[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-22, 11:47, said:

I never used bergen raises. So I am not the person who can answer your question.
I strongly doubt he himself uses it.
Although I promised you that I will not make comments about the level of voters, I have to admit both 2 voters of 2♣ are great players, one of them being a true world class player, if that makes you feel better.

Thank you for your timely response. I actually don't have Bergen Raises in my convention card, but I understand that many folks do use it.

Also, after your handling of the poll results for the 4♥ question and the unfavorable aggregation of data against the pass category of voters, your opinion or seal of approval is dubious. You have a bias whether you realize it or not.

I have presented the data in its raw form so the audience can draw their own conclusions. I am content with the results and that PASS is not nearly as insane as you alleged it to be. The PASS voting group is 33% of total voters among 5 categories and that is quite respectable 2nd place.

To remain on topic, you didn't apply Bergen's formula to East's hand however.

Indulge me.

Are you suggesting Bergen Points are an intellectually inferior method of hand evaluation?

Too outdated perhaps?

Too complicated or involved?

[MrAce]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 11:53, said:

Thank you for your timely response. I actually don't have Bergen Raises in my profile, but I understand that many folks do use it.

You didn't apply his formula to the hand however.

Indulge me.

Are you suggesting Bergen Points are an intellectually inferior method of hand evaluation?

Too outdated perhaps?

Too complicated or involved?

I do not even know what Bergen Points are. So it will be unfair evaluation of me to comment on them.
If it matters to you, my 2♣ openings are pretty solid. My pds can rely on them. On the other hand, we rspond VERY light to 1 openings. For example Kxxxx x xxx xxxx is a clear 1♠ response for me when pd opens.

[RedSpawn]

rmnka447, on 2017-April-22, 11:03, said:

I'm not at all surprised at this result for the hand on bridgewinners.com, a site aimed toward and frequented by real experts.

Are you sure about this statement?

When 33% of real experts on this same website say pass on 1098765432♥ and 49% of the real experts say 4♥, the author of the voting poll felt a need to qualify the data.

4♥ and PASS are the poll forerunners in his own poll on a website frequented by experts. No voting group held a clear 51% majority. End of story.

He says he knows 2 good players in the pass group and the majority of the 4 ♥ voters are good players. What is that supposed to mean?

This is an appeal argument. He is appealing to the audience indirectly that the Pass voting block may not contain real experts since he knows only 2 good players in it. He leaves the audience to wonder about the bridge caliber of the remaining voters in this group.

Conversely, the 4♥ group contains many experts that he knows are good players so he is appealing that this voting group is probably more competent and conversant in bridge matters than the Pass group.

He is "inadvertently" delegitimizing the pass group who came in a strong 2nd place.

Keep in mind the author is officially on record as saying the thought of calling pass is insane to him.

Note to self: If the site is frequented by real experts, you wouldn't need to qualify or aggregate the results of or lend personal endorsements to a voting group...unless you didn't like what the poll data was telling you....

[nige1]

sfi, on 2017-April-20, 05:18, said:

I was with you for a while. I agree the auction should start:
1♦ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♣

There we diverge. I would continue:
3♦ - 3♠
4♠

However, nothing feels all that comfortable. West's black suit length doesn't really get shown - 3S suggests 6 of them more often than not - and East's last call is definitely not clear. On the bright side, the defence (in either 3NT or 4S) isn't going to be all that obvious either. It's a messy hand that is likely to lead to lots of post mortems around the room.

I agree with Sfi. 3♦ by East is a big improvement on my suggested 3♠ but perhaps, with so much wasted in ♣s, West should next bid 3N rather than 3♠.

---

[sfi]

nige1, on 2017-April-23, 07:25, said:

Ia gree with Sfi. sfi's 3♦ by East is a big improvement on my suggested 3♠ but perhaps, with so much wasted in ♣s, West should nest bid 3N rather than 3♠.

You're probably right. I tend to prefer to wind up in a trump suit on these sorts of hands, so I think I was swayed by knowing the cards. So I'll join the crowd in the poor 3NT.

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 11:18, said:

Are we to use Bergen Raises but avoid his hand evaluation method like the plague?

Enjoy!

I use Bergen raises, and I don't see the connection.

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 08:23, said:

I use Bergen raises, and I don't see the connection.

How do you cherry pick which convention to use? You use Bergen raises by Marty Bergen, so why does the collective seem resistant to even reviewing, testing, validating, confirming, or denying Marty Bergen's method of hand evaluation for the hand in question?

I would think a hand evaluation method by a nine time National Champion would warrant a review before the collective ignores or summarily dismisses it.

And finally, the level of intellectual dishonesty here is jaw-dropping. We have knocked down, refused to consider, or seemingly invalidated ACBL, K&R Hand Evaluator, and Marty Bergen just to keep up the illusion that a hand with 4.5 quick tricks and 4 losers and a established 7 card ♦ suit could be close to 22 points. Wow!

[masse24]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 08:23, said:

I use Bergen raises, and I don't see the connection.

Yep. A red herring. Clouding the issue. A diversion.

Or, since Bergen Raises refer to response methods over one-of-a-Major opening . . . maybe there is a hidden suggestion to open East 1♠?

[RedSpawn]

masse24, on 2017-April-23, 09:05, said:

Yep. A red herring. Clouding the issue. A diversion.

Or, since Bergen Raises refer to response methods over one-of-a-Major opening . . . maybe there is a hidden suggestion to open East 1♠?

You were slam dunked on your red herring against ACBL. Exactly who promulgates laws of duplicate bridge? Which organization is inducting Meckstroth to its Hall of Fame this year? I bet you Jeff will be there! Your feeble attempt to discredit ACBL as a decent source for argumentation in basic bridge matters is laughable. You will do or say anything including attaching infantile email signatures to protect the collective from any alternative viewpoints.

Now when ACBL says to consider valuing length points in your initial hand evaluation, you are willing to throw them under the bus to maintain the groupthink mentality. Good show!

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 09:00, said:

How do you cherry pick which convention to use?

That's pretty much what every partnership does when designing a system. They use methods and conventions that have been devised by others, or they devise their own. They choose conventions and treatments based on their effectiveness, and so as to fit into a coherent system.

I also play conventions invented by Blackwood, Michaels, Truscott, Jacoby and Stayman (yes, I know).

[RedSpawn]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 09:24, said:

That's pretty much what every partnership does when designing a system. They use methods and conventions that have been devised by others, or they devise their own. They choose conventions and treatments based on their effectiveness, and so as to fit into a coherent system.

I also play conventions invented by Blackwood, Michaels, Truscott, Jacoby and Stayman (yes, I know).

Thank you for your quick response.

Answer or address the entire post, not just your edited sentence of my question, please.

There was discussion about intransigence to alternative ideas by the collective and the indirect discrediting of sources like ACBL to "tow the line". There also appears to be a refusal to engage in creative thinking beyond what we currently know or do. That doesn't bode well for the bridge community or the future of bridge.

Thanks and look forward to hearing about the 2nd half of the post.

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 09:20, said:

You were slam dunked on your red herring against ACBL. Exactly who promulgates laws of duplicate bridge? Which organization is inducting Meckstroth to its Hall of Fame this year? I bet you Jeff will be there! Your feeble attempt to discredit ACBL as a decent source for argumentation in basic bridge matters is laughable. You will do or say anything including attaching infantile email signatures to protect the collective from any alternative viewpoints.

Now when ACBL says to consider valuing length points in your initial hand evaluation, you are willing to throw them under the bus to maintain the groupthink mentality. Good show!

No one suggests that length and suit quality are unimportant. Experienced players do not, however, tend to assign numerical values to these things.

You might have a look at ACBL's system regulations to see how well they promote good bridge. I have heard that most events are subject to the GCC, which is laughable. They are decades behind other major NBOs, but I digress. The laws, by the way, are promulgated by the WBF. It says so on the first page.

People with signatures have had them pretty much forever. They are not intended as a comment on any person or group of people. They are just something the individual finds funny or interesting.

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 09:27, said:

Thank you for your quick response.

Answer or address the entire post, not just your edited sentence of my question, please.

There was discussion about intransigence to alternative ideas by the collective and the indirect discrediting of sources like ACBL to "tow the line". There also appears to be a refusal to engage in creative thinking beyond what we currently know or do. That doesn't bode well for the bridge community or the future of bridge.

Thanks and look forward to hearing about the 2nd half of the post.

I will respond to and comment on what I wish, thank you very much.

[nullve]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 10:39, said:

Wait a minute, if we follow these attachments based on Marty Bergen's book we get 22 total points (18+0+0+1+3=22). He says I should add 3 length points for a 7 card ♦ suit and 1 suit quality point for ♦ suit having 3 of 5 honors. This gets the total value of my hand before I find a fit with partner.

Does Bergen or anyone else you know about advocate opening 2♣ with only 22 total (Bergen) points? If not, how are Bergen points relevant?

[masse24]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 10:39, said:

I guess counting suit length is too primitive for us fledgling students, right?

Let's try an upgrade to Marty Bergen's method of hand evaluation from "Slam Bidding Made Easier"


Marty Bergen Points
Marty Bergen Points (Hand Evaluation)
Marty Bergen Slammin' Pick Your Poison

The Initial Hand Evaluation. Marty calls this “Adjust 3”, but you will notice that I have managed to divide the adjustments into 4 steps so we will call this first step “Adjust 4.” Adjust 4 applies to both partners and is applied before the auction. Start with your high card count and then:

• Add your Aces and tens (positive undervalued honors), and Subtract the number of Queens and Jacks (negative overvalued honors). You ignore Kings since they are properly valued at 3 hcps. If the result is at least 3 or more positive add a point and if at least 3 or more negative subtract a point. If the difference is 0-2 no adjustment is necessary. (This is the “honor quality” adjustment).
  
• Subtract 1 hcp for any dubious doubleton and/or singleton honor combinations like KQ, KJ, QJ, Qx, Jx, K, Q, and J. (the “wasted honor” adjustment).
  
• Add a point if you have a 4+ card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors. (The “suit quality” adjustment).
  
• Add another point for every 5 card suit and one additional point for each extra card beyond (The “suit length” adjustment).
  
  This is only a start --- In addition you have to consider Dummy/Support Points and Bergen Points
  to reach the correct contract level.

Wait a minute, if we follow these attachments based on Marty Bergen's book we get 22 total points (18+0+0+1+3=22). He says I should add 3 length points for a 7 card ♦ suit and 1 suit quality point for ♦ suit having 3 of 5 honors. This gets the total value of my hand before I find a fit with partner.

Marty Bergen must be mistaken. There is no way that we can use Bergen raises but discount this hand evaluation method too.

Can someone please review any one of the attachments and apply his formula to East's hand and double check my math please?

If I misapplied the formula I am willing to run with open arms to the altar for forgiveness.

This presents an unexpected dilemma.

The problem here seems to be that you are somehow conflating hand evaluation methods and the resulting point counts (e.g. Bergen=22, K&R=22.3) with some sort of “with 22 points and a LTC of 4 (or less) you should open 2 clubs” rule. If so, this is rather rigid thinking. Think beyond the “points.”

Personally, I would open 1♦. Would 2♣ cross my mind? Yes, for a nanosecond. But I would reject it.

There are reasons for the overwhelming majority of the BW poll (currently running at 96%) choosing 1♦. Some of which are:
• A space issue. Describing and sorting out your hand shape is difficult when you give up an entire level of bidding.
• In addition to LTC, you need winners. Minor suit games require more than major suit games.
• The resultant issue with a 2♣ – 2♦ – 3♦ start (2♦ being the most prevalent response). It’s awkward.

So . . . once a hand evaluation (before opening) is performed, a bit of foresight should be applied. Questions such as “What will my rebid be?” – “What is the most likely response?” and “How will the auction progress?” should be asked.

For these reasons, your insistence on showing us links to hand evaluation methods is puzzling. We are all aware of them. G-O-O-G-L-E is not difficult to spell. As I suggested above, think beyond the points.

Finally, although this is a 22 point hand using "Bergen Points," even Marty Bergen would not open this 2♣. He would open it 1♦.

[RedSpawn]

nullve, on 2017-April-23, 09:45, said:

Does Bergen or anyone else you know about advocate opening 2♣ with only 22 total (Bergen) points? If not, how are Bergen points relevant?

To determine what to bid, we must conduct an initial hand evaluation. If Marty's hand evaluation says 22 points, that makes it 2 club ELIGIBLE. Notice, I said eligible, not a victor. We need to see if other tools shed light on the hand's true nature before if it makes the final cut.

What is interesting is the 1st thing the collective said is that the hand is no where near 2 clubs which typically starts at 22 points.

This is the resistence to new ideas....the length points!

I showed way too many ways from a variety of sources that we can get to 21-22 total points on this hand. And all of the sources were showing how it was either close to or at 2 clubs when we factor in length points for determining our opening bid. Every single source including ACBL, K&R Hand Evaluator, and now Marty Bergen was discredited/ignored because it challenged the collective's established erudition.

The collective already knows what a 2 club hand must look like. Thus, if anyone dares override 1♦ as the starting point, the collective will go into attack formation.... Lol.

If the collective is resistant to reviewing alternative ideas or bidding dialects, how does it know it has produced the best result? Polling data shows a majority but that doesn't mean its the best ....that means it is a trend. At one time, 16-18NT was a trend but now its a dinosaur. Do you want to follow the trend or be the forerunner (provided you have a sound basis for your departure)?

[RedSpawn]

masse24, on 2017-April-23, 09:55, said:

. Some of which are:
• A space issue. Describing and sorting out your hand shape is difficult when you give up an entire level of bidding.
• In addition to LTC, you need winners. Minor suit games require more than major suit games.
• The resultant issue with a 2♣ – 2♦ – 3♦ n be
For these reasons, your insistence on showing us links to hand evaluation methods is puzzling. We are all aware of them. G-O-O-G-L-E is not difficult to spell. As I suggested above, think beyond the points.

Finally, although this is a 22 point hand using "Bergen Points," even Marty Bergen would not open this 2♣. He would open it 1♦.

Ty for your response, you came up with 22 points.

It is NO WHERE NEAR A 22 POINT HAND at first, but even if it were by K&R Hand Evaluator, Mr. Ace says he doubts Kaplan would open such a way. Convenient alibi.

Well, Kaplan is not here and neither is Marty. And if MrAce will inadvertently delegitimize a voting group of 33% versus 49% in another poll when there is no clear 51% majority, why should I trust his "unbiased" judgment or opinion on this one?

Thank you, you told me what I needed to hear, you came up with 22 points and this simpleton's math is correct.

This hand has 4.5 quick tricks, 4 losers, 8.5-9 playing tricks, and 22 total points. I said it was the functional equivalent of a 22 point hand and then it became a random 22 point hand. Hmmm.

A bid means whatever I says it means- neither more nor less.--Humpty Dumpty

Its subject to your judgment and thus your judgment trumps anything or evidence to the contrary. 22 total points is a strong hand that is no where near 2 clubs. Fascinating.

[nullve]

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 10:04, said:

To determine what to bid, we must conduct an initial hand evaluation. If Marty's hand evaluation says 22 points, that makes it 2 club ELIGIBLE. Notice, I said eligible, not a victor. We need to see if other tools shed light on the hand's true nature before if it makes the final cut.

What is interesting is the 1st thing the collective said is that the hand is no where near 2 clubs which typically starts at 22 points.

This is the resistence to new ideas....the length points!

I showed way too many ways from a variety of sources that we can get to 21-22 total points on this hand. And all of the sources were showing how it was either close to or at 2 clubs. Every single source including ACBL, K&R Hand Evaluator, and now Marty Bergen was discredited because it challenged the collective's established erudition.

I don't have anything in particular against Bergen points, although they're hardly the last word on hand evaluation. (It's not even a hand evaluation method based on "science".)

In fact, I already count length points of sorts when deciding when, and what, to open. And in a few regular partnerships where I've played a simple, aggressive form of 2/1 with 14-16 NT, we've agreed that

* 1-level suit openers in 1st and 2nd seat must meet the rule of 19 if unbalanced;
* (strong) 2♣ openers must meet the rule of 31 if unbalanced.

So for a given unbalanced shape, the 1-level suit openings have a 12 hcp range (e.g. 10-21 hcp if (5431) but 8-19 if (6511)), which can be conveniently divided into four equal, narrow subranges.

But by using the Rule of 19 and Rule of 31 this way, I'm definitely not trying to argue that true value of a (5431) 10 count is exactly the same as a (6511) 8 count, or that true value of a (5431) 22 count is exactly the same as a (6511) 20 count. I use them because

* in practice, if partner forces to game or slam early based on the expectation that I may have a (5431) 10 (22) count, he will rarely be disappointed if it later turns out that I have a (6511) 8 (20) count;
* when partner learns about the shape of my hand and which 3-point subrange it belongs to, he will automatically know my hcp range. (E.g. a hand with 5125 shape in the second lowest 3-point range must contain 12-14 hcp.)

[Vampyr]

I

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 11:01, said:

Ty for your response, you came up with 22 points.

It is NO WHERE NEAR A 22 POINT HAND at first, but even if it were by K&R Hand Evaluator, Mr. Ace says he doubts Kaplan would open such a way. Convenient alibi.

Well, Kaplan is not here and neither is Marty. And if MrAce will inadvertently delegitimize a voting group of 33% versus 49% in another poll when there is no clear 51% majority, why should I trust his judgment?

Thank you, you told me what I needed to hear, you came up with 22 points and this simpleton's math is correct.

This hand has 4.5 quick tricks, 4 losers, 8.5-9 playing tricks, and 22 total points. I said it was the functional equivalent of a 22 point hand and then it became a random 22 point hand. Hmmm.

A bid means whatever I says it means- neither more nor less.--Humpty Dumpty

Its subject to your judgment and thus your judgment trumps anything or evidence to the contrary. 22 points is a strong hand that is no where near 2 clubs.

Why argue? Have whatever agreements you want with your partners. Disclose appropriately. It does not matter who thinks your methods are good or bad.

EDIT: For example, I open 2♣, my only strong opening, with 20-22 balanced. Some people don't think that this is winning bridge. I think the advantages are sizeable and will continue to play the method until such time as it no longer works for me. Until then I am not interested in others' opinions.

[RedSpawn]

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 20:44, said:

You are confusing e-mail messages with messages in BBO. I have no idea what your e-mail address is. But even if I did, you asking me this after a long time in an attempt to hijack this topic is at best laughable.

Anyway back to this topic. As for now

1♦ =60
2♣=2

Enjoy!

If you send a message to me on BBO and I am not online, it hits my BBO mailbox as email. I did not say you sent me an email to the address I have outside of the BBO domain.

You don't need my email address in BBO to send email messages by the way.

No worries, you are getting amnesia and are splicing hairs.

To be expected....just sad