible
explanation is that th
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: 2-4-3-4 is certainly a possible shape. Also, the key in bridge defense is
: not opp's possible misleading bidding, but partner's defensive signals.
: There is just no point to assume that partner would make a wrong signal and
: trust opp's bidding. This is a good lesson to all the bridge players that in
: defense, one gotta be careful with his signals and trust partner's signals.
: That's the only way to get out of the maze your opps set.
:
: when
: but
: this
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 26 That's sensible, but I think it is subtle. A little bit deep for players who
are exhausted after 6 days of non-stop bridge.
And it is based on the assumption of 3-way signaling (low for club, high for
diamond, middle for spade continuation). The way most people do (if they
play 3-way signal at all), this requires at least 5 cards in the suit, so
you don't have ambiguity in signal. More importantly, partner must also know
you have 5+ cards, so both know 3-way signaling is applied. This hand, you
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: If partner holds HA and no C or D honor, it really doesn't take genius to
: find out that to beat it, you have to hold a club singleton, because you
: didn't encourage C and D.
:
: have
: is
: instead
|
j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 27 Kinsley说的是从对手的迟疑中得到线索？那是能耐。从搭档的迟疑中获得信息貌似有
不公平之嫌。不过我觉得，遇到打牌很快的庄家对防守压力很大。有时，防家的长考也
未必是就某一墩迟疑，很可能是对整个局势进行思考。庄家可以名正言顺在第一墩出牌
前长考，而防家那时未必有足够信息。
这个牌例似乎说明：1）尽信信号则不如无信号；2）评论员也有体力问题：）
另外，我觉得看4手牌的评论员很难保证一点都不先入为主。假设有4个评论员，每人负
责讲一手牌，明手摊牌后有一个可以看4手牌讲解。这样似乎比较客观，好玩。
to
【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: hehe talking about "bridge ethics"...
: Corollary is, never play with a partner who you can't trust (such as most
: humans) or who never plays a signal
: (such as robots). But I'm still playing with robots, because I got to play
: super fast games without being blamed.
: lol
: Anyways, about such kind of "hesitation" issues, I have something to say.
: American bridge players are way too
: paranoid about being "cheated" by others' hesitation, which is a mystery to
: me why. The only possible
|
b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 28 再讲一个插曲。这副牌，庄家是 Sontag，有名的快牌手，明手摊下后几乎第一时间就
出了牌（倒是确实没什么可想的，明手单张ＳＪ）。不过随后他意识到了，很快道歉，
并且对 Fred 说，take all the time you want，所以 Fred 就心安理得想了Ｎ久后出
了Ｓ２．:)
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: Kinsley说的是从对手的迟疑中得到线索？那是能耐。从搭档的迟疑中获得信息貌似有
: 不公平之嫌。不过我觉得，遇到打牌很快的庄家对防守压力很大。有时，防家的长考也
: 未必是就某一墩迟疑，很可能是对整个局势进行思考。庄家可以名正言顺在第一墩出牌
: 前长考，而防家那时未必有足够信息。
: 这个牌例似乎说明：1）尽信信号则不如无信号；2）评论员也有体力问题：）
: 另外，我觉得看4手牌的评论员很难保证一点都不先入为主。假设有4个评论员，每人负
: 责讲一手牌，明手摊牌后有一个可以看4手牌讲解。这样似乎比较客观，好玩。
:
: to
|
