dustinst22

Thanks for the clarification, Fred. The above hands were in an ACBL tourney. I'll send to support.

You might want to look again. 2 tables led the same spot card and the robot did something different. Here are the examples: http://tinyurl.com/5ublkms http://tinyurl.com/62xgrf7 Both tables played the exact same way (only the KC on trick 1 versus AC which shouldn't make a difference). The rest of the plays were identical. And please don't try to tell me the "subtle" lead of the KC made all the difference and is what made the GIB ruff in this instance(which is the incorrect lead, I might add, since GIB plays standard leads).

Thanks Phil, looks interesting. Looks like it utilizes a 3C bid as I was wondering about.

Thanks, makes sense. I'll add this to what we use. Does anyone play 3C here as showing extras?

K9 AKQJ2 954 K96 With partner opening, it goes (without interference) 1C 1H ; 2C __ What bid do you make here?

See link above, I wasn't the only table that returned the 9.

Yes, I think you're right. Oh wait, someone else did the same :) http://tinyurl.com/62xgrf7 I'll just chock this one up to some glitch.

At my table: http://tinyurl.com/5ublkms At another: http://tinyurl.com/6b7a54u Maybe if I had led the K♣ instead? :) Oh wait, nm. http://tinyurl.com/6e7k7jx

http://tinyurl.com/5ublkms

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.

Say the auction goes (you open): 1♦ (1♥) x (2♥) __ Is 2♠ by opener here simply competing for the partial, or should it show extras? How do you play this? I thought it was to compete for the partial, but my "expert" partner told me I needed reverse values to "free bid" 2♠. Wouldn't 3♥ be a stronger hand in support of spades?

Heh, that's one of the books I always try to get Spades players switching to Bridge to read. Another great one is Card Play Technique by Mollo Grinding out Bridge Master hands until you can do level 3 hands without a problem is a good way to develop your declarer play imo. Of course with Bridge Master you are really mastering "themes" and not all the nitty gritty details of declaring (which are much more frequent than general themes). For gaining proficiency in the "nitty gritty" details I think it just comes down to playing a ton of hands and then reviewing those hands with a player better than yourself. I think learning defense takes a ton of hand analysis with your partner. There are also many good books on this.

Good point, this book is definitely Upper Intermediate to Advanced level. It's also helpful to be somewhat familiar with basic probability (a priori). As you mentioned, there are other books that help in this area and might be better to start off with such as Bridge Odds for Practical Players by Kelsey. Even though this book is only 230 pages, it covers a lot of material.

This is an excellent book. I've been reading Mackinnon's blog for a long time now and decided to check Bridge Probability and Information out as I enjoy his perspective coming from such a strong mathematics background. He's taken a subject which is incredibly dry and made it "readable" for those who are non-mathematicians. This is a very technical book that uses stories to make it more readable. What I really liked is that it helped me in an area I needed improvement -- deducing a picture of the unseen hands using a posteriori probability and good counting methods. Most experts I talk to say this skill is at the top of their list in terms of importance. The author introduces a different method of counting that the reader is probably not familiar with. It took me quite a bit of practice to get used to, but once it became habit I'm able to picture the unseen hands much better. This book requires a lot of work, but well worth it. Probability (a priori and a posteriori) is a very difficult/complex subject for a book to cover in depth, and someone with a combination of Mackinnon's mathematics and bridge background was needed in my opinion.

It seems to me that the majority of books and "problem hands" will typically cover rather unusual situations that don't have a high frequency rate. And while studying/reading these is important for gaining some overall conceptual knowledge, it only accounts for a relatively small % of what makes a great player imo. Playing a large # of hands (against better opponents, ideally) is where you will master the more important and every day nitty gritty details of what makes a superb player. I'm referring to skills like helping an opponent make an error or misinterpret a situation, ability to recognize patterns/situations that come up with high frequency, reading your opponents and table presence, etc. It's often said that the top players aren't necessarily making more spectacular plays than avg players, they simply error far less frequently. This is because they can recognize situations and patterns much more clearly from repetition. These things cannot be derived from a book or looking at problem hands and can only be attained from playing a lot of hands. There's a reason that the majority of the top Bridge players are older -- they've gained the necessary judgment from far more experience playing hands. I know of many players who have an excellent conceptual knowledge of the game and are extremely well read. But when it comes to actual play at the table, the conceptual knowledge doesn't translate well due to lack of experience and familiarity with the nitty gritty details of what makes a good player.

After an auction like 1♣ (P) 1♥ I play it as: X = opening strength 1N = light takeout 2N = Lots of distribution takeout 2♣/♥ Natural With the 2-level overcall obv its different 1♠ (P) 2♦ X = Good hand 2N = Shapely hand, not as strong as above in terms of HCP The cue bids are clearly diff here since both opps are showing 5-card suits instead of possibly only 4 above. I'd take 2♠ as longer hearts and clubs (i.e. 6-4?) 3♦ as 6-4 clubs/hearts or better?

I think if Bridgebase created a place to play spades, and even have a duplicate version of the game that could be a good start. Get Spades players used to the concept of duplicate scoring, then slowly integrate them into the Bridge world. I know if this were in existence right now, it wouldn't be that hard to get a pretty good # of these players to come over. I 100% agree with you. Bridge used to be a game only retirees could play because working people didn't have the time. That was before the Internet. Today if you have time to play spades online, you have time to learn Bridge. And like you said there are 10's of thousands of 20-30 yr olds playing 5+ hours per day. It's that simple. If the ACBL and Bridgebase made a concentrated effort at getting these players, I think it could potentially be huge. The key is to present the game in a way that makes the switch very easy, you almost have to have a version of bridge that doesn't have an auction (i.e. minibridge or as I suggested maybe duplicate spades?). It's the bidding that drives people away. They get addicted by the play. So first get them addicted to the crack, then once they're hooked they can learn the bidding.

My only concern with bidding 4H is that partner might expect I have a weaker preemptive hand and we possibly miss a slam....

Hey Ken, I just recently started reading your book on MICS...a lot of interesting ideas. I also really enjoyed your book on Itallian cue bidding. My partner is set on us using Aunim Club, but I have been unable to find their complete system notes.

I've been trying to source the full system notes for their system. Do you still have these? - Dustin

This post was obviously made with tongue in cheek.

Who is the sponosor for Bathurst?

Looking to form a regular partnership and possibly play in live events (hopefully Toronto). I play primarily 2/1 but can play precision as well. I'd rate myself at advanced level. Looking for someone who can play very regularly so we can form good detailed agreements.

Hey Nick, yes I know -- I was merely using the reduced version. My point is, the comparisons done by Zar have been using evaluation systems with a 4321 metric rather than a variation of the more accurate 6-4-2-1 (i.e. 4.5-3-1.5-.75-.25, 3-2-1-.5, or even a slightly more rudimentary 4.5-3-1.5-1 variation). I'd like to see more comparisons made to evaluation schemes using these ratios. Thanks, I will have to find that in Andrew's studies. I admittedly have not read through all of his articles yet, but had found the comment I posted above regarding honors in isolation being more valuable as counter-intuitive. Thanks for the comments.

Sorry for reviving such an old thread, but I was doing some research on hand evaluation methods and came across this -- a ton of very interesting data here to review. I have a few comments and questions -- hopefully some of the members in this thread are still active and can give some insight to the following: 1) I've noticed all of Zar's published data lacks a comparison with a 3-2-1-.5 HCP value based system. Why is this? The reasoning given thus far is that players don't want to deal with fractions in evaluation. I think we should see the comparisons and then let the user/player decide what's more practical -- dealing with fractions or changing all boundaries to accommodate an entirely new scale. I suspect Zar has already done the comparisons and refuses to publish them because the data would suggest most of the improved accuracy of his system comes from the 3-2-1-.5 HCP values rather than from his distribution adjustments. 2) Have any comparisons been made using BUM-RAP 5-3-1 along with the adjustments that TSP uses (essentially keeping the 4.5-3-1.5-.75-.25 numbers + the adjustments Tysen proposes in TSP). 3) A question regarding adding value for combinations (cooperating values). I noticed in the TSP adjustments, this is given weight: * Add 1 point for every suit that has 2+ honors (including the Ten) This made sense to me, until I read the conclusions Thomas Andrews made in his study: http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/bridge/valuations/conclusions.html Does anyone know what data supports his opinion here: Alex Martelli has noted that cards in combination are worth slightly less than cards in seperate suits, and that cards in long suits are worth less than cards in shorter suits. This appears to be true. This certainly is counter-intuitive and I wonder what specific data backs this conclusion. Tysen seemed to ignore this conclusion for some reason. 4)Have any comparisons been made using GIB single dummy data?