Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is the quoted “available” from?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am also aware that if you explain your methods by reference to dealer scripts, or K&R point counts, or a wide variety of other things that your opponents do not understand, that is your problem not theirs. ”

All I am saying is that if your explanation is comprehensive and in accordance with the regulations then if the opponents do not understand then that is their problem.

Accuracy is the standard of disclosure not whether or not some particular opponent happens to understand.

I would expect that one could reasonably ask for additional information about dealer scripts and K&R point counts since I do not believe they are general bridge knowledge.

The claim I was responding to is that “non-expert opponents are entitled to disclosure they can understand”.

There is no law that says that. And there is a law that says you are not entitled to any redress if you do anything based on your own misunderstanding. That surely means if I accurately explain my methods and my opponent does not understand and misplays, misdefends, or misbids based on his own misunderstanding that is his bad luck and not my responsibility for not teaching how to play bridge or understand an explanation.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I very much agree that having some mechanism to collect data is critical.

I have my own preferences on how this might be done, however, in some ways I consider this to be secondary to collecting and collating data.

I find it extremely depressing that the power that be don't seem to understand the importance of this sort of issue.”

It is plainly stupid that we play a game based on information and after playing a hand we throw away that information. That leaves the only record in falliable memories.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would prefer a technology that read the played cards in real time. I think existing technology would be adaptable to recording bids and cards played by reading the cards as they are played in a similar fashion to electronic chess boards reading the pieces as they are played. This would have the advantage of reading not only the bids and cards played but also recording tempo.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard what you describe is precisely why I think there is a problem with this method. Using a Monte Carlo simulation and double dummy data for suit contracts does not give an ordered list of hands so that one can determine the ten best or worst. The problems are numerous: A hand might be better for a suit and worse for no trumps or vice verca; double dummy will misrepresent some hands; the best contract (fit) might not in practice be obtainable.

To have a metric that we can order hands we would need single dummy data determining a score with every possible layout considered. This is in practice impossible.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But if he learns that 25% of the time 1NT is made with an upgraded 14 HCP, that means that there's still a 25% chance that the other defender has a jack.”

Probabilities do not work like that.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not minimum balanced opener.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does Richard's algorithm determine which hands are better or worse than other hands? As far as I am aware no such metric exists.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 21A “No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding”

If my opponent misunderstands an explanation that is their problem.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where do the laws or regulations say that opponents are entitled to disclosure that they understand?
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what precisely is the metric to determine the ten best and ten worst hands that you have opened 1?
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is too much emphasis on a priori frequencies. In some sense such frequencies will always be misinformation unless 100% of all hands in the appropriate range are treated as such. The relevant frequencies to a player are the conditional frequencies given the hand that is held. Obviously the explainer cannot give that information directly without knowing the opponent's hand. And the opponent cannot calculate the frequency just from a priori frequencies unless there is something like true independence with distribution or any other characteristics of the hand. Or unless disclosure tells you precisely which hands in the entire population of hands that the opponent would opponent.

Disclosure based on a method of judgement like hcp will always be flawed except for when playing the Walrus and other strict hcp counters. Moreover there is a fundamental problem when judgement is allowed to be used in that you should be allowed to use your good judgement and I should equally be allowed to use my bad judgement. Since there is no universal measure of such judgements then we will never be able to communicate accurately precisely how our judgements are formed - again unless we communicate how we would open with every single hand in every single circumstance.

In addition there might be other factors such as I might be willing to open some hands against some players but not against others, or in some situations but not in others. There are an infinite variety of circumstances and I or rather my partner can't in practice tell you all of that information even if she knew it.

Fundamentally your system agreement is an agreement with partner not an undertaking to the opponents. However obviously we cannot say 15-17 and then open all 14 counts and probably not a significant number of 12 counts with the 15-17 bid. Yet there needs to be some general understanding and expectation that 15-17 is not a binding contract.

Whatever the boundaries they need to be objective to be of use. If we did not throw away so much information in this game we might be able to check whether for example 15-17 was an accurate measure or whether this player or partnership opponent weaker hands with too great a frequency for 15-17 to be accurate.

Frankly I do not think that there is such a satisfactory objective standard for disclosure and there never will be.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After a negative double on the auction 1m (2om) I play 2M is reasonably wide ranging and 3M is forcing - around 16+ depending a little on which minor has been bid by us, 1 2 we still have the two level available in diamonds so the negative double can be a little lighter and 1 2 we force to the three level or 2NT if opener does not have a major so a little more strength is required for double.

Therefore we do not bid 4M in response to the negative double. Perhaps as Andy suggests above that should show 5-6 in our suits.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have not been a player of support doubles in my main partnerships. However in my most recent partnership we play support doubles. The catalyst for this question, which i might write up separately, I was not involved in. It involved some UI.

It seems mistakenly I thought that if the bidding went

1 Pass 1 2
Dbl Pass ?

That I should somehow be able to scramble for the best spot if I did not want to play a 4=3 heart fit and in particular I could bid 2 when 4=4 in the majors and weak. The converse is that after the support double we cannot find a 4-4 spade fit unless responder has extra values.

This related to the problem at the table where responder was forced to cue with a good hand which seems to neither deny or promise five hearts. Then after

1 Pass 1 2
Dbl Pass 3 Pass
3 Pass 3

there was confusion about whether 3 was natural or a slam try in hearts.

The cue-bid is needed not just to establish a force but to explore for 3NT when responder has no stopper. The cue is almost always uncomfortably high especially when our suit is hearts and the overcalled suit is diamonds. It will often be ambiguous whether responder is slamming in hearts or scrambling after no stopper has been found.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is completely wrong to suggest that someone who complies with the laws is not acting in a sportsman like manner. Complying with the laws is ultimately sportsmanship.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because 4 is more hideous.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And many more would not alert according to the poll in the opening post.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Frances “All I would take from this is that if I played 2♥ as natural non-forcing in this sequence, I would be certain to alert it in future.”

Why? The regulations still say that non-conventional bids should not (be alerted). The WBF has still not designated this a special partnership understanding as per Law 40(b) and why would they it is easily understood by anyone playing a world championship at the very least.

The ruling is directly contrary to their own regulations.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David there is a false equivalence with a procedure that is mandated by the RA such as the form of an announcement and whether a player varies which hand the cards are held in.

The cheating methods that have been discovered are as far as I am aware mostly very simplistic. There is an array of things that are not mandated or a subject to variation that could be used to send signals. Just because those things exist does not mean that we should allow players to vary from what is mandated in other aspects of the game.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You conflate telling your opponents what you play and alerting. Alerting is not full disclosure. It is merely a mechanism that prompts for disclosure.

On the other hand a non-alert is also not full disclosure it only says in the case of the WBF policy that the bid is in most situations natural or rather not conventional.

If you assume additional information from an alert or failure to alert then that is your problem if you turn out to be wrong.
Aug. 27
.

Bottom Home Top