Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is invalid - I'm yet to find two opponents approximately as good as me.
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, how does the director decide whether to waive the penalty? Now the opponents get away with their revoke iff both I and the TD like them? :p
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would also be considered a waste of the director's time in many situations, especially in clubs with a playing director.
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree that disclosing a five-card major helps a lot for defence after the opening lead. If I show four-plus hearts opposite regular Stayman, I may still have five clubs. If I show five hearts opposite puppet Stayman, it's unlikely I have more than three clubs.
Jan. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you alert 1NT:2C, 2red:3NT?
Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In terms of information leakage, this method is largely equivalent, but strictly superior, to 1N:3C or 1N:2N Puppet.
Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was also about to ask which of Stayman and blasting came out better at pairs, but it feels like the methodology of this might be quite difficult - how does one determine the best lead vs 3NT without knowing how many tricks are being made in 4S?
Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Han, great work. The comparative results are all quite intuitive to me, but seeing the absolute results for a hand like that is very interesting.

My guess is that including all 4333s in 1N:3N will increase the theoretical advantage of bidding Stayman. It won't make much difference to 1N:2C, 2D:3N (they don't know where your doubleton is, after all) but you'll get more club leads against the auction 1N:3N.

Even if that is the case, it seems clear that the additional disadvantages of bidding Stayman (information leakage helping subsequent defence, giving 4th seat a chance to double Stayman or overcall at the two-level) would give 1N:3N the edge.

I don't suppose you have any numbers for how much better Stayman is than Puppet in terms of the opening lead?

Thanks again.
Jan. 10, 2017
Mike Bell edited this comment Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the only workable approach is for players to choose their primary partnership/team for selection matters. You get the same issue between age groups as well, usually the strongest U21 is a contender for the U26 team.

There were two players from around our time who made it very clear they wouldn't consider playing in the U26 women's team; I'm pretty confident they felt they had to take this stance to maximise their chance of selection for the U26s.
Dec. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Overhearing announcements from other tables is a much bigger problem at barometer scoring, IMO national regulations should stipulate no announcements in such events.
Dec. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, the “AI suggesting the same thing as the UI” sounds very similar to “the UI doesn't suggest anything”.
Dec. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It should be standard procedure for polls to be carried out in writing rather than verbally. Both sides could check that the facts presented are correct before the poll is taken, and any flaws in procedure would be obvious to an appeals committee.
Dec. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1633
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree, 2 is usually played as an ART game-try denying slam interest. Agree that 3 would be a better bid than 3.
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone suggested the Spingold or Vanderbilt be changed to a three-day multiple teams, they would get laughed out of town. As others have said, this is the difference in scoring methods - not only is there a lot more luck at IMPs, but a weaker team distributing gifts at random would have a much more significant affect on the results.

As a viewing spectacle, the Reisinger final was fantastic. Say there's a fight over an overtrick in a 2S contract. Even if the board has already been won by the declaring side, there are still eight other tables playing the hand. If three of them are in the same contract, there's bound to be some interesting variations in the play.

In short, the format seems fine to me, although I would think it an improvement to add a fourth day - perhaps reducing to four teams for the first session and two teams for the second session.
Dec. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree, but; why not agree to open 1c with 4-4 and 1d with 3-3?
Nov. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Richard!
Nov. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The conclusion to draw is that an IMP in a very close match is rewarded almost four times as much as an IMP in a near-maximum win; something that could have been worked out from the VP scale before the event! Personally, I think the idea is fine for most events, but maybe this factor of four should be reduced a little.

It does, however, grate a little for a triple (or double) round-robin. Hinden beat us heavily in the first weekend, while we had two smaller wins in the other two weekends; Net result, 4 IMPs to them, but 31.51 out of 60 VPs to us.

On balance, though, I think the decision to use the same set length and VP scale as the Camrose and Europeans is the right one; so long as the VP scale is in force in those events, it brings into the equation the question of estimating your score and swinging/minimising swings as appropriate. Whether you believe these factors are crucial or to be ignored at the table, it's difficult to argue that this shouldn't be tested in the England trials.
Nov. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The old scale was beyond hopeless, the effect was similar to scoring by IMPs, capping wins (fine) and then rounding to the nearest five (why?).
Nov. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This avenue of discussion usually leads to someone suggesting IMPs to two decimal places
Oct. 31, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top