[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-31, 09:55, said:

I have finally worked out Nige's scoring system. It is the system that is often used to score boxing matches - the 10 point must system. As I understand it, in the 10 point must system both boxers start out with 10 points in a round. If one of the boxers wins the round, the score for the round would be 10-9. If one of the boxers really destroys the other (but not a KO), the score for the round would be 10-8. The reason I worked this out is that Nige awarded 8 points to a 1♣ opening bid on this hand. Since I consider a 1♣ opening on this hand to be truly horrific, he must be using the 10 point must system.

Eagle123's hand is ♠ 4 ♥ J 3 ♦ K J T 5 ♣ K J T 7 6 5.
No bid is ideal. I would open 3♣. Pass might work. 1♣ is quite reasonable, however -- a rule of 19 hand with reinforcing honours in the long suits and a couple of tens to spare. I guess some players would regard 1♣ as automatic and it might well work, in practice. When I post a bidding question, I often fear that I took the wrong action and I want to know how bad others judge it to be. A marking-system is an attempt to provide that kind of feedback. For example ...

• 10 for the action you'd choose
• 5-9 for other actions that you consider might work.
• 0-4 for actions that you don't think would work.

I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2014-December-31, 11:07, said:

Eagle123's hand is ♠ 4 ♥ J 3 ♦ K J T 5 ♣ K J T 7 6 5.
No bid is ideal. I would open 3♣. Pass might work. 1♣ is quite reasonable, however -- a rule of 19 hand with reinforcing honours in the long suits and a couple of tens to spare. I guess some players would regard 1♣ as automatic and it might well work, in practice. When I post a bidding question, I often fear that I did the wrong thing and I want to know how bad others judge it to be. A marking-system is an attempt to provide that kind of feedback. For example ...

• 10 for the action you'd choose
• 5-9 for other actions that you consider might work.
• 0-4 for actions that you don't think would work.

I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts.

Rule of 19! The rule of 20 is bad enough. Now we are down to 19!

[daffydoc]

IMO to use a suit bid as anything but natural and forcing just complicates things. So a jump which has no natural meaning should be used as an asking bid for controls. daffydoc

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2014-December-31, 11:50, said:

Rule of 19! The rule of 20 is bad enough. Now we are down to 19

Shock! Horror!! The criterion for some modern partnerships is "Rule of 18" !!!

[the hog]

nige1, on 2014-December-31, 11:07, said:

Eagle123's hand is ♠ 4 ♥ J 3 ♦ K J T 5 ♣ K J T 7 6 5.
No bid is ideal. I would open 3♣. Pass might work. 1♣ is quite reasonable, however -- a rule of 19 hand with reinforcing honours in the long suits and a couple of tens to spare. I guess some players would regard 1♣ as automatic and it might well work, in practice. When I post a bidding question, I often fear that I took the wrong action and I want to know how bad others judge it to be. A marking-system is an attempt to provide that kind of feedback. For example ...

• 10 for the action you'd choose
• 5-9 for other actions that you consider might work.
• 0-4 for actions that you don't think would work.

I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts.

Which expert would open 1C? I would award 1C a big fat zero.

[nige1]

the hog, on 2014-December-31, 19:15, said:

Which expert would open 1C? I would award 1C a big fat zero.

That is the Hog's prerogative but he ignores a reliable prediction

Nostradamus said:

In spite of sims by Pavlicek the seer,
Openers become weaker, year on year.

Happy New Year 2015!

[GrahamJson]

Whether you open 3C or pass is a matter of style and partnership agreement. With an unknown random partner a pass could not be criticised.

Having opened 3C the best route to a slam is a simple one; 3C - 6C. A more scientific one is likely to make a spade lead odds on, in which case the slam is not a great one.

[razorsharp]

If you open 3C, you should gird your loins and be prepared to REBID 4NT if opps steam & scream into 4S (maybe even 4H?) THAT will surely stun the viewgraph audience!!
But for me, I'll put my money on opening 3NT (we play NUMNUTZ, so that = 1-suit 4C OR 4D preempt(6-7 winners at these colors), saving 4C & 4D openers as strongish 4H & 4S pumped-up "preemptz".
3NT still gives you a chance to play 3NT, you gotta admit!

[cherdano]

nige1, on 2014-December-31, 11:07, said:

A marking-system is an attempt to provide that kind of feedback. For example ...

• 10 for the action you'd choose
• 5-9 for other actions that you consider might work.
• 0-4 for actions that you don't think would work.

I think "might work" is an awful criterion for awarding marks. If I have a normal balanced 19 count, it "might work" to open 1NT showing 15-17. Maybe partner has 7 hcp but we have an unstopped suit. Maybe it stops partner from bidding a 75% slam that goes down on the lie of the cards. It's still a terrible choice, and awarding it a non-trivial score would be ridiculous.

I give your marking scheme 7/10 - there might be a reader for whom it is a helpful scale.

[Fluffy]

3♣-3♦ (short ask)
4♣-4♦ (spade short, blackwood)
4♠- (no void 1 keycard)

I can't find ♦K in time, although at this point I think slam is odds on.

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2015-January-01, 15:48, said:

I think "might work" is an awful criterion for awarding marks. If I have a normal balanced 19 count, it "might work" to open 1NT showing 15-17. Maybe partner has 7 hcp but we have an unstopped suit. Maybe it stops partner from bidding a 75% slam that goes down on the lie of the cards. It's still a terrible choice, and awarding it a non-trivial score would be ridiculous. I give your marking scheme 7/10 - there might be a reader for whom it is a helpful scale.

I award 0-4 marks to an action that somebody else actually chose or that I rejected after consideration. If cherdano thinks the marking scheme is awful, then he doesn't need to use it. Personally, I still find it a useful exercise. And Yes -- I hope some other reader might find it helpful.

It amuses me when a poster ridicules my award of 6 or more marks to a call; and that call is subsequently chosen by somebody more expert.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-December-31, 06:35, said:

There is a conventional way of finding out about ♠ control: Over a pre-empt, it makes sense to use suit bids below 3N as asking bids, to find out about a stop or support or control. Here for example, after 3♣ - 3♠, Opener might rebid as follows

• 3N = ♠ stop e.g. ♠QJx
• 4♣ = (Pre-empt suit) ♠ Shortage. i.e. Singleton or void ♠. Like eagle's hand.
• 4♦ = ♠ Tolerance. 2 ♠. Poor hand. e.g. ♠ x x ♥ x x x ♦ x ♠ Q J x x x x x
• 4♥ = ♠ Enthusiasm. 3+ ♠ e.g. ♠ J x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ A J x x x x x
• 4♠ = ♠ Support. 3+ ♠. Poor hand. ♠ x x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ K J x x x x x

Fluffy, on 2015-January-01, 17:04, said:

3♣-3♦ (short ask)
4♣-4♦ (spade short, blackwood)
4♠- (no void 1 keycard)I can't find ♦K in time, although at this point I think slam is odds on.

Fluffy's method is good but how does it cope after a 3♦ pre-empt. IMO, you need 3♥ and 3♠ to explore major and notrump games and 4♣ is over-committal.
Alternative asking-bid methods combine simplicity with generality.

Over 3♦/3♥/3♠ pre-empts, I think 4♣ is best reserved to set trumps and ask for half-keys, by steps. Over 3♣ you can use 4♦ for that purpose.

[the hog]

I repeat who opened 1c? Not all stars are good players and some make noises for the sake of making a noise.The term expert is a subjective one. There are a number of players who have bought their way into representing their country or have played in minor international events. Some Australian ones I would not even bother playing with in a Saturday afternoon duplicate. When I see some of the poor players with stars on BBO I am not impressed. If you told me Balicki opened 1C I would be impressed, surprised but impressed. If you mentioned some obscure Indian star, forget it.

[nige1]

the hog, on 2015-January-01, 18:42, said:

I repeat who opened 1c? Not all stars are good players and some make noises for the sake of making a noise.The term expert is a subjective one. There are a number of players who have bought their way into representing their country or have played in minor international events. Some Australian ones I would not even bother playing with in a Saturday afternoon duplicate. When I see some of the poor players with stars on BBO I am not impressed. If you told me Balicki opened 1C I would be impressed, surprised but impressed. If you mentioned some obscure Indian star, forget it.

Many hands that are now be considered routine openers were automatic passes, not long ago. I judge 1♣ to be a reasonable bid. I'm not brave enough to open 1♣ myself but I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players. Some partnerships are on systemic tramlines that dictate opening on such hands. Also fashions come and go in Bridge. Studies (like Pavlicek's simulations) affect expert judgement.

[the hog]

So Nigel we have gone from
"I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts" to when asked which experts " I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players." That is a huge backdown. (The emphasis is mine.)

The reason I rate 1C as a "big fat zero" is that it it is a nothing bid. It takes away no room and in fact offers the opps a greater range of options.

The reason I rate a 3C opening in first and second seat as a 6, maybe a 7 is that we have gained quite a few imps by bidding very tight 3NTs on Hx in Cs suit A A a few cards in the 4th suit and out. Knowing that the 3m pre empt is sound makes this easy. Sometimes this has even produced a double game swing. I believe this to be more effective than random pre empts in the first 2 seats, especially in the minors.

[Fluffy]

nige1, on 2015-January-01, 17:42, said:

Fluffy's method is good but how does it cope after a 3♦ pre-empt. IMO, you need 3♥ and 3♠ to explore major and notrump games and 4♣ is over-committal.
Alternative asking-bid methods combine simplicity with generality.

Over any 3-level pre-empt, I think 4♣ is best reserved to set trumps and ask for half-keys, by steps.

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:

3♦-3♥
3♠ = no short
3NT = heart short
4♣ = clubs
4♦ = spade shrot

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on 2015-January-02, 08:05, said:

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:
3♦-3♥
3♠ = no short
3NT = heart short
4♣ = clubs
4♦ = spade shrot

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

Fair enough, whatever is comfortable for you. I still prefer the same simple response-structure over any 3-level pre-empt. e.g. after 3♦ - 3♥ - ; ??

• 3♠ = ♥ tolerance. 2♥.
• 3N = ♥ stop e.g. Kxx
• 4♣ = Enthusiastic ♥ support. e.g with outside ace.
• 4♦ = (Preempt suit) ♥ shortage.
• 4♥ = ♥ support but no ambition.

You can switch the responses around a bit. For example 3N could show any 3 ♥ or a stop. But it seems to me that a simple consistent asking bid structure like this allows you to explore

• 3N.
• Game in an unbid major
• Slam in the pre-empt suit.

The exception worth considering is to use 4♣ as a half-key ask, setting the pre-empt suit, after 3♦/3♥/3♠ . Over 3♣, you could use 4♦ instead. This keeps the bidding low. For example, when key-cards are missing, you can sometimes settle in 4M, rather than braving the 5-level.

[nige1]

the hog, on 2015-January-02, 06:05, said:

So Nigel we have gone from "I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts" to when asked which experts " I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players." That is a huge backdown. (The emphasis is mine.)

The hog quotes, out of context, my defence of my idiosyncratic marking scheme from cherdano's criticism. Anybody can confirm by reading previous posts that this comment doesn't refer to anybody's actual choice on the OP hand.

the hog, on 2015-January-02, 06:05, said:

The reason I rate 1C as a "big fat zero" is that it it is a nothing bid. It takes away no room and in fact offers the opps a greater range of options. The reason I rate a 3C opening in first and second seat as a 6, maybe a 7 is that we have gained quite a few imps by bidding very tight 3NTs on Hx in Cs suit A A a few cards in the 4th suit and out. Knowing that the 3m pre empt is sound makes this easy. Sometimes this has even produced a double game swing. I believe this to be more effective than random pre empts in the first 2 seats, especially in the minors.

I understand the Hog's arguments for sound and disciplined pre-empts. On the given hand, depending on partnership agreement, calls like 3♣, pass, and 1♣ would each work sometimes -- but all have flaws.

[Lovera]

It exit, to solve difficulty about natural bidding, the Cicchelli conventional system [highly compatible to Culbertson's asking-bid]. In this case 3♠=? in spade. The answeres are: first step -here 3NT- neg.=without controlls, positively if there is a controll in suit segnaling also controlls in the others three suits in this way: for every controll of first round (Ace or void) two steps up, for every controll of second round (King or singleton) one step up. Singletons or voids are showing only if are in query(=spade) suit. For our case 3♠(=?in spade for controlls)-4♦(=three steps up equivalent to three controlls).

[wanoff]

Fluffy, on 2015-January-02, 08:05, said:

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:

3♦-3♥
3♠ = no short
3NT = heart short
4♣ = clubs
4♦ = spade shrot

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

Not bad though I don't think partner could remember it
We currently play the very simple 3♣-4♣= please cuebid.
3♣- 4♦= RKC for clubs