A short challenge, but...

[kenrexford]

[deleted because I agree in retrospect with jdonn.]

[awm]

All this illustrates though, is that it's much easier to reach the best contract when one person is looking at both hands from the comfort of his own computer screen... than when two people are looking at their own hands under the pressure of a major championship.

 

It's not particularly hard to bid to the top spot using Fred's methods either when looking at both hands; the fact that they didn't manage it (under the pressure/fatigue of a major championship) is not particularly relevant.

 

In fact I'd say it's more relevant how rarely these things come up at all, given the number of hands Fred played in Estoril.

[jdonn]

This thread is really tasteless.

[kenrexford]

Of course you are right.

 

However, it seems unimpeachable that my audction is easy as hell on both hands. There is no judgment issue. On the first, we know that there is a diamond hole. On the second, 13 tricks in 7NT is easy to count. No fudging. Nothing.

[hrothgar]

Of course you are right.

 

However, it seems unimpeachable that my audction is easy as hell on both hands. There is no judgment issue. On the first, we know that there is a diamond hole. On the second, 13 tricks in 7NT is easy to count. No fudging. Nothing.

No offense Ken, but your post is a load of horse crap.

 

You can't compare double dummy auctions when you are bidding both hands to single dummy auctions.

 

I see two reasonable options for a fair comparison:

 

1. My preferred method would be to see you define an algorithm that describes your system. You claim that there is no judgment involved... You should be able to describe a complete and deterministic rule set.

 

2. In practice, I suspect that option 1 would require far too much work. In this case, the only real alternative is some kind bidding contest (Ideally, this should be done with some kind of proctors)