+260 ATB

[aguahombre]

Again, there is no such thing as resulting bias in ATB. You are assessing blame for a result, not assessing how bad or wonderful particular actions were --- example...a clown trots out RKC with a worthless doubleton and a void, then bids 5N confirming all the keys. His partner, if paying attention, can then count 13 tricks and does not leap to the grand. No matter what our opinion of the clown, he is not the one to blame for the result.

[Fluffy]

Again, there is no such thing as resulting bias in ATB.

 

Although I mostly agree with you, there is some resulting bias in that people see the result and sometimes forget to realice that the best contract was just lucky, not good.

[chasetb]

Sure. I just don't see why E gets this logic applied and not W, whose hand had some extra playing strength too. Either could have invited and found the hand that was actually opposite or one that went straight down. E had exactly the hand he bid, and was a point under the nominal max. I don't think an extra trump improves a balanced hand so much that it's worth an upgrade.

 

So maybe it's the methods at fault, but a) unless you're playing several artificial bids between a 1M opening and 2m raise the 1M 2M sequence is always going to have an uncomfortably wide range, and b) it seems like the methods should drive the stronger hand to invite at the three level on a wider range than the weaker one, since the weaker one more often has an accept (and complementarily, the stronger one will invite less often).

 

This hand is tailor made for Bergen raises. But if you're not playing them (and I would not do so freely), or anything fancy to compensate, then IMO this is the type of hand on which you should get a bad result as a consequence.

 

I could change my mind as a result of sim data or some arguments that otherwise somehow isolated E on frequency grounds, but so far all the arguments in favour of E bidding more aggressively could as soon be targeted at W.

While West does have good intermediates and decent shape, that Queen looks to be garbage (and is opposite East's hand), and the ♦ suit is WIDE open if you again don't know East's hand. I would give West a bad 16 points, so near the top of a minimum hand, but not enough to make any moves. What West didn't know about was that East had a LIMIT RAISE, something you don't need Bergen raises for. Yes Jinksy, there is a Santa Clause, and he would evaluate the East hand as a good 11 dummy points -> 9 HCP + 1 for Kx (don't tell me you downgrade that!) + 1 (and change) for a combination of all your points located in two suits and having more controls than the expected average.

 

Something else I do is when I have extra trump beyond what a bid promises, I add points. Since 2♥ promises only 3, I add an extra point, and even precluding my second upgrade above that puts you at 11, too high for a constructive raise. I also went ahead and put that hand into the K&R hand evaluator just to see if they would upgrade it - they call it 15.10 while Danny Kleinman calls it between 13.67 - 13.99 . So even I, who apparently over-evaulated the West hand, looks vindicated in not doing anything over 1♥ - 2♥.

[aguahombre]

Although I mostly agree with you, there is some resulting bias in that people see the result and sometimes forget to realice that the best contract was just lucky, not good.

Very true. My rant/campaign ad nauseum is that ATB begins with a result. Determining the cause is not being a "result merchant". We don't need to sell what is already provided free of charge.

 

Certainly, opinions about whether the players' actions were good or bad is valuable input. But, we should be able to attribute credit for a lucky result or blame for an adverse result regardless. The person who made the worst decision is not necessarily the person responsible for the end product.

 

IMO, the bias in these polls comes from being blinded by bids or plays (or systems) which we really hate --- not from knowing the result.