[VM1973]

mikeh, on 2011-August-23, 09:40, said:

VM: why do you write as if the person you are addressing is ignorant of such ideas as falsification? Which, as you presumably know, is merely one aspect of the scientific method and, as such, predates Popper by more than a few years.

You may be as intelligent as you seem to want us to believe, but the empirical evidence is so far not supportive of that notion.

There is a fundamental difference between ignorance and stupidity. So it may be that ignorance is to blame for such faux pas as posting that, when holding AKQxxxx, partner will hold 3+ support more than 60% of the time, but that post did raise some eyebrows.

Ignorance is nothing to be embarrassed about. 99.999999% of the world population lacks the knowledge to be classed as an expert bridge player, and most of them don't care

More importantly, ignorance can be cured, by the simple task of learning. However, assumptions of superior intellect and disdain for those who already possess such knowledge is likely to impede and possibly prevent your progress.

So, while I am not trying to stop you from posting.....engaging in robust discussion of the ideas that are new and appealing to you is a great way to learn....I am suggesting that you approach the forums as if those posting in response to you are (1) your intellectual equals , and (2) where warranted, possessed of greater knowledge than you.

That doesn't mean that they are 'right'. There are a number of highly skilled, highly accomplished players who post here and arguments amongst them are common. Which is, of course, one reason the game is so appealing to most of us who are hooked on it.

I don't see why throwing in an extra few words to set someone off in the right direction if they decide to Google what I've said is somehow insulting.

As for the scientific method, it's based on a logical fallacy and nothing can be demonstrated empirically because it runs into an infinite regress problem. So the existence or lack of empirical evidence is completely irrelevant and frankly I'm surprised that you would mention it... unless you simply meant to be insulting and didn't have the stones to say it straight out.

[Zelandakh]

VM1973, on 2011-August-23, 10:44, said:

And yes, to answer your question, I do think that those who use 4-3-2-1 to evaluate their hands for strictly no trump purposes do not include points for shortness.

This is true. Most add points for length instead. A 5 card suit is typically worth about 0.5 hcp in isolation, hence players often bump 5332 hands up to the next range category when at the top of their NT range unless there are compensating negatives.

[gwnn]

VM1973, before we go any further, I forgot to ask about Tysen's methods, I think he used GIB results from all sorts of contracts, and not just 3NT, or am I mistaken?

[Bbradley62]

VM1973, on 2011-August-23, 10:49, said:

unless you simply meant to be insulting and didn't have the stones to say it straight out.

I think he pretty much said it straight-out.

[mikeh]

VM1973, on 2011-August-23, 10:49, said:

I don't see why throwing in an extra few words to set someone off in the right direction if they decide to Google what I've said is somehow insulting.

As for the scientific method, it's based on a logical fallacy and nothing can be demonstrated empirically because it runs into an infinite regress problem. So the existence or lack of empirical evidence is completely irrelevant and frankly I'm surprised that you would mention it... unless you simply meant to be insulting and didn't have the stones to say it straight out.

This is degenerating into exactly the sort of exchange that led me to stop posting for several months. Since it is apparent that you can't even understand my earlier posts, I will stop now before I say something I would only come to regret.

Meanwhile I leave you to explore the fascinating world of calculating the precise arithmetical value of any given hand.

Once you've mastered that, you can consider moving on to learning how to play bridge

[gwnn]

It is true that I was slightly confused on what you meant by 2.846 hcp/trick, I thought you meant in any contract but you meant NT, but I will not apologise for that, because your train of thought was completely obscure. You replied to a post of mine which had two links: one to the NT analysis and one to the suit contract analysis and you started with an example on 4♠. How should I know that the rest of your post will be about no trumps? Where did you write that? Please try to make clear what you mean next time.

So my point still stands: HCP troglodytes do indeed look at their shortnesses, and their controls when they have decisions and it looks like they will play in a suit (i.e. they found a fit). They change their evaluation according to the way the bidding evolves. ZAR fans have a tendency to overbid with controls because a significant proportion of the time they will not play in suit contracts, but rather no trumps.

You gave one link, which I think compares results of all methods in all contracts. Unless you can show me a survey which differentiates between no trumps and suit contracts, your link is not especially helpful. I at least provided you with something, and Helene's surveys point to the conclusion that 6421 is roughly good for suit contracts and 4321 is roughly good for NT. Note that Helene also made some research on how much a shortness should be worth, etc. I did not want to complicate matters by mentioning that.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2011-August-23, 11:26

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2011-August-23, 10:05, said:

Anyway, if I were VM, I'd make some caustic reference to your obvious failure to understand hyperbole, invoking a factoid picked up from wikipedia

Probably. But, certainly you and the rest of us just thought it was cute.

[tysen2k]

VM1973, on 2011-August-23, 10:44, said:

As for Tysen's investigations

[snip]

I've already written to ask for more information

So VM emailed me to bring me into this discussion...

Unfortunately I don't have much to contribute besides what I posted about 6 years ago. I haven't really looked at it since. Searching for my name and zar points should bring up a lot of stuff.

And as I've said several times before, I think the interesting stuff on hand evaluation isn't on who has the most accurate system down to the last decimal point. What's interesting is quantifying how your evaluation changes as the bidding progresses (the auction in the OP is a perfect example). Other interesting stuff that I always wanted to look into are things like how high cards and distribution really aren't additive and how the relative importance between strength and distribution changes depending on how balanced partner is (and the opponents). I feel there's a lot of potential here for someone to research, but I just don't have the time.

Tysen

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2011-August-23, 11:21, said:

This is degenerating into exactly the sort of exchange that led me to stop posting for several months.

I think there is a distinct danger that threads like this will put other posters off too. Disagreements are normal, if they were not then we would not have much to talk about would we? But comments like "you didn't have the stones" and "you can consider moving on to learning how to play bridge" are not constructive and imho should not have a place on these boards.

[Yu18772]

Is there a way to delete your own reply on someones post?

[aguahombre]

Yu18772, on 2011-August-24, 18:53, said:

Is there a way to delete your own reply on someones post?

yes. Edit out what you posted via delete key; then just make a brief statement that you deleted it. Doesn't work when someone has already quoted you, unless they edit out their quote also.

[cloa513]

This thread is way off track. The original question is one of what to bid with hand with moderate slam potential and low strength whether it be the example hand or
♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♣Kxx♦Kx over an opening bid 1♠ and other possibles. Opener needs moderate slam potential (two aces at least) to continue and considerable strength in this example. A suggestion is 3NT, opener rebidding 4♣ with 2 aces allowing further asks for strength , 4♦ with 2 aces and a king outside of trumps, 4♥ 2 aces and king of trumps, 4♠ sign off.

[VM1973]

gwnn, on 2011-August-23, 11:04, said:

VM1973, before we go any further, I forgot to ask about Tysen's methods, I think he used GIB results from all sorts of contracts, and not just 3NT, or am I mistaken?

I'm not certain. As I said, I've written a letter and I'm still looking forward to a response. Temporarily I'm just deducting a point for the shapes he says are badly evaluated and adding a point for 4-4-4-1 and seeing how I feel about it.