Join Bridge Winners
A different approach on B-Z bidding gap issue

Up till now most efforts on the gap issue is made on forming general hypothesis and testing it on all hands played by B-Z. I think this method is flawed since their code, if it exists, is a complex one, and has different meanings in different situations, thus no simple rule can be applied to all hands.

If we insist on a simple general rule and try it on all hands, then Mr.Jassem's argument can be right—we will put too much energy into judging those "vague" hands and they have a great impact on the total outcome, making a convincing analysis impossible.

So I think we can just pick a class of hands with a common characteristic and see if the gap is consistent every time. Then though we don't know exactly what the gap mean, we can conclude that it is not random and "has a meaning".

I did a very simple test: What will the gap be, if, in a very competitive auction, they have a void in opp's suit?

And we can see in the video:

2014 EBTC

Poland v. Israel

17 Zmudzinski is void in ♠ and the gap is large

24 Zmudzinski is void in ♣ and the gap is large

Poland v. Turkey

25 Balicki is void in ♥ and the gap is large

31 Zmudzinski is void in ♠ and the gap is normal first time(opp bid 1♠ and have not shown a fit)but large second time(opp bid 4♠)

Poland v. Romania

24 Balicki is void in ♣ and the gap is large

Poland v. Germany

25 Balicki is void in ♠ and the gap is large

31 Balicki is void in ♠ and the gap is normal, but opp's had bid 3NT instead of showing ♠ fit so it is a different situation.

 

Polish Premier League semifinal SEGMENT 2

23 Zmudzinski is void in ♦ and the gap is large

 

So seem that there exists a coincidence that the gap is large whenever the they hold a void in opp's suit.

The observation is surely too scarce to be convincing but I'm sure someone here can find some other patterns that have an even better "coincidence":)

26 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top