Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep agree.

One should be aware of the “logical trap”:

We formed our signal-hypothesis from our data set, including the boards Kit used.
If we then try to prove that hypothesis with the just the same data set, then the argumentation will be somewhat circular. And we wouldn't quite have proven as much as we thought.

To overcome this we would prefer to have multiple examples of each signal (to establish a pattern).
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Varying sounds quite hard to me. One still have to play bridge also and make sure that every signal is made in a relaxed and unsuspicious way but yet in time for partner.
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with the “boiling down.”

It is replacing the rules criteria (normal play) with a home brewed one (acts that someone *who?* would not be surprised *how?* to see).
July 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cute, but leading the wrong king to dummy's trump is within the normal imo.
July 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Making 7. Not overruffing is not a normal play.

Too much energy is (as usual) used on guessing what declarer was thinking. Obviously we can't know, and the rules don't tell us to try. Instead the ruling should be objective:

#1 Does declarer's stated plan (including what is implicit in the concrete situation) deal with the obstacle?

Easy: No. Trumps should be mentioned specifically, and nothing he says indicates a planned trump coup. So we proceed to:

#2 Will declarer go down on any normal line of play?

What is normal is a law standard, which includes something pretty bad. But we are not supposed to compose stories like this player will maybe play without looking at the cards or the like.

We only need to consider what is within the normal. It is in my opinion not reasonable to say that “normal” includes all types of mistakes ever seen. Not overruffing is not normal imo.


The Danish Laws commission has issued an interpretation for Danish tournaments of what is “normal” in various situations.
http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/lku-20.htm#s3-6
Example 3.6 and 3.7 will tell us that the ruling would be making 7 in a Danish tournament.
July 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Voids are extremely important. We need a bid/sequence for a gameforcing raise with a heart void. Or this random guessing situation will come up again and again.

I don't understand the 2 excursion. We don't even have a club suit.
April 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kxx, KQxxxx, KJx, x is worth 4 imo.

I concede that slam still might be >50%, but I think it is percentage to pass 4.
Feb. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chuck,

South has no unauthorized information.
So South can bid as he likes, including passing with a max and a huge club fit.
Feb. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
/end thread.
Feb. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the 5N bidders think it offers a choice between three strains?
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't see in OP's scheme the way in which he intended to place the hands designed to be described.

Look at the sections about “partitions”.

But I agree, of course, that we can reduce the use of the Fibonacci numbers to just telling us the number of sequences theoretically available. And then proceed making the relay structure as we like it to be without using the suggested partitions.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Jean-Pierre

“Fibonacci strucure” is when the replies are grouped as described by OP.

OP has said that some very good players' systems seem to ignore the Fibonacci grouping strategy. I tried to give examples of why this makes good sense, and why the Fibonacci structure is not necessarily more efficient.

It is an important point that good system construction is NOT just about: ‘I have 38 different hand types I want to show, how can I mingle the replies most efficiently so I don’t exceed some security level'.

Rather, asker will want the information to come in a steady stream, so he can decide if he wants to ask more or maybe do something else (bid something natural or place the contract).

Obviously if some bids are unused that's a flaw.
The security level is a relative thing, it typically depends on what the reponder is showing.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice the Fibonacci structure might not be ideal.

Sometimes it might be better to accept that a reply could take us some steps higher than necessary. Say if the highest steps are very infrequent and show something well defined and good for a high contract.

What we gain by not using a Fibonacci structure is to be able to proceed immediately to the next question after a low step reply, instead of having to split up the partitions.

That might give us better overall bidding economy - if the responses are far from equally frequent and not equally useful.

I play Viking Club. It doesn't have a fibonacci structure, but it is a general principle in the system that step 1 is the most likely reply etc. when practical. So we have a lot of sequences where PB makes a step 1 or step 2 reply and PA can proceed with the next asking bid immediately. I doubt that a Fibonacci structure would be better.
Feb. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Make a neutral bidding poll among peers and see, if some would actually bid 4 and a significant part would actually consider it.

Then it is a LA, and we can foist it upon West (since it figures to lead to disaster).

As is often the case, a TD LA problem is best solved by posing the hand as a bidding poll and noticing the answers and comments.
Dec. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No
The rules tell us that we may not choose a bid suggested over another LA by the UI.
Those rules apply even if we have announced our intentions on national TV.
The idealistic thought that UI must not change the bid is sympathetic but wrong according to the rules. And impractical too btw.
Nov. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intentions are irrelevant. When we recieve UI the rules tells us to do what we got to do, even if that means bidding differently because of UI.

Intentions are rarely final anyway, so I don't see that as a problem.

With the given hand I find 4N pretty insane. Why take a unilateral save at the 5-level with good defense, having bid twice, without partner could do anything.

Why 4N btw and not just 5? We have bid diamonds twice already. 4N sounds like longer diamonds with a lousy 4 carder in clubs catering to partner having a huge fit in Clubs - where we want to insist on diamonds otherwise. That is not what we have.

Only active action here worth considering is the flexible double. But that is surely illegal after the UI.
Nov. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Often underestimated is that unnecessary reservations are actually damaging for the opponents - obscuring the issue.

All those “he might have forgotten” … “we have just changed” bla-bla-bla can be good and correct. Sometimes, as an exception. If the right answer is “elephant” we should say “elephant” and nothing more!

There are angleshooters out there who are able to construct a disclaimer for just about any explanation, especially if the full (= unconditioned!!) explanation will give away the hand. Some of them might even be telling themselves they are active ethics.

Just meant as a point before we get carried away with the circumstantial stuff.
Oct. 20, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The range for 1N-overcall w/w at mp should systemically be lowered a good full point from standard. At these specific colours+scoring we must do all we can to get the contract. Playing that we pass 14 that can't double is losing I'm sure.
Aug. 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the format is very good. A possible change would be to extend the tournament with a KO stage for the top 4 to decide the medals. I'm not in favour of having KOs for the 5-10 placed or something to determine the qualifiers. They might instead play an extra RR with full carryover.

Please don't degenerate this tournament into some big “qualifying swiss” - the format I find worst among all formats I know of.

It is VERY sad that the #boards have been cut down so dramatically. In my first Europeans in 06, we played 640 boards. This year is was only 416, a full 35% reduction.

We need the boards to reduce randomness. For instance Monaco needed only 3 imps more in their match against Israel to take gold. It is all so close, and the event is only held every second year and is supposed to be the EBL flagship. At least bring back 20 board matches.
July 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Roger

You are suggesting so many “what ifs”, “assume xxx”, “at least some amount of doubt”, “without clear evidence to the contrary”, “what if they had wine for dinner” etc. underway, all to help the same side … that I feel it is a bit like claiming 0.5 + 0.5 = 2 because here we only like to operate with whole numbers and must round everything off …

Bridge problems (including TD/committee decisions) are judgement calls without 100 % solutions, and your argumentation could probably warp any decision to the absurd/extreme.

My point is not to claim that the TD decision was absurd. Instead I just diagree with your reasoning process.

TD should evaluate the case in a fair way for both sides, and IF it then looks like about a tie THEN he could go ahead and resolve it in favour of the nonoffending side.



You say that we could just do our duty and alert. It is a fallacy. The alert rules are very far from clear. And often it is also very far from clear what agrements we really have and what are just assumptions. Everyone will make “disclosing mistakes” regardless of their good intentions.



It is not the right approach to assume that the alert-recieving part is like a helpless 1-year-old with closed eyes and open mouth waiting to be fed with a spoon, and that he could rightfully cry mama if he gets vegetable mash instead of banana. It is a part of the game that we have to seek information ourselves about the finer system details through questions. So the responsibility is shared.



I do agree that we shouldn't call N a liar. It is very tough to be objective in bridge right after a bad board. Often “hopeless whiners” (good expression, Bart) are just not being objective. But I think we all know that certain players are chronic hopeless whiners, and they should be educated and told, when they are indeed whining out of line.
May 19, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top