Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 42 43 44 45
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure in practice I agree. I was discarding them from the simulations to try and get 4H making often enough to justify a raise with xxx KQx xxx QJxx
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play double as penalties. Our agreement is doubles over the primary bidder after we balance or they balance. The exception is opener's double after auctions like 1H P P 2C X and responder's double in similar auctions 1H P P 2C P P X.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Of course asking about an individual bid is bad form and conveys UI. Much better if opponents ask about the whole auction, but few do that.”

If all you get when you ask about 3C is “clubs” then asking about the auction is not likely to give you any more information.

While I agree that normally questions about the whole auction are better I am not sure that asking about an individual bid necessarily “convey UI”. Or at least not information that the questioner has clubs. Also the timing of the question may make it more or less likely to convey significant UI.

A question in the bidding or before the opening lead is likely to be more of a problem than a question after partner has led and the dummy has been exposed. But of course there are exceptions.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is very similar to what Groucho Marx said

“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others.”
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume rounded. These numbers came from an excel spreadsheet. I confess I have no idea what excel does and how much cumulative error there is from intermediate calculations.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I made any gratuitous comments about anyone.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, Peg

Yes I know how easy it is to make errors in language. I do it frequently. I published a recent poll on here where I wrote a question that I did not intend to write. As I wrote the previous sentence I had to delete and rewrite because it was going to be ambiguous. Many if not most short things I write I correct before publishing and that is just for informal communications on an internet forum. There are many other ambiguities that I let slide when I know that I could clear them up with a little bit of effort.

I had a professor who was incredibly pedantic. When he graded work he just gave an overall grade with no marks for individual questions but he would have ticks and crosses and occasional comments (at least on my work). Many other students found his style very discouraging. I found it a great challenge. He was tough. For example I submitted one assignment and out of 10-15 questions or so I had two comments that were identical “This is correct but there is a much better way. See the solutions” and I had one place in one question where I had used an exclusive symbol rather than an inclusive one or vice versa - afterwards I could not remember whether I had made an error in logic or just accidentally written the wrong symbol. He graded me “A minus”. That was a challenge to do even better next time.

Maybe it is hard to write precisely when the intention is clear in your head but it should be easy to know that the use of words like “only” in the phrase “showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened” has a very precise meaning. If that precise meaning is not what you intended then it should be obvious that “only” is the wrong word.

If you are writing casually on the internet then imprecision in your language is tolerable if not always acceptable. If you are writing regulations that you want others who may not know your intentions to understand then your words need to be precise. The use of quantitative qualifiers like “only” in imprecise ways should be an immediate red flag.

My previous point was intended to be that when I read the above regulation I do not know whether “only” is intended or a mistake. I might be happy with the regulation as written and so make no comment because I have no idea of the regulators' intention.

When it comes to light that the language is not the intention then the regulators need to take responsibility for that and if the process is too onerous to change the regulation then live with it as written.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike the problem with your question is that when rules are posted people do not know what the intention is. Some might be happy with the rules as written. That is they set a clear boundary only to find out at a later time that the rule makers because of their faulty English meant something completely different.

People making rules have a responsibility to write down the rules precisely as they mean them. Other people trying to follow the rules will be disadvantaged if they prepare believing the words mean what they say only to be told at a late stage that the words were intended to mean something completely different.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes to 9 decimal places
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently I didn't.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the regulation means something other than what is written it should be rewritten.

As written anything that shows length in more than one suit is lawful as it does not show length only in suit other than the one bid.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can use 4-way transfers without giving up 3NT. 3 can transfer to clubs and 4 can transfer to diamonds.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are simple almost linear relationships for the expected numbers of aces, kings, queens, and jacks in a players hand depending on the number of hcp they hold. In consequence there are also simple formulas for controls and other linear combinations of aces, kings, queens, and jacks.

jacks = 1 (independent of the number of hcps)

queens = 0.05 * hcp + 0.5

kings = 0.1 * hcp

aces = 0.15 * hcp - 0.5

These simple rounded formula work surprisingly well for a range from around 5-30 hcp.

Here are the actual numbers (rounded).


hcp aces kings queens jacks tens
0 0 0 0 0 1.444444444
1 0 0 0 1 1.333333333
2 0 0 0.581395349 0.837209302 1.286821705
3 0 0.320197044 0.614778325 0.809852217 1.250574713
4 0.205032945 0.393663255 0.5450722 0.908734053 1.216388616
5 0.291891892 0.477130977 0.708108108 0.984823285 1.170893971
6 0.377549162 0.600294942 0.86090727 0.967103988 1.132682738
7 0.537219219 0.727217348 0.852854697 0.963761686 1.102105228
8 0.686014344 0.818566268 0.885600737 1.029042347 1.0645307
9 0.815997227 0.90688943 1.002639873 1.010063054 1.029378935
10 0.956310529 1.022854197 1.043819925 1.018555446 0.995384434
11 1.131974167 1.108307682 1.059536076 1.028108135 0.963563771
12 1.272090733 1.208178216 1.12239547 1.042311483 0.928336011
13 1.427622531 1.296681293 1.18563323 1.028199535 0.895762601
14 1.592042834 1.396177731 1.204167438 1.034960595 0.863627934
15 1.753277048 1.483387527 1.245899275 1.044930679 0.830278386
16 1.9043844 1.581308408 1.30459392 1.029349334 0.797818215
17 2.067546167 1.67601679 1.334038585 1.033687795 0.765412296
18 2.234136747 1.766156028 1.367113912 1.030757103 0.733537357
19 2.378313337 1.870681721 1.421415999 1.031869489 0.699746606
20 2.542732394 1.963646558 1.462814267 1.012502215 0.668700507
21 2.695381508 2.073284378 1.487551865 1.023517103 0.635585016
22 2.846286923 2.167378907 1.54949949 1.013716608 0.602568675
23 2.984535733 2.289650168 1.59739476 0.998117043 0.570033588
24 3.139997699 2.392879489 1.628776254 1.003818229 0.537169814
25 3.269268318 2.518343129 1.688517926 0.990861489 0.503667682
26 3.387316822 2.643562567 1.76523126 0.98958249 0.468256318
27 3.535355161 2.765218882 1.802092436 0.958737837 0.437621743
28 3.614761729 2.935462006 1.866053079 1.00246091 0.397918031
29 3.734212531 3.039878317 2.005965178 0.931584568 0.365373267
30 3.815384351 3.250191251 2.015841635 0.956205572 0.329153021
31 3.87804099 3.365732774 2.194314212 1.002009294 0.284433637
32 3.94444648 3.574187402 2.333174539 0.833302796 0.257209865
33 3.97137746 3.729516995 2.410733453 1.104472272 0.198211091
34 3.994647636 3.857270294 2.842997324 0.763603925 0.171275647
35 4 3.961538462 3 1.115384615 0.102564103
36 4 4 3.6 0.8 0.066666667
37 4 4 4 1 0
[\code]
Aug. 13
Wayne Burrows edited this comment Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard's site won't load for me.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There does need to be some consistency with the moderation. Some such articles are removed.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that 3 then pass 3 or otherwise 5 if that is to play is a good strategy.

I will check out Ella's suggestion of passing 3 to see if that improves the score.

At the moment I have 5 making about a quarter of the time but 2NT is so bad that it is better to bid 5 than pass 2NT.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did he ask for pictures or is that your assumption?
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some are bots but some are real people.

@Sarah Approaching people you have never met should not be assumed to be an indication of sexual interest. I am sorry but that is bizarre. A friend request on social media is about as innocuous as one can get for an approach.

As I say I have had students, female students, send me friend requests multiple times. Here is one email “This is my new email so we can stay in touch, only if you would like.” This was from a student thirty something years younger than me - a similar age to your daughter. I would not dream that this was sexually motivated or she was creepy. We should treat older men the same. There are many innocent explanations for every sinister explanation and in the end this is an interaction between two adults.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Tom no one has done anything wrong.

If you were concerned you could talk to the director in the first instance.

I have had friend requests from young female people that I do not know well. Should I assume they are hitting on me? I don't think so and I don't think you should assume that if the roles are reversed.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It just lacks one thing for it to be a joke.

It is not funny.
Aug. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 42 43 44 45
.

Bottom Home Top