Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Francesc Bofill
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what does imo stand for. Sorry
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was speaking by heart. You are quite right.I found:
HCP Frequence
0 0,37
1 0,79
2 1,37
3 2,47
4 3,85
5 5,2
6 6,56
7 8,04
8 8,89
9 9,35
10 9,4
11 8,92
12 8,02
13 6,91
14 5,68
15 4,42
16 3,3
17 2,36
18 1,61
19 1,04
20 0,65
21 0,38

8-21: 70,93%
11-21: 43,29%


Not the double but almost.

Anyhow yours is an illustrative remark, indeed. Thanks.

However I wonder if the greater is the number of deals in a given hcp zone, the greater should be the need of bidding explanation. Usually knowing a hand has some 8hcp will be almost enough. So, perhaps to include also 8-10 range no much bids will have to be steeled from other bidding proposals. We should have a more imprecise bidding but a greater range.

Whats true is that if u build a bidding system for wich you open the bidding from 8 hcp you'll open it almost the double of times than if you do it from 11.

The problem of opening weak even with regular hands becomes quite complex. Points your partnership dosent have will be owned by opps. The less you have the more likely opps have a game. There is a zone that both us and opps will have difficulties to evaluate. They will be put in difficulties to discriminate whether to bid game or to double.

My initial question aimed to get somo more help (some i have obtained from you all till now, thanks) to evaluate risks and advantetges of weak opening and reponses)
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, for kind explaation.
This number, 26 points, more precisely the number 25 is a key number for NO MUCH unregularly distributed deals and systems should have tools to detect its presence.
On the other hand (and not to change the example I began with) ,there is a minimum value the minimum value of 12 in front of 6 is 18.
Do you know if this number, 18, is comonly accepted minimum for combined force? Of course for NO MUCH unregularly distributed deals.

Also the probability of a 12-6 in a partnership are both very close to 0'6%. And it can be neglected. Still more if taking into account that if player with 12 is not in first sit, interference of opps is practically guatanted.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I suppose you mean to compare the rank 8-21 with, say, 15-21.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ahhh! Thxs a lot!
Of course, in each block one and only one hand is kept the same in all deals and it is always West hand.

Two independent blocs,
one block with West hand always equal to ♠ Qxxxx ♥ AK ♦ A ♣ Jxxxx

and the other block with West hand always equal to ♠ AKQxx ♥ xx ♦ A ♣ Jxxxx.

We analize separately each block. We compare the conclusions on one block to the corresponding conclusions on the other one and derive conclusions on having one or the other of the fixed hands.
The comparision results between blocks are in a unique spreadsheet.

Also, “in front” means in front phisically as at the table. So “in front” means “partner” (which will be East in the blocks).
Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure to understand u both. I mean if u draw 1000 deals all of which have THE SAME West hand (Say ♠ Qxxxx ♥ AK ♦ A ♣ Jxxxx) and the other three are drawn completely at random, then in each deal the number of tricks available will be this corresponding to the partnership East-West. We count only the tricks with the trump more favoraable to W-E, or notrump if this is the dase to give more tricks.

So trump wont be at all the same for all 1000 deals. If u sum all the tricks of all 1000 deals won by West-East the total number will be about 9500, and if u divide by 1000 (the number of deals) you'll get this average number 9.5

This is what happened with the block of 1000 deals u can download from the link we provided.(As a matter of fact we obtained not exactly 9500 but 9509.

I apologize my not enough good english which might be in the origin of the confusions.
Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may seem as u say, but think that your partner may have nothing, that there is no good fit, that trumps may split bad,… etc. Precisely statistics is a good help to determine such questions and many others. Above we put the link to a great sample of deals to do statistics and to let the interested reader test by himself.
I pickup for you exactly the first 2 examples of one of the blocks so that you dont think I “choose” the deals as to fit my assertions. These are

0001……..J.8.5.2………………..0002…….A.9.5…………………..
……………….J.9.7.4.3…………………………….Q.107.4…………………
……………….K.8……………………………………..J.8.7…………………..
……………….K.9……………………………………...103.2…………………..
..Q.7.6.4.3……….A.10……………..Q.7.6.4.3……….10…………….
..A.K………………..6.5.2…………...A.K………………...J.9.6.5.3.2…….
..A…………………...J.9.7.5.3……...A…………………..Q.6.5.4………..
..J.7.6.5.4……….Q.102………….J.7.6.5.4……….K.Q……………
……………..K.9……………………………………..K.J.8.2…………………
……………..Q.108………………………………..8………………………
……………..Q.106.4.2………………………….K.109.3.2……………….
……………..A.8.3………………………………...A.9.8…………………..

.PW=14….PN=.8….PS=11….PE=.7……..PW=14….PN=.7….PS=11….PE=.8

In the first u have 9 tricks in clubs and in the second 8 tricks in hearts.

When we first began to draw deals, some 2 years ago, we noticed how useful this was because often those previous feelings like “it seems that with 10 black cards….” didnt correspond to what, in the long run, and often in the short run as well, does actually happen.
Oct. 31, 2016
Francesc Bofill edited this comment Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dont understand the meaning of thick in this context.
But yu'd come up back to my beloved EMPIRICAL non continental filosofers and scientists. Mainly Locke, Berkeley and Hume. But also Popper, Whitehead… And over all, in relation to we are now concerned,: Maxwell, although he was scotish :(
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Language may be a barrier to our communication.
In part
However, I find your OP to be remarkable for several reasons, none good.

You begin
Neither a good beginning urs.
U are not lucky those days, as I see.
Also it seems that we deserve some wide attention from u. Thxs
by appearing to think that expert players use point count as the main
I corrected this in the paper.
hand valuation method, ‘nuanced’ by ‘insufficiently justifiable personal feelings and convictions’.
Such is simply wrong, and suggests that you don't understand how experts value hands.
Do you?
I cannot
This sort of inablenesses are which made us write this and future papers
and do not, for example, assign any numerical value to the difference between, say Qxxxx AK A Jxxxx and AKQxx xx x AJxxx,
Neither do we.
A too biased example.
Let me change it a little bit
Qxxxx AK A Jxxxx and and AKQxx xx A Jxxxx
Now, You are given
x QJTxxx KQJx XX
Which hand would u prefer to find in front
Qxxxx AK A Jxxxx
or
AKQxx xx A Jxxxx?

Before the auction, which hand would you prefer to be given
Qxxxx AK A Jxxxx or
AKQxx xx A Jxxxx ?
This is biased too but the important question in connection to what we are now concerned.
Why do we prefer what we prefer?,
In our answer we risk to

fall in devils arms.

For instance if we said “because in the long run we will get more tricks with that we chosed” we would fall in a paradigmatic situation of probabilistic and statistical frames.


but I can assure you that there is a very significant difference in how I view these hands,
I agree but Why?
and the fact that it would take me several minutes to verbally describe why, and that I would be unable to assign a numerical value
In such biased cases, dont worry, you woulnt need statistics. Neither do we.
does not, imo, make my valuation one based on ‘insufficiently justifiable personal feelings and convictions’.
Im affraid that in other more frontiering examples perhaps u wont have an alternative. Excuse me.
You fall exactly in the point. That is the reason why a took the time to answer you. It will be also enlighting for other who read this too.



The rest has been already more or les replied in several responses of mine to other coments. Except in one at the end that I will explain.
I wont do a cassus belli of the part ill miss. Mainly because we didnt set at all the attention on them. Our auction and our hands and our files, are a better or worse posed example. They could have been others with no influence to what was ment our article to transmit. And because u assign intentions to us that didnt exist or in wich we were and are not interested.

You then go on to come up with an illustrative value for ‘q’ to 3 significant figures, while casually acknowledging that your methods require ignoring real world issues, on the insufficiently justifiable (to use your terminology) basis that the real world issues aren't important.
Then you use an example (the invitational or better splinter) that is indeed a situation in which the opps will be reluctant to double, as if it were the prototypical limit auction. Splinters, limited or otherwise, at relatively rare bids. More normal are straight invitational actions, such as a game try after a single raise. ?

In many invitational sequences an alert opponent can in fact tell that things are sitting poorly and so can double, but that would render your modelling unreliable, so it seems you choose to ignore it.

Finally, I read your post in vain when searching for any suggestion or hint about how anyone could take your ideas and apply them at the table. Now, I appreciate that you were merely, I think, outlining the approach underlying your modelling and that you may or may not be able to develop something that a player can use at the table.
However, I suspect that at best you are going to come up with an approach that could be used by a computer, which could analyze 1000 possible layouts (or more) before choosing it's action. That is, I gather, how current software works, and maybe your modelling will result in improvements in the software. But for humans?
THIS DESERVES A REPLY
Books on bidding should be thicker because they should include a repertoire of bordering limit hands. The habilty ot the author should be selecting them.
In the same way we must study bidding we will have to lesrn some archaetipical limit hands.
Oct. 15, 2016
Francesc Bofill edited this comment Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Below you will also find a list of appretiations, like those u mentioned, from some other kind commenter. A large list. It seems to us almost impossible not to have heard and even thought and even agreed with such so frequently repeated things. Thanks for ur contribution to enforce them.

But the point was, as also explained below, that our intention was mainly and almost exclusively to present some, to our opinion, new aproach in bridge bidding research, which can, envisage a “scientification” and “quantifiable framing” of such old appretiations, instead on coming back to discuss them with traditional well known arguments. Our mention to these old aproximations was made to stand out some distance from them in our approach.

We invite however whoever can understand our aims, to read more carefully what we did. Specially that in Page 3.
Oct. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for explaining your own convictions and personal reformulation of our first page. And of such an extensive enumeration of extremely well known trivialities. Myself for instance, I agree with all except with what has to do with opinion on what is or what it is not worthwhile. As a matter of fact we are inclined to consider ur words as a paradigmatic concretion in details of the assertion “…heuristic suppositions based, in much, on insufficiently justifiable personal feelings and convictions…” (as u seem to admit in ur last paragraph) in our first paragraph.

But we agree with most of yours with you and with most of ours with ourselves. In this sense we are in advantage in that we know about ur approach as so many players will too … and besides about ours too, which needed some more hard work than joining the way of ethernal repetitions and discussions …

But our intention was mainly to present some, to our opinion, new aproach in bridge.

We would better apreciate some reflections on the correctness of our approach. Like those of Mr Helfgott some lines above. This would mean read us, understand it, and critizise it where it should be convenient.

Our method is quite frequent and completely accepted in other fields of nature sciences since long. And not considered there as mistaken premises. Bolzman Thermodynamics and so much that derives of it wouldnt else exist. Neither our car nor yours if any car at all.
We didnt see some similar approach as ours in bridge. Enjoy us, if u fancy.
Oct. 13, 2016
Francesc Bofill edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dont have this book and neither an easy access to it.
Being so that you are commenting, we would greatly appreciate u were as helpful, explicit and errorfree, and even “confusing”free, in your improvement of ur second phrase, as yo showed to be able to be in your first one.

Thanks anyhow.
Oct. 13, 2016
Francesc Bofill edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also some of the questions such as what about a A or K singleton could also be at least partially answered through Blocks ans spreadsheets we include. But dont invite u to go to them since our presentation wouldnt be strightforward to to this purpose,
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks a lot for ur encouraging comments and suggestions and for such a complete reading of our work. We agree in most of ur suggestions. And had already thought in some of them. And consider them as very interesting for future work. If we continue with it we will reread ur comments. Of course also the questions u pose to hearts suits, trump suits etc… would have a quite convenable study with our methods. In some sense we are a little tired of some of these eternally recurrent questions and not enough settled “folklore knowledges” like honors in front shorts or in front of longs, and would be delighted to derive defintive conclusions. But this is a complex work for long.
Our present intention was mainly to present a, what we think to be, a quite new approach to theese problems. Mainly because good redits on bidding advances would enormously benefit on it. Even more, we dont see how clear definitive bidding advances could else be obtained.
Of course, in this paper, we didn,t renounce to operative conclusions (and we believe some will be) but some considerations like yours were sometimes forgotten at the beginning of our work, and maybe introduced in the progression of our studies.
Note the the final repertoir of limit hands is only one for each of the 5 punctuation types considered.( These means we were not interessed on setting a complete frontier between 3s and 4s.) All derived for variations on a single suit. This was so to orient future resesearch on individualizing and bound contributios of nitid simple causes to its effects.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We apologize having cofused you. We thank ur comment and we modify one phrase of the text thanks to it.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We also think an over-simplification to (only 10 minutes later of our publication of the article) only state ur methods without the time, as we believe, to consider seriously ours. It would be enourmously enlightening, to all of us, if u could gently detail typical hands attributable to partner in one of the cases we studied. And compare conclusions.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks a lot for ur gramatical help.
Our reference to point count was to facilitate comprehension to beginners. Not to forget them.
As we can see you, (and any other advanced player) will not use point count textually. Of course.
In the article we tried to quantify the ods of precisely the kind of ways close to how you envisage this question.
Oct. 13, 2016
Francesc Bofill edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excuse. Didnt explain myself correctly. In fact the number of cases of information which may be given are the number of sequences between 4nt and 6s. They are or not Fbonaccis. That would equal the number of susets of the set of all possible calls which is 2**n. “n” is the number of individual calls between. In our case n=10, so 2**10 = 1024
Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Didnt know if i understood u well. Some considerations. If from the very beginning Blackwood its a 6S or 7S decision process, then if we start at 4nt we are talking of a 9 step allowance wich corresponds to a maximum of 55 final answers.
But we could start blackwood (or call it as u want) at 5c, we are then talking about a 8 step allowance so a maximum of 34, etc

9 55
8 34
7 21
6 13
5 8
4 5
3 3
2 2
1 1

At the end of this sequence thinks are no more a relé but they should be a question as u mentioned.
In fact we will have a sum of fibonaccis from 2 to 55 which,as shown in original article plus 2 cases one of them not restricted to a maximum 6s bidding level. Those 2 mentioned by u.

As shown in original article this number should be the fibonacci which follows the follower of 55, that is 144.

Also u may allow doing relés not whith the lower call available but with jump. Then u should find sums of fibonaccis too, as u did. Not the time to rekon this now. But something to do some moment.



…..

Feb. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for ur positive coment and for telling me about Lucas whome I didnt know about.
Feb. 14, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top