Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't they get to a better than 50% slam?
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 starts with 22 and unless you play Kokish relay or similar then it seems 2NT will have to cater to 22-24/25. Even with Kokish the ranges might be 22-24 and 25+ both of which are wider ranges than 20-21. And 22-24 is already wide enough when we cannot invite. I am certainly extremely reluctant to upgrade from 20-21 into 22-24 or worse.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly controls are important for slam hands and a 20 hcp has on average 7 controls so from that perspective it is not a remarkable 21 hcp hand.

In my view a more important issue is that it is bad practice to upgrade or downgrade out of a narrow hcp range into a wide hcp range. Presumably 2NT here is 20-21 so I would be more reluctant to upgrade out of that range into a wide range strong 2.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similarly, I played no strong opening with unbalanced hands for around ten years. In that time we once missed a game that was bid and made at the other table and on that hand there was a defence to beat the 4 contract.

We did play 2 as a strong balanced or nearly balanced opening and used 2 as Mexican 18-19 balanced. This freed up a lot of sequences especially after our 1m openings.

I have also played a newer version where we put the strong balanced hands into 1 and made it forcing. That frees up one or two (or possibly even three if you include 2NT) of the 2-level openings.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 2 is such a bad opening why would you put 21 hcp balanced hands in there?
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The circumstances aren't identical if one player is world-class and the other a palooka.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the player was world class that isn't how they should have made the claim.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like to play that 2 shows five spades and double shows four spades. Here though I will bid 3 then 3.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So against Richard my 1NT bid is 13-14HCP.”

And as per the above comment my 1 opening is 12-13 and 18. There might even be some 12 counts that I wouldn't open and some 18 counts that I would downgrade. So that means that 1 is 13 hcp. And if I ever upgrade a hand with 13 hcp with six clubs to a 1NT opening then my range is “ ”.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If I saw 9-14 on the system card, that is exactly what I would expect.”

Why?

And actually I would be surprised if you really think that.

If someone playing standard methods describes their 1 opening as 11-19 or some other appropriate range no one reasonably expects that every hand in the range is opened 1 (subject of course to distributional requirements). In particular we all ordinarily expect that some hands that would otherwise qualify for 1 will be opened 1NT.

Alternatively if you think 9-14 means all 9 and 14 counts then how does one disclose to you that some but not all 8 and 15 counts might be treated the same way?
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not expect that 9-14 meant all 9 counts and all 14 counts. Especially for a suit opening bid. It is general bridge knowledge that some hands are adjusted up or down out of ranges. The problem is when that is frequent or unusual and not disclosed.

We have agreed to open 9-14 hcp hands with 1 is not an undertaking to the opponents that all 9 hcp hands and all 14 hcp hands will be opened that way nor that no 8 hcp or 15 hcp will be opened with that bid. It is an undertaking to partner that when I open 1 I will have a hand in the range 9-14 hcp either strictly or a hand that I think is best described in that manner.

In addition, I think it is general knowledge that when 11+ is disclosed for opening bids that some or most or all 10 hcp with six card suits and other hands with additional distribution could be opened with the same bid (if that range is not included in a weak two).
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partnership understanding are available to the opponents if they are disclosed on a system card which is the method specified by most regulating authorities perhaps with the addition of supplementary notes and of course there is an alerting procedure.

If my opponents do not understand the information made available to them in the prescribed form then I maintain that is their problem and not mine.

David Burn, nor anyone else, has not as far as I am aware come up with any law that makes me responsible for the opponents misunderstanding my disclosure and there is a law that specifically says there is no redress for a players own misunderstanding.

Disclosure should be in the prescribed official language. Computer code would not necessarily be sufficient as syntax and meanings cannot always be determined just from code.

Plain English that is misunderstood (on the assumption that English is the official language) is a problem for the person who misunderstood and not for that person's opponent.

Available means “able to be used or obtained”. Information that is obtained is available. If that information is then misused that is not my problem.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is the quoted “available” from?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am also aware that if you explain your methods by reference to dealer scripts, or K&R point counts, or a wide variety of other things that your opponents do not understand, that is your problem not theirs. ”

All I am saying is that if your explanation is comprehensive and in accordance with the regulations then if the opponents do not understand then that is their problem.

Accuracy is the standard of disclosure not whether or not some particular opponent happens to understand.

I would expect that one could reasonably ask for additional information about dealer scripts and K&R point counts since I do not believe they are general bridge knowledge.

The claim I was responding to is that “non-expert opponents are entitled to disclosure they can understand”.

There is no law that says that. And there is a law that says you are not entitled to any redress if you do anything based on your own misunderstanding. That surely means if I accurately explain my methods and my opponent does not understand and misplays, misdefends, or misbids based on his own misunderstanding that is his bad luck and not my responsibility for not teaching how to play bridge or understand an explanation.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I very much agree that having some mechanism to collect data is critical.

I have my own preferences on how this might be done, however, in some ways I consider this to be secondary to collecting and collating data.

I find it extremely depressing that the power that be don't seem to understand the importance of this sort of issue.”

It is plainly stupid that we play a game based on information and after playing a hand we throw away that information. That leaves the only record in falliable memories.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would prefer a technology that read the played cards in real time. I think existing technology would be adaptable to recording bids and cards played by reading the cards as they are played in a similar fashion to electronic chess boards reading the pieces as they are played. This would have the advantage of reading not only the bids and cards played but also recording tempo.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard what you describe is precisely why I think there is a problem with this method. Using a Monte Carlo simulation and double dummy data for suit contracts does not give an ordered list of hands so that one can determine the ten best or worst. The problems are numerous: A hand might be better for a suit and worse for no trumps or vice verca; double dummy will misrepresent some hands; the best contract (fit) might not in practice be obtainable.

To have a metric that we can order hands we would need single dummy data determining a score with every possible layout considered. This is in practice impossible.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But if he learns that 25% of the time 1NT is made with an upgraded 14 HCP, that means that there's still a 25% chance that the other defender has a jack.”

Probabilities do not work like that.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not minimum balanced opener.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does Richard's algorithm determine which hands are better or worse than other hands? As far as I am aware no such metric exists.
Sept. 4
.

Bottom Home Top