2/1Gitleman

[dburn]

And mathematically speaking, there are over a thousand sequences available between 2S and 4S

Over how many?

 

Mathematically speaking, the number of uncontested sequences starting with bid 1 and ending with bid n (bids from 1♣ to 7NT are numbered from 1 to 35) is [Fibonacci number n+1] (the Fibonacci series, for non-mathematicians such as myself, is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21... where each term is formed by adding together the two preceding terms).

 

For example, there are eight auctions starting with 1♣ and ending in 1NT ("bid 5", and the sixth Fibonacci number is 8):

 

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT

1♣-1♦-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♦-1NT

1♣-1♥-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♥-1NT

1♣-1♠-1NT

1♣-1NT

 

The number of sequences starting with 2NT ("bid 1" when the last bid was 2♠) and ending in 4♠ is thus the same as the number of sequences starting with 1♣ and ending in 2NT ("bid 10"). The 11th Fibonacci number is 89, which is the number of sequences available between 2♠ and 4♠. I have a truly marvellous proof that 89 < 1000, which unfortunately this text box is too small to contain.

 

Besides, a couple of pages ago I showed all of you how you could play both cue-bidding and pattern-showing in these auctions, and you didn't take any notice. Obviously you are all ignoring my views because I am not a talented player and I don't live in Washington. It's an outrage.

[dburn]

Ignore the foregoing - it was complete rubbish. The Fibonacci numbers have only to do with how many relay sequences you can have given that you start somewhere and responder to the relays isn't allowed to bid beyond somewhere else, while the relayer always makes the cheapest available bid. The word "relay" should therefore have appeared between "uncontested" and "sequences" in the original post; that it didn't is what I believe mathematicians call a "function" of the number of glasses of wine I'd drunk before posting.

[bhall]

And mathematically speaking, there are over a thousand sequences available between 2S and 4S

Over how many?

 

Mathematically speaking, the number of uncontested sequences starting with bid 1 and ending with bid n (bids from 1♣ to 7NT are numbered from 1 to 35) is [Fibonacci number n+1] (the Fibonacci series, for non-mathematicians such as myself, is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21... where each term is formed by adding together the two preceding terms).

 

For example, there are eight auctions starting with 1♣ and ending in 1NT ("bid 5", and the sixth Fibonacci number is 8):

 

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT

1♣-1♦-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♦-1NT

1♣-1♥-1♠-1NT

1♣-1♥-1NT

1♣-1♠-1NT

1♣-1NT

 

The number of sequences starting with 2NT ("bid 1" when the last bid was 2♠) and ending in 4♠ is thus the same as the number of sequences starting with 1♣ and ending in 2NT ("bid 10"). The 11th Fibonacci number is 89, which is the number of sequences available between 2♠ and 4♠. I have a truly marvellous proof that 89 < 1000, which unfortunately this text box is too small to contain.

 

Besides, a couple of pages ago I showed all of you how you could play both cue-bidding and pattern-showing in these auctions, and you didn't take any notice. Obviously you are all ignoring my views because I am not a talented player and I don't live in Washington. It's an outrage.

Ah, but it's not just the sequences that end with 4♠ we need to consider. Every bid between 2♠ and 4♠ (inclusive) may either occur, or not. Some will not include 4♠ because 3N is passed out, others because 4♠ is bypassed in slam exploration. There are, in fact, 2 to the power 10, or 1024, such sequences. Plus their continuations. Including the one in which none of the 10 bids appears, because opener jumps to 4N or higher. And the one in which all of the bids appear (whatever that may mean).

 

I am not suggesting that every one of the sequences can be given a unique, and useful, meaning. I did it with the 32 sequences between 2M and 3M, but filling this larger space would be a monumental effort in efficient information exchange.

[dburn]

And the one in which all of the bids appear (whatever that may mean).

Funny you should mention that. Only today I was commentating on an international match, and East-West solemnly bid:

 

2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT-3♣-3♦-3♥-3♠-3NT.

 

Down one, with 4♠ cold. It seems that whatever bids may mean, sometimes they don't mean enough.

[paulg]

And the one in which all of the bids appear (whatever that may mean).

Funny you should mention that. Only today I was commentating on an international match, and East-West solemnly bid:

 

2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT-3♣-3♦-3♥-3♠-3NT.

 

Down one, with 4♠ cold. It seems that whatever bids may mean, sometimes they don't mean enough.

Kokish strikes and means that the weak hand plays the contract when they hold spades.

 

In the CBAI-Scotland match, neither pair was so affected but, bizarrely, had Puppet Stayman auctions where responder bid the 4-card major that he/she held thus ensuring that the weak hand, again, played the contract. At least they were in spades though after 2♣-2♥-2NT-3♣-3♦-3♠!!-4♠

[whereagles]

I have this agreement, which puts emphasis on RESPONDER, not opener:

 

1M 2x

2y 2M = slammish. Pls bid values if you're also interested in slam or 3M otherwise. If opener does bid 3M, responder can still press on with a cue.

 

1M 2x

2y 3M = no slam, as far as I am concerned. If you're interested in one, just go ahead and cue.

 

This may waste a bit of space when responder is 11-13 or so, but sure simplifies the issue of where do we belong, making the "should opener bid shape/strength/cue" issue a bit moot. It also makes serious/frivolous 3NT redundant, allowing for the bid to be used as choice of games or trump cue.

[kenrexford]

Quantitative bash calls like described work well when the playing strengths of the two hands is not fit-dependent. However, I find it rather difficult to assess "slammish" or "non-slammish" as early as some want to make that assessment.

 

Consider these two hands:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣KQx

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Axxxx

 

Both have bare minimums for the 2/1 GF auction. Each has a long suit that is Ace-empty. Each has a wide-open suit. And yet, each has a lot to say. If you quantitative bash these hands, you eat up valuable space.

 

Suppose, for instance, a technique where the auction can start 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠. Great start if allowed systemically. Lots of space.

 

If Opener can cue clubs twice and Responder can show great trumps, the slam should be easy to bid. However, if Opener bids 3♠ to show "a minimum," two things are lost. First, Responder can never cue spades to show good trumps. Second, Opener can never cue both of this club cards.

 

I'd much prefer the ability to show contextually serious interest at a late point rather than "gee whiz maybe" serious interest immediately, because of issues like this deal.

[mike777]

Quantitative bash calls like described work well when the playing strengths of the two hands is not fit-dependent.  However, I find it rather difficult to assess "slammish" or "non-slammish" as early as some want to make that assessment.

 

Consider these two hands:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣KQx

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Axxxx

 

Both have bare minimums for the 2/1 GF auction.  Each has a long suit that is Ace-empty.  Each has a wide-open suit.  And yet, each has a lot to say.  If you quantitative bash these hands, you eat up valuable space.

 

Suppose, for instance, a technique where the auction can start 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠.  Great start if allowed systemically.  Lots of space.

 

If Opener can cue clubs twice and Responder can show great trumps, the slam should be easy to bid.  However, if Opener bids 3♠ to show "a minimum," two things are lost.  First, Responder can never cue spades to show good trumps.  Second, Opener can never cue both of this club cards.

 

I'd much prefer the ability to show contextually serious interest at a late point rather than "gee whiz maybe" serious interest immediately, because of issues  like this deal.

Object. :)

 

Strongly prefer 3c rebid by opener not 2d. Does not promise extras.

Then 3s rebid by responder..slam try.

[kenrexford]

Well, that objection might work for this deal.

 

Tweak 'er slightly.

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣KQ

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AJxxx

[mike777]

hmmm:

 

 

1s=2c

2d=2s (3 card slam try)

3c....etc?

[kenrexford]

hmmm:

 

 

1s=2c

2d=2s (3 card slam try)

3c....etc?

If 2♠ was a slam try, then we have the same start (almost).

 

The post to which I was responding suggested 3♠ rather than 2♠, which causes the problem.

[mike777]

hmmm:

 

 

1s=2c

2d=2s (3 card slam try)

3c....etc?

If 2♠ was a slam try, then we have the same start (almost).

 

The post to which I was responding suggested 3♠ rather than 2♠, which causes the problem.

I forgot bidding shape I may not be allowed to bid 3c...not sure what I bid.......

[han]

Consider these two hands:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣KQx

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Axxxx

I think 6S has roughly 46.74% chance of making after a heart lead.

 

With Arend we would bid 1S-2C-2D-4S-pass and be done with it (2D showing a minimum). You'd have a long cuebidding auction and I don't doubt that you would be able to figure out that you are missing both black jacks and sign off in 4S as well.

 

On how many hands will you gain because you find two balanced 13-counts that fit perfectly and make slam great, and on how many hands will you lose because your long cuebidding auction reveals so much that the defense is more accurate? That is a very tough question and I don't know the answer.

[kenrexford]

Consider these two hands:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣KQx

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Axxxx

I think 6S has roughly 46.74% chance of making after a heart lead.

 

With Arend we would bid 1S-2C-2D-4S-pass and be done with it (2D showing a minimum). You'd have a long cuebidding auction and I don't doubt that you would be able to figure out that you are missing both black jacks and sign off in 4S as well.

 

On how many hands will you gain because you find two balanced 13-counts that fit perfectly and make slam great, and on how many hands will you lose because your long cuebidding auction reveals so much that the defense is more accurate? That is a very tough question and I don't know the answer.

Obviously the chances are better without a heart lead. Plus, the information exchanged might include the shown values at a minimum, but more may be held, like Jacks, 10's, etc. The question in bidding is occasionally not whether the double dummy slam will be percentage but whether the slam on the information known to date will be percentage. Fine tuning gets us a more reliable bit of information.

 

Perhaps this could be restated.

 

Take the alternative example, suggested to Mike777:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣KQ

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AJxxx

 

Obviously, if Responder could discover that Opener has the spade Ace, diamond Ace, and club King-Queen, Responder could feel very confident in the slam. Bash bidding would suggest 27 HCP, plus two distributional points, for nowhere near slam.

 

However, suppose now the first example:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣KQx

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Axxxx

 

Bash tells us 26 HCP's, but maybe 27. Either partner might have a black jack, or perhaps a few bleck tens. The person making the ultimate decision might be able to use LTTC to bump the auction. But, suppose that this is not possible.

 

Nonetheless, if we know what is laid out but have uncertainty as to Jacks and 10's, we know that the slam is "46.74 if partner lacks reserves. If we have them ourselves, then there is not an issue. So, we assume not.

 

Each black suit has five "x" cards, unknowns. Each suit has five "x" cards in the opponents' hands. Thus, in each suit, partner has a 50-50 chance of having the missing jack. Not having either occurs about 25% of the time.

 

Using simple 68% for the 3-2 split, multiplied by 68%, you get that 46%. However, it seems that you also make on 50% of any of the first suits splitting 4-1, same for the side suit. 14% more each way is .82 time .82 or 67.24%.

 

Thus, in 67.24% of all auctions where the final decision is made by a partner who does not see a black jack but knows all of the info provided in the example, the contract will make. If you add in 10's being well-placed, .855 seems on, for 73.1%. If you add in well-placed nines and dropped stiff Jacks or Tens, you do even better. I'll bet you approach 75%.

 

So, a slam will be a 75% proposition when one partner knows the information provided by the cuebidding when the location of jacks is unknown.

 

What if the lack of jacks is known? Well, just the tens seem to make the odds roughly 71.5(75.5) = 51%. Adding in nines makes it even better.

 

Thus, the point is not whether the two hands fit for slam as shown. The point is that, when you know at least this much information and cannot know whether partner has added Jacks, 10's, and 9's, the odds of thebid working are above par.

 

Of course, the five-level is known to be fairly safe, and this allows many auctions to resolve the tertiaries, if you want.

 

The BIG point is that preemptive bashing seems bad when you cannot easily know your attitude until some exchange has occurred.

 

To what degree information exchange wins out in a cost-benefit analysis is more difficult to assess, and what specific situations call for aggressive description and what call for non-disclosure equally so.

[whereagles]

Quantitative bash calls like described work well when the playing strengths of the two hands is not fit-dependent.

 

(... etc.)

If that was a comment to my idea, then I can say the following.

 

While it is true that showing shape is the top priority in bidding, it is also true that showing strength is also important. If you use 3 levels of bidding just to show shape, you won't have much space to show strength afterwards. That's why I prefer to show the basics of shape, followed by strength, so that one gets the level right before it's too late.

 

Sometimes 2/1 gets a bad name because people put too much emphasis on shape. They end up on hopeless slams or missing cold ones. I've seen it happening over and over again, even at top level. Some players have realized the problem (Fred's articles show he was one of those) and invented mitigation techniques, such as serious 3NT or last train, but those merely hide the fact that the strategy followed is wrong.

 

This is also a criticism of Fred's articles, by the way: too much shape hides strength and that IS a problem.

[kenrexford]

One nice thing about immediate cuebidding is that increasing the ability to show values inside specific suits, or lack thereof, does also obviously carry a rider message of overcall strength. In other words, the more that you can cue, the more that you have in total strength. The morethat you must skip over, the less you have in total strength. As you mention, whereagles, pattern bidding speaks somewhat to distributional strength but not well to overall strength.

[ASkolnick]

Cuebidding vs Shaping Out.

 

Very Interesting thread. I happen to be one of the few who had been have been playing cue-bidding at low levels for years with one partner and have not found a problem with it, even though some partners I play with prefer shaping out.

 

I have no idea which is theoretically better, but I do believe no matter which way you play it, I can't believe there will be any significant statistical difference since judgement and good play will override the bidding as well. If I find a terciary squeeze to make 6 and get to 6, does that make the bidding better? I also don't believe a 24 board match will prove anything either way.

 

As for Fred, I lose a lot of respect for people saying "Because I said so, or the expert next to me said so". I have not read Ken's book or claim his theory is right or wrong, but there is no reason it can't be right. Many people can come up with excellent systems who may or may not be that good (Not trying to offend you Ken) at actual play. You have never heard of a great coach who was a so-so athlete? Actually, it usually is the so-so athlete who becomes the coach since he knows he can't necessarily do it on talent alone, he is the guy who may not run really fast, but will hustle down the first base line on every play. Or even though he is not really fast, will steal the base when the pitcher isn't paying attention. That's the coach which says "I understand my players can't be your players straight up, so I have to figure out how I can get a theoretical advantage." So, I would say it is more likely for the superior system to come from an OK-Good player than the expert player because there is more of a need.

 

As for the expert community, it seems to me that they don't always agree among themselves. Isn't that what the bidding articles are for in the Bridge magazine? If the expert community doesn't even always agree with what's right, how can you say I will go to the expert I trust? There may be other experts who make an entirely different bid. Does this make them wrong? No, just a differing of opinion.

 

I tend to play around with systems I like as well. I run simulations and sometimes I will prove my hypothesis wrong, but I am at least willing to test my theories or other theories, rather than assume the expert is always right. I am sure there are many conventions which are now mainstream because someone took the time to prove that their system or conventions (Stayman, Blackwood) were more useful than the bids used at the time.

[han]

Take the alternative example, suggested to Mike777:

 

♠Axxxx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣KQ

♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AJxxx

 

[skip] Bash bidding would suggest 27 HCP, plus two distributional points, for nowhere near slam.

If you are trying to insult us then you are doing a good job.

[fred]

As for Fred, I lose a lot of respect for people saying "Because I said so, or the expert next to me said so".

Well excuse me, but I think there is a big difference between "because I said blah" and "because my experience suggests blah".

 

One day several years ago I had some hand like the following (the exact hand doesn't matter):

 

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

 

My partner opened 1NT (range doesn't matter) and RHO doubled for penalties. Whatever I did (I forget and it doesn't matter) I did, but I did not have any strong convictions that my action was right.

 

So I gave the problem to a much better and much more experienced player than me: Jeff Meckstroth

 

His response was something along the lines of:

 

"If you are doubled in 1NT and you are thinking about running, my experience strongly suggests that you should run"

 

I suspect that if I asked him "why?" the best answer he could give would be something like:

 

"Because I have seen this situation many times and my judgment suggests that I would have lost more IMPs had I sat for 1NT doubled".

 

I suspect that if I asked him "why?" again he would look at my like I was an idiot, walk away, and not be inclined to answer any more bidding questions from me in the future.

 

Whether or not I am right about how Jeff (or any other very successful player) would have responded to these whys is not the point.

 

The point is that such answers, even though they do not constitute "proof" are meaningful. There may not even be any "right" answers to questions like "should I run from 1NT doubled?", but if there are then surely it is the case that a strong opinion by a random top player is more likely to be right than the best guess of a random less experienced player.

 

And the more top players to have a given strong opinion about a given matter, the more likely that this opinion is "right".

 

Wouldn't you prefer to have an answer that is likely to be right than no answer at all?

 

Ever since this incident, when I have been in this situation I have thought back to what Jeff had to say and I have followed his advice. After such hands I tend to think about what the result would have been if I had Passed 1NT doubled. Now I can say that my experience also suggests that Jeff is right (big shock).

 

I don't know *why* he appears to be right and, frankly, I could care less - if your goal is to win the bridge tournament then it really does not matter that you understand everything that you do. What matters is that you make the most successful decisions that you can.

 

This is just as well since many things in bridge are too complicated for anyone to really understand (unless perhaps they want to devote a massive amount of time and effort into something that is likely not important, may not be solvable at all, and for which sound advice rates to be easily available).

 

Great players do not necessarily know all the whys. One of the things that makes these people better players than the masses is that their internal software for remembering, categorizing, and drawing conclusions about bridge hands and bridge situations tends to be better.

 

This software does most of its processing at a subconsious level. I can't explain how this works, but that doesn't mean it is not real. It is real and the more data you feed this software (ie the more experience the player has) the better it works.

 

If you have little respect for bridge players who draw conclusions based on their experience, then I believe it is likely that you will never come close to realizing your potential as a player. There are simply too many things in this game that you can only learn by asking better players what they think (or maybe playing a TON of hands yourself and using your judgment based on this experience). In many cases the only way that the experts will be able to rationalize their answers will be: because it seems to work for me.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

These situations seem a bit different to me. I expect if you asked Jeff Meckstroth why to run from 1NTX, he could easily say something like:

 

"I've been doubled in 1NT many times, and found that I usually get better results when I run rather than when I sit."

 

Since Jeff has obviously played a lot of hands, probably has been doubled in 1NT many times, and is good at judging his results, his opinion is very valuable.

 

But with regard to cuebidding methods, I don't think you can say:

 

"I've been in cuebidding auctions at the 2M level many times, and have found that I usually get better results when I pattern out rather than start to cuebid right away."

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that you don't have extensive experience cuebidding in this auction. Further, Ken's suggested method isn't "normal" cuebidding and you've suggested that you don't even know the details of what his method is, much less have experience playing it and reaching poor contracts because of it.

 

This seems more akin to asking Jeff Meckstroth is Zeta Diamond a good system? He has never played Zeta Diamond, never played against Zeta Diamond, and has no idea what the system entails. So despite the fact that he's a much better bridge player than almost anyone else, he's unlikely to have an informed opinion. And if his opinion is "No, it's terrible because I haven't seen anyone play it" and every other expert you ask has much the same opinion... well... that's hardly useful since none of them are really informed about the method. Now obviously this doesn't mean Zeta Diamond is a good system (in fact if you take a random bidding system that someone made up, chances are good that it's lousy) but I'd certainly trust a random expert who has, say, read the Zeta Diamond notes over one who hasn't. It seems that some decent players have at least partially endorsed Ken's book.

[bhall]

Learning by the seat of your pants (i.e., from bitter experience) is not the best way to approach deep questions about the game. It is too tied to the particular circumstances that give rise to each result. Even among excellent card players, it becomes difficult to separate out the factors affecting the consensus opinion, but easy to go with the herd.

 

Simulation can be just as poor a guide. The very slow convergence of Monte Carlo estimates of relatively unlikely outcomes means that most conclusions drawn from typical results of limited-length simulations are premature. If not grossly misleading.

 

Thorough analysis of bidding options may be unattractive and time consuming, but when it can reach a definite conclusion, we actually understand why. I value that understanding much more than any tournament success. (I'd better, as I don't have that many of the latter.)

[fred]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that you don't have extensive experience cuebidding in this auction. Further, Ken's suggested method isn't "normal" cuebidding and you've suggested that you don't even know the details of what his method is, much less have experience playing it and reaching poor contracts because of it.

I have significant experience bidding. I have massively augmented my own bidding experience with that of others by doing things like reading the Master Solvers Club, reading World Championship Books, paying real attention to what I see on vugraph, discussing bridge (and actual listening to) better players than me...

 

Some of my bidding experience, be it imparted through actual play or via the experience of others, involves making decisions in slam auctions.

 

Even though I have zero experience "cuebidding" in the auction in question, I am (or at least I think I am) able to extrapolate from other similar experiences. For example, perhaps my internal bridge software has concluded that "in a potential slam auction with certain properties, it is more useful to have one extra piece of information about partner's distribution than it is to have one extra piece of information about partner's specific controls (or lack thereof)".

 

I am not consiously aware of my brain having come to this conclusion (or any of the many other conclusions that might imply "natural is better than cuebidding in this auction"), but I am certain that I *know* more about bridge than I am consiously aware of.

 

I am certain the same is true of everyone else out there too :)

 

No doubt some of this *knowledge* is wrong, but I am willing to back my own judgment (or that of other who have judgment that I respect) especially when my judgment suggests it is not really close. As a practical matter this seems to work.

 

If Ken insisted "it is best to play that opening 1 of any suit promises a void in that suit and undisclosed strength" wouldn't you be willing to back your bridge judgment that this was a bad idea even if you were unable (or unwilling) to prove it? Would you need to know the details of the rest of the system in order to make your decision? Would you have to actually play this system in order to make your decision?

 

You are correct that I know almost nothing about Ken's specific methods. As such I have been careful not to draw any conclusions about the merits of these methods from a bridge theory point of view.

 

I expect to read Ken's book one day. Maybe then I will offer my opinion on what I think. Even if I don't like Ken's ideas, for sure I expect that my opinion on the "natural vs cuebid" question will be more informed after I have read Ken's book.

 

But for the record I have found it useful to listen to opinions of players I respect, even if such opinions are uninformed with respect to experience in the area of bridge in question.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[ArcLight]

Off Topic!

 

> have significant experience bidding. I have massively augmented my own bidding experience with that of others by doing things like reading the Master Solvers Club, reading World Championship Books, paying real attention to what I see on vugraph, discussing bridge (and actual listening to) better players than me...

 

 

I was thinking of buying the Master Solvers disks from Bridge Base. But only if they are genuinely useful for improving my bidding, as opposed to curiousity pieces. Are they "excellent" for learning bidding/evaluation of a decent Intermediate level player?

[ASkolnick]

"You are correct that I know almost nothing about Ken's specific methods. As such I have been careful not to draw any conclusions about the merits of these methods from a bridge theory point of view.

 

Yet you did by stating you would rather listen to other experts than him.

 

 

I expect to read Ken's book one day. Maybe then I will offer my opinion on what I think. Even if I don't like Ken's ideas, for sure I expect that my opinion on the "natural vs cuebid" question will be more informed after I have read Ken's book."

 

So now you are backtracking and making the statement that your opinion is uninformed.

 

This is sometimes why I have problems with experts. Its the arrogance that I have a problem with.

 

A courteous expert would not have dismissed Ken's theory, but would have said:

 

A) Let me take a look. Maybe there is a point of validity to his theory or although that's not quite right, maybe I can use point X for something else.

 

:) Maybe its not a bad idea, but I am comfortable with what I am using now. There may be multiple schools of thought and I am more comfortable with School A than School B.

 

C) I have at least looked at it and it really does look like a crackpot theory (Not saying it is Ken) because of Point A, Point B etc.

 

D) I don't have time to look at it since I am busy doing something else, I can't look at every person's possible theory. Therefore I won't make any comments on it.

 

If someone took the time to do A-D, then maybe you wouldn't get panned.

And if I ask someone "why should I do x?", most experts would have a reason. I would bet if you asked Jeff besides personal experience, you can continue the questioning "why would a suit contract be better than NT?". "Well, the reason to run xxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx is you have 0 tricks in a NT contract, at least in a suit there is potential for a 4-4 fit, ruff in a suit etc." So, accepting "because I said so" at face value still seems silly.

 

Anytime I have had the time to ask for why do you do something, most experts would give me the reason.

 

I forgot who the expert was. For example, he held KQ98x of a suit and led the Q. I was curious why not low? He explained to me that it depended on who you believed had the 4 card suit. I am trying to remember if its on your right its one way, left other. But the point was, the expert did explain his reason. Not because "I said so".

 

We were in the Schenectady area when Lynn Deas was around and we were just learning and we asked if there was a problem raising a preempt with a singleton and the response was "The problem is if your partner has only a 5 card suit, and I know you guys do." Once again an explanation, not a because "I said so"

 

I am not asking an expert to give me every reason for what he does, but even if he can't come with theory, he might say Here are two hands of what happens if you bid it one way versus the other. So, yes I do expect an expert to give me a reason "Why x may be better than y"

[fred]

"You are correct that I know almost nothing about Ken's specific methods. As such I have been careful not to draw any conclusions about the merits of these methods from a bridge theory point of view.

 

Yet you did by stating you would rather listen to other experts than him.

 

No you are wrong. My statement does not imply that Ken's methods are either good or bad.

 

 

This is sometimes why I have problems with experts. Its the arrogance that I have a problem with.

 

A courteous expert would not have dismissed Ken's theory, but would have said:

 

 

I happen to think your manners leave a lot to be desired too, but I think it would a better use of your time to take a course in basic reading comprehension and leave charm school for another day.

 

I have never dismissed Ken's theory.

 

I have never claimed that "I know I am right".

 

I have never claimed my opinion is a fully informed.

 

You are reading things into my posts that are not there and are not true.

 

Welcome to the list of forums posters who I will not respond to anymore. Have a nice life.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com