Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 ... 81 82 83 84
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bobby: “it requires their need to employ a large number of violently different defenses”. I agree, but that is valid for lots of other conventions too. Even though Multi-2 is very common, I know not many who have a dedicated defense or against Tartan also not uncommon around here. With one of my non-regular partners I play Ekren (not my favourite, but I usually play whatever my non-regular partners want). In my QUC 2/ are either weak two or a strong 2-suiter with /. This is not because I want to have an unfair advantage, but we do profit from the unfamiliarity every now and then. So if we want to avoid advantages from unfamiliarity we should ban a lot more systems and conventions. But consider: even the now familiar systems and conventions only became familiar because the were allowed to be played.
@David: Despite the rules of full disclosure, which we do not have in chess, the analogy is still valid. I do not see a principal difference, merely a higher level of challenge.
Feb. 1, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Calculating points (not hcp!) is only a means to estimate the trick taking power. The main goal for my analysis was to fine-tune hand evaluation. The number of hcp in a 5crd suit is taken into account but not the secondary effect as Kit suggests. Adding this as an additional factor may further improve hand evaluation, but also complicate it. K&R for example is too complicated to calculate in a reasonable time for most of us. Another problem is, that the more factors you include, the larger the necessary database is. Of course no hand evaluation can do without listening to the bidding and adjusting accordingly. We may find out about a missing stopper and avoid 3N or opps bid and I upgrade/downgrade honours. These things I cannot take into account in my analysis. For suit contracts I have simple rules to guess who will be dummy in order to calculate dummy points.
Jan. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Ron the Greatest. Just shows how far back my high school days are.
Jan. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Loius, you may be right. NBB has 117.000 membets from 17 million. Iceland would need only a bit more then 2.200 members to beat the Dutch. They surprised us at soccer this year, who knows maybe they will be their successors as world champions;-)
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gonzalo, not necessarily balanced, but without an 8crd M-fit. The regression analysis assumes a linear relationship between tricks and “my points” (basically Kleinman points plus length points depending on suit quality). 25 points equals 8.5 tricks. I assume to make 3N with or without overtricks half the time. I realize that this is not 100% correct. I plan to do another analysis on how many tricks I get with 23, 24, 25, … points, but I need a lot more data for that and getting the data from the internet in my system is time consuming. If you are interested in the results feel free to send me your email-address, but I don't know yet when I will find the time to go the next step.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There already was a major change and I'd like to reverse it. The reversal may also include the increase of penalties for downtricks, the VP-scale with an accuracy of 0.01 and yes even alert rules.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The approximation from analysis is #tricks=1+0.3*points for NT. It may seem that you always get 1 trick, but like K&R my points can be negative. The deviations betwenn my formula an the (DD-) reality is larger at the lower and upper end. It is a pretty good approximation in the area where it matters (8-10 tricks). With an 8+crd-fit you can add one trick.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Close enough. My regression analysis of several thousand hands results in 0.3 expected tricks per (my) point.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This part of the discussion is absurd. If I open 1 I propose a contract to make 7 tricks wit as trumps. This is independent from the system. I could pass an artificial 1 (maybe I have been woolgathering and didn't see the bid). If 1 is doubled, the stakes are doubled (only true for the first undertrick, but it is the original meaning of double). If I pass there is no contract and there are no stakes that can be doubled. Consequently double of pass is not and can never be possible. Quad erat demonstrandum!
Jan. 30, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the Dutch are second and relative to the number of inhabitants the largest.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did play at a club where our system was frowned upon and I have been asked to refrain from psyching. At the club where I play now we can play whatever we like, but some find our alerts confusing.
An example: 1M-2M in our system is a bit stronger then usual (8-11) so we dutifully alert. One time I tabled my 8 points and was asked (without reproach!) why I alerted a perfectly normal single raise. The lady would have balanced without the alert.
Jan. 30, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You cannot compare D.I. with Turbo. Using Turbo you show odd/even #KC. D.I. doesn't tell about #KC, it shows (declares) that we control all suits and asks (interrogates) about features not already shown. I can bid D.I. if I am not sure to have 12 (or 13) tricks even if we have 4 (or 5) KCs. Of course responder to D.I. may expect a certain number of key cards depending upon the bidding so far. A rough guide is to expect 0/1/2/3 KC if the range is 0-7/7-11/12-17/18+.
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Benoit and add that I have become more sensitive to these kind of defensive situations after reading Kit's book on partnership defense.
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I have posted in another thread an analysis has shown that blasting with 9 and passing with 8 is a long term winner compared to inviting with 8-9 (and I did take upgrading into acount).
But what about this hand? First of all it is closer to 9 then to 8 according to my hand evaluation. Secondly there is the chance of having a 4-4--fit where my doubleton gives some extra value. I would bid 2 with the N-hand. If you play pass/blast and bid Stayman followed by 2N, you were hoping for an M-fit where your distribution could tip the scale, otherwise you would have passed 1N. As a consequence opener will only bid 3N with a full maximum.
Jan. 29, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Dyke is surely joking:-))
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew that the granularity would be a problem to some of you, sorry for that.
I deliberately did not include level-dependent answers. If you play a complicated system you should play it as often as possible. If I can play it only at a limited number of top events, I will not have enough praxis to achieve good results. Of course any club game can have its own rules.
And yes, I do realize thst a poll amongst BWers is not representative for the entire bridge community.
Jan. 29, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Going by your profile I suggest Dutch.
Jan. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peter: Glad you warned me before I finished the immigration papers:-)
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the variety of bidding systems in the 70s certainly didn't stop me from playing, quite the contrary. I do realize however, that it will be necassary to “protect” beginners (but not top players!!!). A friend of mine organizes games for beginners. He is there and they can ask him on the bidding or play even during a board. It helps them to grow more confident and prepare them for the more serious club games and maybe even tournaments later. If I decide to give bridge lessons in my club, I will do the same after the course. I think there should be clubs with restrictions and without. We have two club tournaments a week and I wouldn't mind having one with and one without restrictions. However I long for the old days, where there were no restrictions on creativity.
Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a German based Dutchmen and have never been in Australis, but what I read from various posts is that FP is allowed in Australia.
Jan. 28, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 ... 81 82 83 84
.

Bottom Home Top