thepossum

Hi all Thanks for the interesting thread. I'm curious about this conversation and the discussion on Kokish. However what strikes me is that the ranges used by the OP are such as to cause the problem in the first place. Surely what partnerships should do is to choose systems and conventions that do not have a gap in NT auction that could lead to the chance of game being missed with a 25-27pt no trump or slam being missed with 32-33+ points. If this situation can occur then it means that the NT ranges in the bidding system are incorrect. This situation should never occur. I thought most people would consider a 3NT rebid rather than 2NT to indicate 25-27 points I guess everyone plays things differently and it has been highlighted that some partnerships prefer to not go above 2NT with a big hand. In this case surely partner should bid accordingly and not pass on a game force. It cant be played both ways. Kokish sounds interesting but it seems to me that life is being made unnecessarily complicated when all that is required is reasonable NT ranges and an agreement on the quantitative ranges for game and slam However I was brought up on Acol where everything seems nice and simple with clearly defined ranges :) One other thing though, I would hope to always be in a partnership that erred on the side of going down 1 trick in 3NT or 6NT rather than missing out because of a 1 point calculation. So I would always err that way and be rather upset with any partner that stopped by underestimating the potential of their combined hands. That of course is up to partnership agreement or taking the matter of point adjustment into your own hands to reduce risks regards P

Hi all Any chance of improving the chance of making the right call on the Queen of clubs in this unlikely slam in an MPs tourney. I couldnt find a way to improve on 50:50 and missed the unlikely doubleton drop. Please no comments on the choice of a grand. I was aiming for an unlikely top expecting most people to be in 6S. As it turned out most people were only in 4S and 6S would have scored well. One table made 4+3. Sadly I ended up equal bottom on 7-1 rather than a glorious 100% :) regards P [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=thepossum&s=SKQ6542HAJD7CA842&wn=Robot&w=S8HQ64DKQ983CT765&nn=Robot&n=SAT7H2DAJT542CKJ3&en=Robot&e=SJ93HKT98753D6CQ9&d=w&v=o&b=8&a=P1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)2H(Aggressive%20weak%20jump%20overcall%20--%206+%20%21H%3B%204-9%20HCP)2S(Free%20bid%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20total%20points%3B%20forcing)3H(The%20Law%3A%209%20trump%20-%3E%203%20level%20--%202+%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%204-12%20total%20points)3S(Raise%20responder%27s%20response%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%2012-15%20total%20points)P4C(Cue%20bid%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%20%21CA%3B%2018+%20total%20points)P4D(Cue%20bid%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%20%21DA%3B%2012-15%20total%20points)P4N(Blackwood%20%5BS%5D%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%20%21CA%3B%2020+%20total%20points)P5H(Two%20or%20five%20key%20cards%3B%20no%20queen%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%20%21DA%3B%2012-15%20total%20points)P5N(Query%20kings.%20Have%20all%20keycards.%20Does%20not%20promise%20extras%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%20%21CA%3B%20%21SQ%3B%2020+%20total%20points)P6C(King%20of%20C%20--%203+%20%21D%3B%203+%20%21S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%20%21CK%3B%20%21DA%3B%2012-15%20total%20points)P7S(Signoff%20--%205+%20%21S%3B%20%21CA%3B%20%21SQ%3B%2020+%20total%20points)PPP&p=H4H2HKHASKS8S7S3D7DQDAD6D2S9SQD9S2C7SASJDJH5S4D3C2C5CJCQH3HJHQSTDTC9S5DKC4C6CKH8C3HTCACTC8H6D4H9S6D8D5H7]600|400[/hv]

Just F off Hrothgar. You and others have attacked me from day one for raising legitimate issues What I have bewn discussing on other tgreada is total cheating which everyone here seems to condone. Adjusting my NT range occasionally by a point is not cheating. Everybody does that. I have had my concerns ignored, censored, deleted. I have been temporarily banned after everybody else attacked me. You are all just covering up the corruption of bridge, masterpoints and covering up systemic cheating for masterpoints by attacking any mention of it. You always go ad hominem against anyone who raises an issue. You attack experienced players and make out they are ignorant. This place is a disgrace I'm surprised at you. I actually thought you were someone on here worthy of respect. Maybe I was wrong in that assessment You and a few others around here think you own the place and the game of Bridge the way you go around lecturing people, all high and mighty. Well bullying doesn't work on me. I've dealt with tougher cases than you lot in my life. God help Bridge if you lot are representative of the philosophy of the ACBL towards our wonderful game Bunch of cowboys

Yes, that seems to be the consensus view that maybe the times you would consider superaccepting with 3M and 17 HCP, then maybe it was too strong for a 1 NT in the first place. I used to play weak NT too, and find that sometimes a strong NT can cause problems with borderline hands, especially against a cautious partner. As others have suggested and I am considering I may change my NT range to 14-16 with this partner. And/or I will start looking at losers and other factors in the case of a transfer and major fit Its quite interesting switching between the NT/major views of a hand, either as opener or responder I'm very interested in finding ways to evaluate 1NT openers. I've read them discussed on other threads on this site. No trump seems to have fewer methods than suit fits other than quantitative evaluation - even they need to be adjusted a point or two sometimes P

Hi Based on some of the above chat, and trying to work out a method for judging super-accepts in certain cases I ran a few hand generations through Bridge Base dealer About 0.53% of hands are 15-17 HCP 4432 or 4333 hands (any order) opposite a 5+ card spade. No restrictions on points for partner but spades is longest suit. Note these are just for spades and single table orientation, and no interference. Very simplified. And I havent investigated semiBalanced hands Of those approximately 10.3% have 17 HCP and 3 spades - usually do a regular 2S accept 6.8% had 17 HCP and 4 spades - fits the Bergen(??) criteria for superaccept 4.9% had 17 HCP, 3 spades, and less than 7 losers - this was my speculated subset of NT hands with 3 spades and possible superaccept So they wouldnt be common as everybody says. I may try using losers next time I am unsure and dont have a clear superaccept. Even if it is such a small proportion of transfer situations Thanks everyone P

It often chooses the wrong bid. It is based on a completely fundamental flaw in the philosophy and design about how to simulate human bridge play with a computer program. Until this fundamental flaw is fixed robots will always stay in the ordinary category compared to humans. There are many difficult decisions trying to bid to a system. Humans have to be very flexible to deal with them. Even humans struggle with some situations. To expect a computer program to cope with those complex situations where its hand, the bidding, the system, and the potential candidate bids are all in conflict leads to an "incorrect" bid, not to mention the fact that the use of small numbers of double dummy simulations to fill information gaps, and no understanding of human bidding, and no goals (ie knowledge, intention etc). Its amazing it bids so well most of the time. However there clearly is a problem with the number of times it chooses the wrong suit in a preference situation. Maybe sometimes its due to a small simulation sample. I must say the benefit is that my play of hands such as Moysian (and other low trump fit) hands has improved massively over the last year since I started playing GiB

I'm not frustrated Stephen. This thread is not about me. It is about investigating options in NT, major and transfer situations It has nothing to do with me at all. I'm just exploring what options everyone in the world has to evaluate and adjust their bids to reach the right contract It has nothing to do with point count expectations, double dummy or anything like that. We all know double dummy means nothing. Most good players (and me) are not stupid enough to think that is a goal of bidding. What I'm trying to explore is how you accurately and precisely evaluate the most reasonable contract. For example in this case I believe that 3S would be the "correct" contract so a 2S followed by pass bid was fine. However there are 4S contracts that would fall through the cracks because of different guidelines and evaluations used by different partners. In this case it seems that my partner's assessment to pass was acceptable although it probably should have invited with 8 points. regards P

Thx Stephen I think maybe sometime it's necessary to stretch a super accept. I've read sometimes you can superaccept into a different suit? Or I would need to adjust the opening bid P PS I guess part of the problem is what I mentioned higher. Evaluating NT hands. It seems there aren't the same kinds of methods available for evaluating NT hands (in NT or suit contracts) in the same way there are for suit fits. The hand that prompted this was a hand that would likely have resulted in 3S if bid as a major contract, despite having 25 points between the hands. Therefore the bid of 2S (+2) was correct. I think North evaluated the bid correctly. However it prompted the question about what the options are and what kinds of hands could lead to a superaccept. I know the theory is 4+ M but I'm thinking there are certain hands where it could be stretched to a 3M bid with only 3 trumps. Maybe they are few and far between. The hand I had, was 17 HCP, 3343, 3 of the major, and 7 losers. Suppose you had a 17 HCP no trump hand with 6 losers and 3 of the major. Does such a hand exist. And if you have such a hand is it likely to be too strong for 1 NT

Hi Hrothgar If I put up a specific hand people will concentrate on that and the bidding by specific players rather than addressing the general question I asked which is what options are available other than completing a transfer You have alluded to some options, implying that there is no obligation to accept a transfer of other options may be preferable or available. Suffice to say that the hand I opened was a 3343 hand with 17 points and I play 15-17 NT. I may post an example later. The only alternative opening bid would be 1D with the hand I had. It was flat, KR only 16.9, Pavlicek gave it 18. Gib had 8 points 5224 shape I should have considered a 2NT invite. I did not think you can superaccept with 3. Is that an option, to superaccept with just 3 or even 2 if you want to force. Note, almost everybody missed out so score was flat. However it should have reached invite stage. Curiously those who bid game went down 1 and those in 2 made +2. One of those hands I'm considering playing a flexible 13-16 NT range with Gib. However you have to be careful since it can't always accurately count its points in quantitative situations. :) I guess what I'm also alluding to is trump contract evaluation after a 1NT and transfer. If partner opens 1S and I have 3 then I generally can evaluate game potential quite easily from losers, winners, points. After 1NT and transfer which could be very weak it is hard to evaluate so responder has to interpret the 2M or 3M accordingly. Using other hand evaluation methods how do we choose our transfer acceptance accurately, 2M, 3M or something else Regards P

I just had a hand in an IMP tourney where I accepted a transfer with 17 points and partner GiB passed with 8 points. Clear chance of 3NT or 4S in an IMP tourney Therefore against GiB it often pays not to trust it Things working out on average mean nothing if you arent even given a chance of going to game by partner, unless they are really weak. And its not about double dummy. Its what any normal person would bid :(

If by psych you mean it ever grossly distorts the strength or shape of its hand then the answer is yes. However use of the word "psych" suggests a level of cognition that I'm sure it does not possess. So the answer is no

Even if they do. Not allowed to mention it eh :) I'll be more careful about upsetting powerful people here in future. I'm used to it by now. They always get upset on whichever forum it is. Goes with the territory :)

Arent there situations where if you bid 1NT with a 5 card major and few losers that it is risky to just accept the basic transfer or is that covered by the super accept and should it then be ruled out by not bidding a good hand 1 NT in the first place. That is if you have a hand that you think could go to game over a transfer, then do not bid 1NT, bid 1M P

Hi all There seem to be rare cases where it may be necessary to ignore transfer bids. I'm familiar with super accepts with am maximum or 4+ of the major. However I have occasionally been left in 2M when game was clearly on. Is it legitimate to ignore the transfer in this case and bid something else - eg NT, a different suit, invite or even jump straight to game in some situations etc P

Could be almost anything depending on what you regard as the possible contracts Well if you reckon you can get to game with a total of 22-24+ (depending on shape), and partner has 15-17, work it out from there whether to leave in 1NT or raise to 2NT. Note I have gone to game (not directly) on a total of 20 or fewer points. It depends on your hand. But depending on how partner treats quantitatives I am careful. A lot. I couldnt paramterise it but its about the look and feel of the hand and whether you upgrade or downgrade I vary all bidding depending on all parameters including type of scoirng, stage of tournament, how Ive been going earlier, whether I need a game or not to do well, how I think everyone else will bid I think everyone's comments above make sense to me Edit. And of course everything also is adjusted and depends on my partner, their style, and our agreements and understandings You are welcome P

One thing I know for certain after 40+ years (in my case) of climate change awareness, publicity, research, debate, policy (or lack of) is that its one of those topics that should probably never be discussed in polite company along with religion and politics Some people will never accept scientific evidence above what they experience unless it confirms their beliefs and experience. Also, some others will never accept the fallibility of research process and that some proponents of action over the years have been rather aggressive in pushing the issue and attacking people who do not understand science. I will go so far as to say that many scientists do not understand science and the fallibility of their methods. The good ones do (eg professors), but there a lot of ordinary ones in other areas of society who can cause problems with lack of full knowledge of what they are talking about. There is a distinct arrogance among a certain group in society, especially the more educated academic research types who like to talk down to less educated people. There is also an arrogance from parties on that side of politics towards the more ordinary working person. It happens all the time. Although those less educated are often manipulated by those with agendas and knowledge on all sides of debates. The result of all this is people like Trump or the equivalent in different countries It has also sadly connected up with the conspiracy theorists and anti-government, anti-elites movements. All issues are combined into one big consipracy The majority of (good) researchers keep doing their work and despairing 1) how it is communicated, 2) how it is interpreted or misinterpreted and 3) over many things I guess However sadly, the level of scientific communication around the world is seriously flawed and often is filtered through journalism (and now social media - the main form of infomation now) by people with no real scientific knowledge at all Conclusion Climate change will never be fixed. Its like King Knut trying to mythically stop the tides. The scientists will keep producing evidence. Some people will try to make good policy. The conspirarcy theorists will never believe and will keep attacking. There will be misleading information from both sides (including sadly the more informed). There will be continuing arrogance by the educated elites agaisnt the less educated and consistent manipulation of everyone by vested interests. Meanwhile the majority of people and businesses and governments of good faith will gradually continue to improve things through their personal decisions, choice,s market. People are already decided on a reduction of emissions around the world and act accordingly irrespective of the debate and the misinformation Thats life and history. But I sincerely doubt anything humans do can halt anything as major climate change including the anthropogenic part of it. Human's still havent realised that some systems are bigger than us Regards P

Thanks. I did consider double but thought maybe I had to be stronger for the double than the 1 level overcall. Any other bid than pass would likely end in the same result in this case I think. I'm wondering if the opponents of the team that bid differently (ie passed) had a different meaning for the opening bid (eg precision) Would people get upset with a pass or is it close enough not to upset anyone

Hi all Recently playing with a regular partner (not GiB) with E_W GiB. We were playing vugraph archive team games and this hand had an intersting bid by one of the teams, which may have raised some eyebrows from their opponents but I thought was a smart bid What would you bid. Both vulnerable, IMPs I didnt take long to consider the options and regarded it as an overcall 1D but ..... what are the other considerations in terms of balancing, hand evaluation, risks etc. Clearly you would only make a part score etc. Its a very ordinary hand but most advice I read online and hear about balancing is that normally you would balance?? regards P [hv=pc=n&s=sa82hq72dq7653c73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1cpp]133|200[/hv] PS On the subject of Vugraph, I was rather pleased last week to notice that one of the team hands we played was against Hamman and Soloway, Katz and Jacobs, Cohen and Berkowitz etc and their teams many years ago. That's a nice feeling :)

Its hard for me to discuss all the pros and cons I see with the EU and how it has changed. It would take pages but here a few thoughts.... The Eurozone economic system is dominated by a few big economies and has stood in the way of many countries managing their own economies to take account of their specific issues. There are many good areas of cooperation between EU countries in terms research, environment, human rights, trade etc. However much of the bureaucracy is unnecessary and expensive. I think ideally it should be reformed and trimmed. Also, anyone who knows about the EU knows about the level of wealth and luxury the bureaucrats have, all paid by poor workers and businesses in member countries. The biggest danger I see is that the extreme leave debate has been hijacked by fascism and Tory self-interest rather than the interests of the people. But many people in the UK (and other countries) totally missed out on the benefits. Certain regions and classes benefit much more and the ordinary worker and many businesses do not see the positive aspects. I hoped the UK remained in EU but I understand why people wanted to leave. I think a loser union with smaller central bureaucracy and control would be good PS Is an expensive European parliament really necessary. What do they actually do except live it up on their big salaries and banquets every night

Hi all I'd had a few too many whiskies, was playing South with a regular partner against GiB using Vugraph archives The following hand came up. I would be grateful if anyone can explain East's bidding to me. I considered doubling 2D but thought better of it and then dummy appeared on the table Does GiB drink whisky? regards P PS Ignore the apostrophe in my thread title. I do know English spelling and grammar. I just have a form of computer dyslexia with typos - occasional disconnect in the head - like GiB really. So don't pick me up on that. I know what people are like on the Internet and many of those would play Bridge :) [hv=pc=n&s=sajhj97da9765c852&w=s76hat3dkq42ckj73&n=sqt32hk6djt83caq4&e=sk9854hq8542dct96&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d1sd(Neg%20dbl%204%2B%20H)1n2cp2dppp]399|300[/hv]

Thats cruel :)

Thats good news. Sorry I had deleted my post after sfi found where it was, since I thought my post was no longer necessary :)

Not sure if NT is balanced or semi-balanced and how strong N and S are for their bids but in order C D (essentially identical to C) H S Hoping for 3 or 4 tricks Not much difference between C,D,H but spades seems consistently worst option according to basic sim. It does vary considerably if opener can have a semi-balanced hand As you hope for more tricks the difference between those leads increases But clearly it would help to know more about the meaning of all the bids and how partner would interpret the lead. But its looking like a good old doubleton is best Edit Thats a shame, the "answer" was just posted while I was working it out :)

Thanks everyone 2D would indeed have been a good bid since up to 4D was possible (and therefore 2/3D was safe), assuming of course opps dont bid to 4H which is what they will do in this case. I think either of us should have made an escape bid but clearly I could see the danger more than North so should have made the escape plan, despite North having the good hand :) So even with a very weak hand it pays to escape a low level redouble like that I guess

I've been checking my duplicate scoring table to work out how to bid those in future. Even 1H xx shouldn't be left in without overtricks really. I guess we could bid and end up -800 but the heart game is more likely. Better for them to bid it than be redoubled into it with an insult (do you get an insult in duplicate?) Thanks for the advice