[MickyB]

Have just been looking through the EBU site, and found this.

"How on earth did we decide on the figure of nine [points] for a two level response? Well, if you divide the 40 points in the pack by the 13 tricks, you get THREE. So it takes about three high card points to win a trick. When we respond at the two level, we take the bidding one trick higher, so we should have about one trick more i.e. three points extra."

That's you told.

[McBruce]

Nothing like science and mathematics.

I'm convinced--I'll never play 2/1 again.

[Blofeld]

It warms my heart to see irony still present even in the heart of British beaurocracy.

[pigpenz]

I am still trying to figure out who made 18 the legal age of consent

[Fluffy]

In the whole Europe I think

[Blofeld]

pigpenz, on Oct 11 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out who made 18 the legal age of consent

Well, we take 70 years as the average life expectancy. Divide this by 10 (the number of toes that a typical person has), and add it to the age at which one usually starts secondary school to get 18, which is thus the logical age of consent.

[mike777]

pigpenz, on Oct 11 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out who made 18 the legal age of consent

Consent for what? I am sure you can get married before 18 without permission.

[pclayton]

mike777, on Oct 11 2005, 05:16 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Oct 11 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out who made 18 the legal age of consent

Consent for what? I am sure you can get married before 18 without permission.

In the US, its set by the states. Utah mught be the youngest - I think its 14.

[EricK]

A lot of mocking, but nobody has actually said why the OP's argument (simplistic though it may be) isn't reasonable.

Here is a similar argument which gives a reasonable conclusion:

If as dealer we have x points, partner will have on average (40-x)/3, so we will in total have (40+2x)/3. To make the majority of tricks we will, on average, need at least 7/13 of the 40 points, so we solve (40+2x)/3 = 280/13 => x = 12.31. So we should generally need a bit better than a minimum 12 count to open.

Note that the site isn't saying that is the only way to play, but it is a reasonable, logical way to play.

Eric

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on Oct 11 2005, 10:32 PM, said:

Have just been looking through the EBU site, and found this.

"How on earth did we decide on the figure of nine [points] for a two level response? Well, if you divide the 40 points in the pack by the 13 tricks, you get THREE. So it takes about three high card points to win a trick. When we respond at the two level, we take the bidding one trick higher, so we should have about one trick more i.e. three points extra."

That's you told.

LOL, the reasoning sounds pretty funny:

for the same reason we should not open a 12 count because we expect to win only 4 tricks LOL.

[MickyB]

EricK, on Oct 12 2005, 08:10 AM, said:

A lot of mocking, but nobody has actually said why the OP's argument (simplistic though it may be) isn't reasonable.

Lol Eric, please don't refer to that statement as being my argument!

Ok, here is why it isn't reasonable - While you are taking the bidding one level higher, you will often land up in the same contract (1H:2D, 2H:P instead of 1H:1N, 2C:2H, P). The real reason is because of the choice of 12-14 NT and four card majors; Balanced 15-16 should pass a 1NT response, so if you have enough for game opposite 15-16 flat you can't bid 1NT.

[MickyB]

Blofeld, on Oct 12 2005, 02:13 AM, said:

pigpenz, on Oct 11 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

I am still trying to figure out who made 18 the legal age of consent

Well, we take 70 years as the average life expectancy. Divide this by 10 (the number of toes that a typical person has), and add it to the age at which one usually starts secondary school to get 18, which is thus the logical age of consent.

What if a 14 year old promises not to live past 30?

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Oct 12 2005, 10:10 AM, said:

A lot of mocking, but nobody has actually said why the OP's argument (simplistic though it may be) isn't reasonable.

From my perspective, the biggest flaw with this entire line of argument rests in the fundamental assumption that bidding is "constructive". The authors are assuming that bidding systems are designed in order to facilitate a flow of information between two players. Luckily, the opposing pair isn't interested in winning...

With this said and done:

The easiest way to critique this line of reasoning is to examine whether the authors are consitently applying the same philosophy throughout the entire bidding system. Alternatively, is this simply a random factoid that they have dredged out in this one case but conveniently ignore throughout the rest of the system.

[mike777]

Lawrence's Fought the Law uses 3 working hcp's (round up) as worth one trick. It is 50% of the formula.

[han]

Try the following waterproof argument:

We open 1X expecting to make it opposite the average hand for partner. We need 13 pts for this, so partner will on average have (40-13)/3=9 pts. So with at least one more trick (12 pts), partner can safely bid a new suit at the 2-level. Since 12+13 usually makes game, we might as well agree to play 2/1 GF.

Tadaaa!

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2005, 01:55 PM, said:

EricK, on Oct 12 2005, 10:10 AM, said:

A lot of mocking, but nobody has actually said why the OP's argument (simplistic though it may be) isn't reasonable.

From my perspective, the biggest flaw with this entire line of argument rests in the fundamental assumption that bidding is "constructive". The authors are assuming that bidding systems are designed in order to facilitate a flow of information between two players. Luckily, the opposing pair isn't interested in winning...

With this said and done:

The easiest way to critique this line of reasoning is to examine whether the authors are consitently applying the same philosophy throughout the entire bidding system. Alternatively, is this simply a random factoid that they have dredged out in this one case but conveniently ignore throughout the rest of the system.

Even if the line of reasoning implicitly assumes that bidding is "constructive" (and I am not convinced it does), it still ends up with a conclusion more in line with 4-handed than 2-handed biddding.

After all, given a 4 card major, weak NT system with light 2/1s you will often get an auction starting like 1♠ 2♦ where a 5cd major, Strong NT, 2/1GF system might well have started 1♣ 1♦.

And if they do not consistently apply the argument to the rest of the system it may be because the rest of the system needs critiquing rather than this bit!

Eric

[Al_U_Card]

So, if we use the rule of 20 to open then with a rule of 20 hand we can bid 2-1 and force to game? I think that this is where the "forcing unless I rebid my suit" guys are coming from....

[Blofeld]

Hannie, on Oct 12 2005, 11:12 AM, said:

We open 1X expecting to make it opposite the average hand for partner. We need 13 pts for this, so partner will on average have (40-13)/3=9 pts. So with at least one more trick (12 pts), partner can safely bid a new suit at the 2-level. Since 12+13 usually makes game, we might as well agree to play 2/1 GF.

You won't pull the wool over my eyes that easily!

12+13 is only 25 points. At 3 points per trick, this is on average taking only slightly more than eight tricks. To make a game in a major, say, we ought to have combined 30 points between the two hands (or possibly 31, as there are 40 points in the deck rather than 39).