Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mark Pope
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our memory is not strong enough for different offenses(?) to all the possible 1NT defenses. This is similar to Larry Cohen's advice linked by David Loeb above. We are however lazier than Larry; he prepares a special defense to 2C showing the majors..

Here, we play good old Lebensohl with 2M natural, and 3M staymatic with stoppers depending as always on fast versus slow. Suboptimal but we don't forget (hopefully - we have to remember that unusual vs unusual is OFF once we open 1N!)


Feb. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks!
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the nice article - very interesting bidding system and auction.

I don't quite understand how Cenk knew you didn't have Q? I guess I have missed an inference. Or possibly a third denial cue-bid ask took place in real life, but is missing from the auction diagram.
July 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 7C: Returning Cards to Board
After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to hiscompass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present.
Aug. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that the consensus view was that all signalling systems are essentially equivalent?

Kit's suggested system uses six of the spot cards to send a suit preference message. Standard odd/even uses only five. So Kit's system will find it easier to send a suit preference message, but correspondingly more difficult to encourage. Standard will be vice versa.

If one chooses to have more spot cards sending suit pref messages, playing odd/even but with the understanding that the 9 spot is “even” and suit pref high seems to be clearly equivalent to Kit's suggested system.
July 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think Jeff Goldsmith posts on BW, but some of his Bridge Without Sam articles touch on this point. For example http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/html/goals.html. In summary, in a hearts (us) vs clubs (them) auction, he has the agreement that a leap to game bars partner from further action, guaranteeing leaper the option of a penalty double of their potential further competition.
Oct. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand the last paragraph.

I disagree with the second last paragraph. For example using Bridge World notation 7=3=2-1 vs 7=3=3-0, the answer should come out to 3.55 as before.

So, IMO, P(7=3=2-1) = (1.8808/4!)*2 = 0.1567, P(7=3=3-0) = (0.2652/4!)*2*2 = 0.0442. As before, 0.1567/.0442 = 3.55.

The disagreement seems to boil down to what is P(7=3=3=0). I believe P(7=3=3=0) = 1/12 P(7-3-3-0), not 1/24 P(7-3-3-0).

how do you write the square brackets?
Aug. 14, 2013
Mark Pope edited this comment Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I have certainly read a system description which claimed that inv+ raises reduce competition. The argument was that the opponents have to be careful about going for a number on a partscore deal. However, I cannot remember which system description this was, extremely frustrating!! I very much want to compare and contrast with WJ2005 / whatever the consensus in this thread ends up being.

Perhaps someone else knows which system description I am referring to?

On a separate point, the dutch have I believe been playing inv+ raises in and out of competition for years, I don't have a good reference though, sorry.

July 25, 2013
Mark Pope edited this comment July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jassem's book on WJ2005 also discusses this issue, mentioning the forcing pass questions raised above, and also the differing aims of game auctions (communication may help the opponents) and slam auctions (need to communicate to accurately place level/strain). The WJ2005 approach (separating inv and GF raises) was stated to be an improvement over the WJ2000 approach (inv+ raises).

Anyway, he said it better than I can: http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/WJ2005webpage.htm
July 25, 2013
Mark Pope edited this comment July 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No question, but big congrats on USA1, very well done.
June 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice article, thanks. Very game theoretic. See also the discussion of “tainted information” in the comments of Kit Woolsey's article “Battlefield Decision”.
June 7, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top