Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for comment here.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…or suggests that one of you has forgotten the system… which is, to be fair, more likely than partner has lost his marbles.
If the bid does not exist…surely, surely, this is AI that someone has got it wrong, and you can realise it is you. Alert or no.
Say you play a particular wriggle after your 1NT 12-14 is doubled. Partner bids 1NT RHO doubles, you pass. Partner correctly alerts. LHO passes. Partner now MUST redouble. He bids 2 clubs. You know that one of you has the system wrong. You think. You realise it is you. You recently decided to drop that wriggle and use one where 2clubs means….etc. Etc.
So you revert to the new sytem as well as you can. The bid…impossible otherwise…told you.
But the suggestion by many is that the UI trumps this occurence, like the impossible bid was suddenly not impossible.
And, indeed, while it is claimed by some that people are bending over backwards to get an excuse to follow the UI, it is the opposing camp who are hypothesising bizarre unlikely distributions and “more than zero possibility” scenarios when partner's 4H bid might be genuine, bending over backwards to pinish them.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you say so…
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't he just tell us?
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being self-serving does not make it untrue.
And, while it is difficult to prove (even to oneself) that one would have realised the misbid without the UI, the fair result is probably to allow “correction”. However, I can see how this “fair” result will cause consternation.

A scenario I used at a talk on UI:
You bid 1NT with 15 points …. immediately realising you recently changed to 12-14 at behest of UK partner.
To your horror, Lefty asks P for strength, and he says (12-14) before inviting with 2NT.
In all fairness, you can accept… but you can't prove it..
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought you were trying to assert that JA's plan not to use the information, as this might be best in the long run, was a “breach of the law” as he wasn't trying to get the best score. But he is, in the long run. But we may be talking at cross-purposes.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is a potential problem. Since arguably, it always matters if it is MOs or IMPs.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm… not convinced.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep. I have seen it done. I am just unsure as to whether is a good/fair idea as it could influence the play of the last hand.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I fancy a 2H from South.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am only able to assess this at a much lower level than yourself.
And at this level, I am puzzled at the reason for the reduction of results that compare your partnership against an entire field to a comparison with another individual pair.
I also wondered if using Match Points took away the need for calculating separate standard deviations in IMPs for every separate board.
You are also looking to “predict results between foo and bar”. Is this your way of talking about having a grading given to each of them (and everyone else) with an explanatory graph - sigmoid or otherwise, that correlates grading difference with a predicted score?
True result vs predicted to test your method, or to achieve updating of ongoing gradings? (Or first the former, then the latter)?
Also, would you plan to start with a “small” series of tournaments, to give you a core of gradings that is then gradually extrapolated outwards to involve the entire bridge community? (Similar to Elo), or does it all come together somehow?
Also, does having “4” make “3” unnecessary?
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HJ: Explanation really good.
One thought.The likelihood of adjusting the score may be a bit more than that.The adjustment being done if outcome “could well have been different” (not something defined elsewher?) might suggest a weighted adjustment even if a nice re-opening double is available, Unless we think they would ALWAYS go down that path.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure about the last manoeuvre re running scores.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or….what if declarer suspected West may have a singleton or doubleton Ace…plays the club four…then replaces it by the King or six of diamonds, depending on what West shows up with…?
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep.
Which is probably why any time that the partnership can gain from some “AI” from the disallowed call, the substitute call was not comparable.
However, the 2H has to be accepted as 27B1A - the lowest bid showing the same denomination. It is worth remembering that this is not “a comparable call”, but a call allowed via a different route.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though if playing 12-14 opening 1NT, and 10/11-12 2NT responses, 2NT response should not be possible as the 12 point response will have been excluded by the lack of 1NT opening (though TD may allow this by the weasel-worded 23A1 “… same or similar meaning…”)
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pair happened to play that the double showed the other two suits… that could probably also be OK, as this extra information keeps it as a subset of 1H, but only if the player has the other two suits.
In the given example, if that was their system, double could not be allowed, as partner would have the extra info that the doubler does not have clubs. So PF's first statement seems precisely correct.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ER: Good point. Though…without drifting into Schr√∂dinger's cat territory, the 5c being an irregularity is entirely dependent on the previous irregularities. You would not look at the auction and say 5c is an irregularity. So the previous poster's reasonable comment that the 5c irregularity was the one that counted I felt slightly simplistic, since the others had to be worked through to get there.
But, as you say, was arguably always an irregularity….even before we opened the box…
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it was probably innocently thoughtless.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep. If you read my comment you will see I employ these points…thus the 5c bid only becoming an irregularity once you have decided it is indeed an infraction.
Oct. 26
.

Bottom Home Top