Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, quite. I didn't post it as an example of good play, rather as a spot the mistakes type of thing.
Feb. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's right in principle. Unfortunately it assumes that someone in the partnership can discern with a fair degree of confidence what is making and what is not. 4 one down undoubled is better than 5 going down and 4 making undoubled is better than 4x.

It is, of course, highly probable that your judgement is better than mine and that you play with partners who have better judgement than my partners. But I have to live with my imperfections whether I like it or not ;)
Feb. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You weren't irrational and your action will quite often work. Set against that are the times when 3 was making or only one off, possibly un-doubled, against no game their way.

As is often the case, fortune favoured the brave.
Feb. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris said

“When you are vulnerable and they are not, they will simply make you guess what to do at whatever level they can. To give you an idea, here's the system I would employ, non-vulnerable, over 1:

Pass: 13+ HCP, any (forcing)
1: 8 - 12 HCP, 3 - 5 cards in each major”


I don't think you can bid 1 over 1
Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly the answer to that question is yes.
Feb. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eh - that photo of me that comes up was taken in an office about 20 years ago. It is true that I'm younger than you, but I'll be 60 this year. Hardly young anymore!
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, is it fair to say that 1) you've been around and 2) some of your ideas have as well, but 3) this exact system as a whole hasn't that much? (Not intended as a criticism, just wondering how well the engine has been ‘run in’).
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect a shapely rock bottom min or sub min that was never the less too strong or flawed for a 2 opener.
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi George, thanks for posting this. I'm still wading through the detail. But on a more general note, I notice that you say in your profile, “I live on a remote hilltop. I never play bridge I just think about it”. Presumably you mean you don't play face to face bridge anymore. Yet you imply that this system has some ‘road mileage’, again presumably online.

My question is really, just how much ‘road mileage’ have you had with it? Do you play with a regular partner(s) who have learnt it all? Against what class of opposition have you deployed it against - BBO randoms or against more competent opponents who are aware of the details of what they are up against?
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>I have something in between zero an no interest in ACBL system regulations.

Which is probably why Frances never replied to you.
Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't worry too much about what the ACBL do and do not permit. It is well known to be fairly arbitrary and open to interpretation.

Of more interest to you might be the WBF bidding regs:
http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/official-documents/Policies/WBFSystemsPolicy.pdf

A relatively logical set of national regs from my country:
http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/blue-book/blue-book-2015.pdf

And I guess you can find something similar and relatively enlightened on the Ozzie web site which I am not myself familiar with - though the Ozzies are rumoured to be one of the most liberal in their regulations on these matters.

I wouldn't look up the Thai regulations though - it appears that you're breaking the law to even own 3 decks of cards over there!!!

Check it out.
Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree you've identified a good position, when it exists.
Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Myth not busted. You're assuming the stronger, flatter overcaller will actually find a worthwhile amount of shape in partner's hand. You're also assuming lack of shape for overcaller.
Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. To see a very simple version of the 1N-2C-2D mechanism, see http://www.bridgewebs.com/crowborough/NT%20Responses.htm The version in Keri uses the same mechanism, but describes different hands
Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, of course the more that ‘big names’ get behind an idea, the quicker it will become accepted. However, I don't care too much whether they do or don't. George asserted that ‘the books are wrong’. Since he has come in for a hard time on this site, I thought I'd post something evidence based in support of some of what he is saying. (Which is not a general endorsement - just saying this guy is not another Slawinski and he deserves to be heard.

P.S. It isn't simply a mathematical question - well not a simple one for spreadsheet analysis. A simple spreadsheet can answer a very narrow question such as this one. But most system design decisions have knock on effects that are difficult to quantify.
Feb. 4, 2016
Nick Warren edited this comment Feb. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gladiator is a 2 response to 1NT that (at least often) puppets a response of 2. A version of it, for example, forms part of Keri. You can find out more with Google.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played around with this question (to invite vs pass/blast) following a 1NT opener using some single dummy data taken from Richard Pavlicek's site. The efficacy of inviting or not varied slightly with the vulnerability and form of scoring, but suffice it to say that I was satisified that it was a marginal loser in most cases.

However, there are two other factors my analysis didn't (indeed couldn't) take into account:

On the plus side for inviting:
1) If your range asking bid (say 2) is forcing, it may be of some use on other questions other than whether to play in 2 or 3NT.

On the negative side:
2) Your invite sequence will be used for something else hopefully more constructive.

None of this suggests that you should or should not play in 2NT after a 1NT srart - for example you might use Stayman if interested in finding a major fit and, not having found one, 2NT might your best spot.

I've read that others have investigated this specific example of pass/Blast versus invite and come to similar conclusions. Which is why I wanted to check it out for myself. I have not done anything about somewhat analagous sequences (e.g. 1-3 as a limit raise)
Feb. 3, 2016
Nick Warren edited this comment Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops. Apologies!
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So post the system then. The theory is all very well. Real bidding systems have to live with the constraints of the laws. The question is how much of your theory you can actually pack into a working system (and not throw the baby out with the bath water)
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he is from Oz.
Feb. 3, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top