billyjef

Acknowledged. I thought I had avoided that implication, apparently not B-).

I started wondering how much objective evidence we have, if only measured by what wins the most statistically in the bridge world's most competitive events, because of a statement mentioned to me about the Neapolitan's philosophy of "First Double!" which advocates a, what I consider, unbiasedly, a conservative style described by them as a sound system that, "obeys the principle "first double": it's better to punish opponents instead of looking for our own game contract." The only natural system I ever really enjoyed was Roth/Stone because we got to make penalty doubles a lot playing snake in the grass. But clearly, at least to me, the world seems to have decided that opening more and more marginal hands, now to the point where hands with only 3 intrinsic trick expectation, seems to be becoming popular avant-garde, is winning bridge, rather than more sound or conservative systems. I enjoy aggressive systems as well, although I haven't yet been able to grasp opening hands with less than 4 trick expectation. My question is, is this still all anecdotal? Or, is anyone keeping track of which systems and philosophies are winning the bridge worlds most competitive events... Natural vs Artificial, sound vs aggressive, canape vs primary 1st/ala 5-card majors, etc.? If there is a book or site that does keep track of these statistics, could you please direct me to them.

zupey 16 : 47 billyjef https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:eb7e31f7.1101.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1546703555&u=billyjef

Agree to the advantages of gb2nt, not playing it, I think the second hand could be eliminated from the X as well and hands similar to it, i.e. hands with 4+!c, as 3!c bid is reasonable. Suit bids would be shape showing, 12-16 pts. Double = 17+ without stopper. Jef

Barmar 7:26 billyjef https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f80a75c9.0d18.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1546273650&u=billyjef Ty Barmar, thought I blew it on last hand.

heart76 20:39 billyjef https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ed227064.093d.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1545849718&u=billyjef

Nice match, close, thank you Povratnik. Jef

billyjef 25 : 10 sfi https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:be6617da.042a.11e9.a82b.0cc47a39aeb4-1545291724&u=billyjef

Both hands are too strong for preemptive action but not strong enough to insist on game. Choosing the appropriate invitational bid, "partner, if your hand is a trick better than minimum, please bid game," is my vote.

CW: Yes the general scheme does make sense and I have spent many hours working out my own scheme based on spiral ideas, but basically the same. While my scheme leans conservatively, your is a trick more aggressive. Mine assumes declarer has 8LTC, which because our 1NT opener is 14-16, is what they will have most the time. The other difference is we also play semi-forcing notrump over the majors and don't use a combined Bergen scheme to find the 5/3 invitational situation, content to play in 1NT, rather than 3M, as long as we aren't interested in game. So I do think your scheme makes sense. I do think LTC is useful for many, many players, when a fit is known. In fact, with a fit, I will trust my LTC (although I use a modified form of modified LTC now) over reliance on standard evaluation methods, but, as we both agree, with the bottom line being good bridge judgement. Tyler: Hey Tyler, we started working out a 4-card major precision system awhile back but I had to drop away from the world for awhile. Maybe we can pick things up again? I'm actually started playing with another precision player who prefers 4-card major canape style. Regarding auctions helping defenders out, that is always the dilemma, conceal information that might be vital to finding the optimum contract or let it all hang out. I don't think there is a mega consensus except that the concern must always play into our decisions situationally and weighed out as such. I've recently read somewhere, don't know where, maybe it was something you wrote, about the whole constructive raise idea being very helpful to the opponents. I think 1M-2M has always been fertile ground for opponents, but what I read is that it is more risky for the opponents to come in if the 1M-2M are playing 4-card majors and 2M could be made on 3 pieces? Is this the idea you implying and what is your preference for 1M-2M? 2M to be wide open but less than invitational I am guessing? Jef

Precision 5-card major limit opener will have 6-8 LTC, or 4-6 potential tricks, roughly. Responder with only 8 LTC and 4-card support has LAW protection to the 3-level but the 8LTC I think belies the constructive value expected for a Limit Plus raise, i.e. one trick short of game or better. My biggest concern is trying to make an 8LTC artificial raise with only 3-card support that will also force you to play at the 3-level. A simplified breakdown of the Opener/Responder correlations would look like this. Minimum major Opener = 6-8 LTC Responder Game Forcing Bid = 6LTC Invitational Limit Raise = 7LTC Constructive Raise = 8LTC Also, except when responder is looking for slam, and ostensibly, responder is the captain, responder doesn't really need to differentiate between their distributional 3-card and 4-card limit raises, IMO. If responder is interested in slam, then they can use a Jacoby 2NT bid for the 4+carders or temporize with a 2/1 with the 3-carders. So maybe something like: 2M = 3-card constructive Raise, 8 LTC *Opener bids game with 6 LTC 3C = 3+ card distributional Limit Raise 7LTC *Opener bid 3M with 8 LTC and game with 6/7LTC. 3D= 4-card distributional Constructive raise 8 LTC *Opener bids 3M with 7/8 LTC and game with 6LTC The above suggestions are blunt, lacking nuance and finesse, but will provide some success with minimal computation .

Wrong way around, it sounded as if some were trying to imply that it was against the laws for a declarer to call attention to revoke before it was established because by calling attention to the revoke, they'd be giving up an automatic trick reward ;)

The history of laws making revokes illegal is somewhat interesting...originally to officially make it illegal to intentionally revoke/cheat. Then automatic reward of tricks had to be instituted (and reconfigured a few times) because some people realized that they could 'accidentally' revoke and throw a wrench into equity because it was often too hard to figure out what would happen if the revoke didn't happen...thus automatic trick rewards...this OP validates how difficult it is sometime to resolve equitably such situations even with current laws and the multiple paths created by whatifs. Now I hear people telling newcomers to not draw attention to a revoke so that you can get a free trick as a reward, which IMO, is against the spirit of the laws and the revoke laws. Yes there is a loophole in the law that can be legally exploited, does that mean we are required to exploit. I, personally, don't find enjoyment winning in such manner even if it is lawful. What I hear some saying though, and correct me if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't ;)) is that it is illegal for me as declarer to call attention to revoke if I can know that not calling attention to it would give me an extra trick I never would have gotten otherwise, and inflating my score against the field? :rolleyes: Yeah! for online bridge which resolves this messy dilemma!

A benefit for some of us is not winning an automatic unearned extra trick. This is one reason I love online bridge, impossible for my opponents to mistakenly, or otherwise, revoke.

4S in the pass out seat?

I will defer to you as I rarely play rubber, I wasn't aware of the tactic you suggest and I can't argue with it. Quite the contrary. But such tactics change everything. The OP and his pd will have to decide though whether: AKQxxx x xx xxxx 6LTC 1S vs 2S? AKxxxx x xx xxxx 7LTC, 1S or 2S? I have no problem with 1S if pd is in on the suggested tactic and house rules are accepting. To help beginners and novices understand though I think further explanation what makes a hand preemptive as opposed to an opening hand would be helpful. The theory of preemptive hands are that they are hands that often have the offensive strength (which is what LTC measures) of opening hands but lack the defensive and flexibility of standard expectations...i.e. they are good to play only in the suit they are aiming at and offer little prospects to not only play anywhere else but little or no help if the side ends up on defense. This is what allows them to preempt the auction with some safety and providing useful information to partner. I like the Law of Total Tricks as well but it is less accurate and less constructive than other forms of evaluation. One can have the best of both worlds when the partnership knows together when they are making preemptive bids and/or constructive bids. Knowing what bids forward going and which ones are simply obstructive is key.

For social bridge purposes and without getting into all the math and science, which I had started to do until I realized it was way beyond the scope of your query and this forum, an effective LTC matrix based on the assumptions that the opponents are likely to have game would be: Favorable vulnerability, 8LTC for a weak 2 bid. Equal vulnerability, 7LTC Unfavorable, 6LTC Again, this is based on the assumption the opponents can find a game. If they don't have a game, then the above will allow responder to figure out constructively where the partnership belongs. Direct raises to 3x by responder is furthering the preempt. At favorable vulnerability she can have as much as 10LTC and still further preempt to 3. Equal, 9LTC, unfavorable, 8LTC. Direct raise to 4x is anyone's guess, could be furthering the preempt or could be to make. If responder is interested in slam, or some other strain, anything else bid by her, that isn't equal to game, would be forcing. Just remember LTC isn't absolute, like HCP it can only evaluate probability of trick taking strength.

Deal Master Pro is a powerful tool but it uses an older type interface that isn't intuitive and the creator doesn't really support the product anymore due his age. I really wish someone would create a modern, intuitive and supported dealing machine that has the ability to deal with multiple conditions and filters.

In regards to the auction, you wouldn't be exploiting the laws to insure you and your partner get to the optimal place where you would have gotten had the offense not occurred (and let the law work for you if the opponents take advantage of the laws for their own offense to find a sacrifice the otherwise wouldn't as it seems they did in this case). That is why we have the laws, to make sure you aren't damaged by an offense, whether intentional or not. This same spirit is extended to the play as well. The laws aren't perfect and thus open to exploitation. They are created with the assumption that those engaged in the game aren't malicious. The world has seen, within this decade, that that assumption was naïve. That said, I do find it distasteful, unethical and damaging to the spirit of the game when players actively exploit the laws to gain something they haven't earned, won or deserved. The group of people I see do this regularly, in my area, as a whole, as if it is their right, are B players (desperate to gain status). Beginners, novices and happy C players are more often than not, blissfully ignorant. "Real" A players, experts and pro's, want to win on their own merits, not by capitalizing on non-tactical mistakes. So I applaud your conscientiousness. The game needs more people who realize there is a line between where one is being a good sport and lawful and where one is exploiting the law un-sportingly. My advice, regardless of anyone's advice that it is ethical and part of the game to always take advantage of peoples non-tactical offenses for your own gain, that you do so, or not, in accordance with your own conscience.

Bidding again might help them find their slam. Happens frequently against the bots. Let sleeping dogs lie.

What would these bids by opener show after the auction, 1♣ P P 1♠: Double? 1 notrump? Cue bid? Reverse? Jump rebid? TIA Jef

Strongest to Weakest KnR Zar Kleinman Spot 1 1=12.5 1=26 1=12.3 1=12.9 2 2=11.1 2&4=25 4=12 2= 11.9 3 4=11.05 2&4=25 2=11.3 4=11.7 4 3=9.95 5=22 3=11 5=11.4 5 5=9.5 3=21 5=10.6 3=11.2 All 4 evaluators agree hand 1 is the strongest 3 of 4 evaluators agree hand 2 is the 2nd strongest 3 of 4 evaluators agree hand 4 is the 3rd strongest KnR and Kleinman agree hand 3 is the 4th strongest; Zar and Spot say hand 5 is 4th strongest KnR and Kleinman agree hand 5 is the weakest where Zar and Spot imply hand 3 is the weakest

Bump

natali_ 65% billyjef 35% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:3ecef269.deb8.11e7.a200.0cc47a39aeb4-1513026856&u=billyjef

heart76 55% billyjef 45% http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:899a6dcf.df57.11e7.a200.0cc47a39aeb4-1513095272&u=billyjef