[foo]

jdonn, on May 21 2006, 03:56 AM, said:

Lets say, hypothetically, your trick expectation with 8 (presumably containing a 5card suit -foo) opposite a strong notrump (presumably 15-17 -foo) is as follows, and from the perspective of always bidding 3NT or passing but never inviting (mostly to simplify the analysis):

9+: 40%
8-: 60%

At matchpoints you would want to pass with your 8 because you will go down by bidding game, and thus ruin your score, over half the time. At imps you would want to bid 3NT since the gain for bidding game when it makes is 6 or 10, but the loss for going down in game instead of making 1NT+1 is -5 or -6, so you don't need to make the majority of the time to be gaining.

Unfortunately for the "blast or pass" POV, if one makes the default assumptions about 8 opposite 1N=15-17, the conclusion you state is dangerously wrong.

The reality is more like:
9+: ~13%
8-: ~87%
Since you need 25+ and a fit to have a positive expectation of making 3N or 4M.

The numbers above are only approximate, but the situation is so squewed that more thorough analysis is not going to change the odds enough to change the conclusion those odds indicate.

At IMPs, a >= 5/11 White game is a good game.
At IMPs, a >= 3/8 Red Game is a good game.
Both of the above assume you are never being X'ed.
At IMPS, assuming you make or go -1 you have to make >= 2/5 of your X'ed games.
At MP's or BAM, you want to always be bidding par or absolute par.

Even if the odds of 9+ were 2x higher (and that is extremely unlikely), you should not invite in this situation. If you are playing the odds, then the average 8 HCP containing a 5 card suit Responder should never invite opposite the average 1N= 15-17 opening.
Never. At any colors or form of scoring.

Doing so means either
a= you don't believe the math or
b= you don't respect the opponents or
c= you are desperate or
d= some combination of the above

[awm]

Where do these percentages to make a game with 8 opposite 15-17 come from?

Foo said: "9+ tricks 13% and 8- tricks 87%"
Josh said: "9+ tricks 40% and 8- tricks 60%"

Do either of these have any basis in fact or are people totally making them up?

It seems like there are three ways one can come across "real" numbers and each of them has some issues:

(1) Double dummy analysis. But the problem is, especially on an uninformative auction like 1N-3N leads are far from double-dummy. At the highest levels declarer play and defense are pretty good for the most part, but opening lead is still not an exact science. So I would expect declarer to do a little better than double dummy projections on 1N-3N auctions.

(2) Hand browsing based on BBO results. This takes the bad leads into account, but the level of play is not necessarily very high and you will get many results of people who are "trying to push bad players around" with varying degrees of success. This is not the best way to measure this approach in high-level play.

(3) Hand browsing from high level events. However, I strongly suspect that while good players may blast 3NT with SOME 8-counts, they will not do so (even at IMPs) with ALL 8-counts. Sampling these sorts of hands will tend to make blasting look better, because the hands where the blast actually occurred at some top flight tables will be 8-counts with five card suits and a bunch of tens.

Anyways, everyone knows that bidding slightly less than 50% games is good at imps and bad at mps. The relevent issues here are:

Suppose I have 8 points (or 9 points, or whatever you consider an invite). Are my chances of making opposite 17 substantially better than opposite 15? How much better?

Suppose I have the choice of blasting 3NT (1N-3N) or bidding stayman followed by an invite. The defense is obviously better placed on the second sequence (more likely to find a double if the contract is down, more likely to make a good lead, better able to count declarer's hand early on the defense). How many tricks is this worth on average? How much does it change my chances of making 3NT? Is trading the extra information for the knowledge that I will be in game opposite 17 (or good 16s) and not 15 a worthwhile exchange?

[bid_em_up]

I suspect that Marty no longer plays competively because it is more profitable for him to do otherwise.

I will not claim that he isnt/wasnt a good card player, but will instead just say that I am not a fan of the man, or his methods/theories. I agree with Josh that he is not the first person I would run and ask for advice regarding this kind of discussion (or any other discussion, for that matter, unless of course we happened to be discussing suicidal preempts).

[jdonn]

awm, on May 21 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Where do these percentages to make a game with 8 opposite 15-17 come from?

Foo said: "9+ tricks 13% and 8- tricks 87%"
Josh said: "9+ tricks 40% and 8- tricks 60%"

He made them up and stated them as something like fact (and he is outrageously wrong). I clearly stated that mine were just a hypothetical example in order to demonstrate an analysis that Bergen's advice pertains to matchpoints. In any case, he is forgetting that you will actually make more tricks (and a significant amount more, it's a major factor) by blasting 3NT with these hands as opposed to inviting since
- they can't lead as accurately.
- they learn nothing about opener's hand compared to if you invite and opener accepts.

I even have an example from yesterday to prove my point! Justin was scheduled to play in the Cayne match but he had something come up and asked me to fill in for him, and I found myself in Garozzo's seat (there is something I never thought I'd say). One hand was as follows:

Scoring: IMP

---

Yes I realize responder has 9 not 8, but it's a pretty nondescript 9 that is worth more like 8 anyway and still proves the same point. Certainly you couldn't say it has a source of tricks.

Garozzo and I were east. At my table the auction went 1NT - 2NT - 3NT. Knowing even with my awful collection that the opponents had no values to spare, I made the safe club lead. Declarer (Versace, not the worst choice for best player in the world today!) won and despite having numerous winning lines, ran the heart ten into me and later hooked another heart into me, and thus went down two tricks.

At Garozzo's table the auction went 1NT - 3NT. Garozzo (not the worst choice for the best player in history!!) had no idea if the opponents had values to spare or not, and thus tried the riskier heart lead, letting the contract make. Blasting 3NT was worth two full tricks because the opponents, some of the world's best players in this case, know less about your hands, and thus make worse leads.

I'm not actually suggesting you blast 3NT every time you hold 8. But I completely agree with not inviting and instead blasting every time you hold an invitation, which to me is a good 8 or any 9. This isn't an abnormal example, this sort of result comes from it all the time.

[foo]

awm, on May 21 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Where do these percentages to make a game with 8 opposite 15-17 come from?

Foo said: "9+ tricks 13% and 8- tricks 87%"
Josh said: "9+ tricks 40% and 8- tricks 60%"

Do either of these have any basis in fact or are people totally making them up?

Two ways,

1= Simulate. generate 100, or 1000, or etc boards where Responder has 8 average HCP w/ a 5card suit and Opener has 15-17 average HCP of the shapes you would Open IN= 15-17 (first pass would be 4333, 4432, 5m332, 5H332, some =2245, some =2425, some =2452)

2= Go ask top flight experts (and yes, Grant Baze, Marty Bergen, Larry Cohen would be among those who qualify)
They basically have a database in their heads of millions of boards they've encountered over the years.

As I have explicitly stated previously, I have =no= confidence that my casual analysis (which did not involve an accurate simulation) has generated accurate percentages.

OTOH, both the analysis and the opinions of people who have that database I mentioned in their head yield the same conclusion that the average 1N= 15-17 opposite the average 8 HCP containing a 5card suit does not make 3N or 4M often enough to be in it under almost all circumstances.

Danny Kleinman in _The NoTrump Zone_ not only mentions that average 8 HCP hands with a 5card suit should not invite opposite 1N= 15-17, he also mentions that he got the error on this point in the 5th ed of the Encyclopedia changed for the 6th ed.

Josh is doing me a disservice if he thinks I would "make up" such conclusions.

[jdonn]

I didn't say you made up your conclusions, I said you made up your data. And you seem to have admitted this. Which is fine, as long as we are all clear that it's opinion or hypothetical (as mine was), not fact.

You have, as usual, quoted me on something I never said.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 21 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

I didn't say you made up your conclusions, I said you made up your data. And you seem to have admitted this. Which is fine, as long as we are all clear that it's opinion or hypothetical (as mine was), not fact.

You have, as usual, quoted me on something I never said.

Apologies for inexactness.

"Josh is doing me a disservice if he thinks I would "make up" such data or conclusions."

My disclaimer about the percentages being accurate is based on the fact that I did not do accurate conditional probability calculations nor a rigorous simulation to get the percentages I did. I used nonconditional probabilities, and I know those are wrong.

However, the correction by doing it rigorously would not change the results significantly enough to change the conclusions.

Nor did I quote you.

I do not "make up" stuff I post, nor do I misquote people.

[jdonn]

EDIT: Decided some things just aren't worth the effort, so deleted my list of statements that were 'made up'...

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on May 21 2006, 11:56 AM, said:

Not that he wasn't a good player, but he is hardly the first person I would ask about this kind of theoretical point. In any case if he is so amazing, why does he not play in big tournaments any more? (perhaps there is actually a good reason, I really don't know, but my guess would be the best players just don't want to play with him any more)

Also let it be clear, the strategy he mentions of passing with 8 always or almost always is strictly a matchpoint strategy (not surprising coming from him).

Couple comments regarding Marty Bergen:

1. Bergen is (was?) a top theorist. A lot of the ideas that he developed and promoted represented very significant advancements compared to the standard methods of the day. I'm not sure that all the ideas that he promoted have stood the test of time, however, a lot of his philosophies have held up nicely.

2. These days Bergen isn't marketing himself as a "theorist". I think that he is deliberately dumbing down the complexity of the methods that he promotes in order to appeal to a broader audience. If you're trying to make money, this makes a lot of sense. (Better Bidding with Bergen v1 + 2 have been out for a hell of a lot longer than "Marty Sez". I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Marty Sez has outsold BBwB by quite a lot.) However, this also means that you need to be quite careful regarding the advice that he gives...

[foo]

jdonn, on May 21 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

EDIT: Decided some things just aren't worth the effort, so deleted my list of statements that were 'made up'...

Since I seem to have been accused of something and on trial for it, here we go...

RED
10 -6
20 -12
20 -18
30 -24
30 -30 10*3 6*5 => 3/8

WHITE
6 -5
12 -10
18 -15
24 -20
30 -25
30 -30 6*5 5*6 => 5/11

X'ed RED
12 -8
24 -16
24 -24 12*2 8*3 => 2/5

X'ed WHITE
9 -6
18 -12
18 -18 9*2 6*3 => 2/5

1st column is Imps gained by bidding Game and making it when the other other table takes the same number of tricks in a partscore.
2nd column is Imps lost by bidding Game and going -1 when the other table plays a making partscore.
The 2nd two sets of figures involve the same calculations for X'ed contracts.
The result tells you how how often you have to make what you bid to at least break even playing IMPs.

In the Encyclopedia, the apriori odds of being dealt
15HCP is 44237/10^6
16HCP is 33109/10^6
17HCP is 23617/10^6

For a total of 100,963/10^6

The 1st simplification assumed is that the odds of any specific shape in this range is not affected by the HCP involved. This is incorrect if you want to get the numbers exactly right.

44247/100963= ~44%
33109/100963= ~33%
23617/100963= ~23%

The 2nd simplification is that Responder's hand is conditional on Opener's hand since Responder's hand can only be made from cards that are not already in Opener's hand.
I ignored this as well in my calculations for simplicity.

So, as I said these numbers are not exact. But they are close enough to exact and the decision is clear cut enough to give a valid conclusion.
If the odds were close enough to put the issue into doubt, then the more rigorous calculations would have to be made to make a justifiable conclusion.

OTOH, decisions that close in Bridge are often more strongly affected by non mathematical criteria like the skill and the emotional state of the people involved.

[awm]

Here's an interesting test for someone with a lot of time on his hands.

Search through records of top-flight events. Find hands where:

(1) At least one pair had the auction 1NT-3NT.
(2) Another pair had a longer auction to 3NT (or 3NTX) from the same side on the same cards.

Compare the results of the pairs bidding 1NT-3NT and the pairs having the longer auction ending in 3NT. Over many hands, do the pairs bidding 1NT-3NT do significantly better? How much so?

This can be used to try and quantify the advantage of the uninformative auction.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on May 21 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

Even if the odds of 9+ were 2x higher (and that is extremely unlikely), you should not invite in this situation. If you are playing the odds, then the average 8 HCP containing a 5 card suit Responder should never invite opposite the average 1N= 15-17 opening. Never. At any colors or form of scoring.

(edited from later post)

[Danny Kleinman in _The NoTrump Zone_ not only mentions that average 8 HCP hands with a 5card suit should not invite opposite 1N= 15-17, he also mentions that he got the error on this point in the 5th ed of the Encyclopedia changed for the 6th ed.

Foo, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody here is saying (at least I dont think they are) that you should invite with the "average" eight count, as you keep referring to.

Instead we (or at least I am) are saying that if you are going to invite, it is better to just bid game directly.

Please note.....there IS a difference. A big difference.

If you have a hand that is going to invite anyways, the extra Jack that partner may or may not have is unliikely to make much of a difference in the result on the board.

Look at the following examples and their possible outcomes, First lets deal with the direct 3N bids and their possible outcomes:

1) You bid 3N direct. It always makes. Average plus or better.
2) You bid 3N direct. It always goes down. You get below average on the board, but not a complete zero as others will either invite and have it accepted or bid 3N directly as well.
3) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It makes. Your chances of cold top on the board are decreased because of the invitational sequence, but the board should still score much better than average.
4) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It goes down as a result of abnormal defense due to invitational sequence but would likely have made on direct 3N. (You're minus when you should have been plus).

You originally would have won or tied the board in 3 out of 4 cases by bidding 3N directly, but now always lose in case 4 and reduce your chances of winning in case 3 as well. Case 2 was the only originally losing case. You effectively convert 2 of your 3 original winning options into possible or probable losing ones.

Now deal with hands where invite is made, and declined:

5) You invite and its declined. You would have made two no matter what. Board is probably average.
6) You invite and its declined. You make 3 (or more), no matter what the defense does. What should have been well above average (by direct 3N) is no more than average and quite possibly average minus, since others may accept.
7) You invite and its declined. You go down one (or more) regardless of defense. This board is average minus at best.
8) You invite and its declined. You go down 1 due to invitational sequence. You would have made two (or three) if not for the invitational sequence. You lose the board. Since others may or may not invite, the board is average minus at best.
9) You invite and its declined. You go down more than 1 due to invitational sequence. You lose board entirely (except for those in 3N going down more).

In all of these cases(#5-8), the invite breaks even in one case (#5), and loses (or rates to lose) in all the rest.

Did I miss any? Oh yes. I did forget a couple. The case where you dont invite and opp balances. Now you are almost always losing the board, if their balancing bid makes and you have no shot at making 2N/3N any longer, but if you had bid 3N directly, you would have been -1 or 2 (at favorable) winning the board for -100 against their likely 110. (Alternatively, you may win the board, but only if your side can whack whatever they bid).

All I can say is I know what works for me, and has for 15+ years. I will give another example and let you decide what to do:

---

Do you pass? Do you invite through stayman (your partner will deny a major and pass 2N if you do)? Or do you bite the bullet and bid 3N?

Heck, put it up as a poll if you wish.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 21 2006, 03:10 PM, said:

Unfortunately for the "blast or pass" POV, if one makes the default assumptions about 8 opposite 1N=15-17, the conclusion you state is dangerously wrong.

Before spending too much time burrowing into the statistics, I think that we need to ask a much more fundamental question: Does information about "range" allow opener to make a well informed decision about whether or not to bid 3NT?

Speaking as a member of the "Blast or Pass" school, I argue that the ability to clarify range is much less important than describing a source of tricks or a stopper or discerning weakness. It might be possible to design a range ask that was precisely enough that it has a positive expected value. However, I suspect that such a bid would be so rare that it that there are better uses for the bid.

[foo]

"Foo, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody here is saying (at least I dont think they are) that you should invite with the "average" eight count, as you keep referring to.
Instead we (or at least I am) are saying that if you are going to invite, it is better to just bid game directly.
Please note.....there IS a difference. A big difference."

There are 2 points I'm trying make here:

1= Advice that the average 8 HCP containing a 5 card suit is a minimum invite opposite 1N= 15-17 is wrong.

Please note that I've included the 5card suit as a requirement of the hand in every post I've made. The difference between the average 8 HCP hand and the average 8 HCP hand containing a 5card suit is the difference between a pass vs an minimum invite according to this advice so its presence can not be ignored or discounted.

The reason for me to keep using the word "average" is because I do not want people twisting my POV by using examples of "8 counts" containing 2 A's (2 more controls than average), 4 T's (3 more than average), and 4 9's (3 more than average), etc, etc, and then complaining that not inviting misses a game.

2= No matter what your 1N range, there are Responding hands that are legitimate invites. If you "pass or blast" you are taking the view that playing the odds and then counting the opponents mistakes as vigorish is better than bidding your hands accurately.

IMHO, this is taking the good idea of minimizing the amount of information we give the opponents to an inappropriate extreme. Just as the overuse of descriptive sequences is too far an extreme in the other direction.

Let's put it this another way. If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence? Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand? Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

Invitational hands are just that. Invitational. They should be bid that way.
No, we should not bid more than we have to. OTOH, we should not bid =less= than we have to get to the right spot either.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 21 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

Let's put it this another way.  If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence?  Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand?  Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

That's actually a valid question, with a few very good answers.

One is that inviting on slower auctions where both players have shown suits doesn't help the opponents figure out what to lead, since in those cases there is generally a suit called for by the auction, or at worst a choice of two suits. However the auctions 1NT p 3NT and 1NT p 2NT p 3NT offer very differing inferences regarding how passively or aggressively to lead, so there is more to gain by disguising your strength.

Another reason, also regarding the lead, is that an auction where no suits have been bid gives a somewhat blind choice of suits to lead. The leader may even have identical holdings in two suits and thus a complete guess as to which to lead, and for this reason the defense in general blows more tricks against such auctions. It's hardly a victory to stop in 2NT on some particular setup when there is a 50 50 shot that the lead will let you make more.

Another reason is that an invitation opposite a strong notrump has essentially a 1 or 1.5 point range, which is a fine line on which to try to be perfectly accurate. An auction like, say, 1♠ p 1NT p 2♣ p 3♣ is quite a bit more wide ranging, giving more of a need to invite. Also on some auctions, like that one, more than one strain is in play so it would be presumptuous to simply jump to game.

Let me ask you a different question. If asked to name pairs who are well known for bidding aggressively and making tight games, any one of us could come up with dozens easily. Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to stop on a dime in making 2NT contracts?

(I edited this a while after posting, to correct grammer and because I thought of more to say)

[foo]

jdonn, on May 21 2006, 10:10 PM, said:

foo, on May 21 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

Let's put it this another way.  If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence?  Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand?  Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

That's actually a valid question, with a few very good answers.

<very good comments snipped>

Let me ask you a different question. If asked to name pairs who are well known for bidding aggressively and making tight games, any one of us could come up with dozens if not hundreds. Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to stop on a dime in making 2NT contracts?

I don't think that is the right question.

IMHO the correct, or at least more pertinent, question is:

"Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to bid extraordinarily accurately rather than 'pass or blast' "?

...and IMHO =that= question leads one to notice that the better the pair, the more accurately they tend to bid and defend their cards. Especially when facing off vs other such pairs.

Meckwell's (and others) (in)famous 23 HCP games are usually not average 23 HCP hands with average degrees of fit and misfit plus average value location.
Players and pairs of this caliber use the language of bidding like a razor sharp surgeon's scalpel and combine it with extraordinary quality bridge logic and visualization skills.
Not only do they tend to bid "good" 23 HCP games, they tend to stay out of "bad" 28 HCP games. That same tendency is seen regarding slams as well.
To put it another way, for them many situations are double dummy that for most others of lesser skill are single dummy.

IME, too much use of "pass or blast", =especially= when developing as a player, stunts growth in the very skills needed to become a top class player.

One other point, just because System gives you the ability to invite or whatever does not mean that you have to use that ability. If you really believe your best odds of making a contract are to simply bid it rather than invite it, than of course you should do so. The choice to gamble is always a valid one.

The point is System should not =force= you to gamble. I want System to give me choices and flexibility, not straitjackets.

[jdonn]

These pairs AREN'T known for bidding extraordinarilly accurately in quantitative auctions, and avoiding bad 28 point games. They are known for bidding aggressive and close games, and trusting their own good play and defensive errors (defense is very difficult after all) to see them home enough of the time to make it worthwhile. The accuracy they are known for are on auctions where degree of fit and such things have to be judged, not on count the jacks hands.

Your statement about Meckwell is incorrect. What they are famous for is bidding almost every hand with near game values to game, not for finding only the very good games on such hands.

Jeff Meckstroth:
"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

"On most deals where we have more than the balance of the HCP, by however slight a margin, even with only a very moderate trump fit, Eric and I tend to bid game. This has always been our style, and I believe it is the right one - defense is by far the most difficult part of the game."

He made a point of saying he believes it's the right style, not just for Meckwell. Fred has also said he thinks this is the right style, to blast game instead of inviting after 1NT opening bids. What wiser spokesmen do you need?

[foo]

IMNSHO Jeff Meckstroth's partner is one of the 3 best technicians in bridge currently (Rodwell, Helgemo, and Rosenburg. Eric is my vote for #1 presently).

That gives Jeff some freedom that others don't have.

Notice that it's not Eric giving this advice.

Finally:
Jeff Meckstroth:
"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

Slight. And in that I would completely agree; =especially= if GOP was one of the three listed above.

I also agree than good news tends to improve NT hands faster than bad news tends to degrade them. Optimism is more likely to be correct than pessism given supporting evidence. But that supporting evidence must be present.

=However=, most players are not and are never going to be of the caliber of these. Nor are their partners. Nor are their partnerships.

What is a slight overbid or underbid for Jeff in the context of his 30+ year partnership with Eric and ~800 pages of system notes is something most players are not capable of measuring accurately. Nor is the average pair going to have the declaring and defending skills of such a pair.

Most players taking Jeff's comments too literally are going to get themselves in trouble.

By all means, please bid game at my table every time you have 21+ HCP and a fit.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 21 2006, 11:38 PM, said:

IMNSHO Jeff Meckstroth's partner is one of the 3 best technicians in bridge currently (Rodwell, Helgemo, and Rosenburg.  Eric is my vote for #1 presently).

That gives Jeff some freedom that others don't have.

Notice that it's not Eric giving this advice.

Finally:
Jeff Meckstroth:
"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

Slight.  And in that I would completely agree; =especially= if GOP was one of the three listed above.

I also agree than good news tends to improve NT hands faster than bad news tends to degrade them.  Optimism is more likely to be correct than pessism given supporting evidence.  But that supporting evidence must be present.

=However=, most players are not and are never going to be of the caliber of these.  Nor are their partners.  Nor are their partnerships.

What is a slight overbid or underbid for Jeff in the context of his 30+ year partnership with Eric and ~800 pages of system notes is something most players are not capable of measuring accurately.  Nor is the average pair going to have the declaring and defending skills of such a pair.

Most players taking Jeff's comments too literally are going to get themselves in trouble.

By all means, please bid game at my table every time you have 21+ HCP and a fit.

Even if I grant you that Rodwell is the world's best technician (Which I don't and it's not even close as far as I'm concerned, but for the purposes of this post I'll pretend I do), read what Jeff said.

"... The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

I missed the part where he said "... The reason for this is that my partner is the world's best technician and thus I can get away with it." You are making up his reasoning. Specifically, you are saying he does this just because his partner and partnership are great, despite there being no evidence that this is his reasoning other than you saying it is. In fact his own comments contradict that view, as he gives another reason instead (because the upside is greater).

When you say only players of this caliber can do these things effectively, you are the one ignoring his advice.


"...[bidding close games] has always been our style, and I believe it is the right one." Did I again cut off the part where he said "For the world's best players only"? No, he believes it is the right style, and I believe him too.

Minor points...
How can you say that most players can't measure a slight overbid or underbid? I'm quite sure all those who bid 3NT with 10 and 2NT with 9 would agree that bidding 3NT with 9 is a slight overbid. It's a point light, how much more slight can it be? And what do his partnership's defending skills have to do with it? He plays against world class defenders, that should be interpreted as a reason not to overbid, yet there he goes doing it.

If the following is wrong then please correct me since I am assuming your intentions, but I don't think you mean to say his advice is being taken too literally. I think you mean to say it is being followed by an audience other than that for which it was intended. And about that, I say you are wrong.

[foo]

"Even if I grant you that Rodwell is the world's best technician (Which I don't and it's not even close as far as I'm concerned..."
Who is your choice? and why do you think it is so clear cut as to be "not even close"?
I'm particularly curious about your answers if it is not one of the three players I listed.

"How can you say that most players can't measure a slight overbid or underbid?"
That is not what I said.
What I said is that players of that caliber in partnerships of that longevity and sophistication bid and defend outrageously better than the vast majority of us ever will. They see and hear things ATT the rest of us are just not going to ever perceive.
...and they are way, way, beyond using HCP in any shape or form.

Here's simple examples:
How often do you know at the end of the auction exactly how many expected tricks GOP has in their hands? How often do you know GOP's exact number of power tricks (heck, often such pairs know _exactly_ what values GOP has in a suit) and shape?
These folks do the vast majority of the time.

...and I'm not talking about (over)use of relay methods.

They literally are playing at such a different level of skill than the rest of us that it might as well be called a different game.

"If the following is wrong then please correct me since I am assuming your intentions, but I don't think you mean to say his advice is being taken too literally. I think you mean to say it is being followed by an audience other than that for which it was intended."
I meant exactly what I said. Jeff is using the term "HCP" as a shorthand for something =FAR= more sophisticated going on in his head when he decides whether or not he and Eric "have the majority of the HCP".

Taking him or any other world class player even vaguely literally when they use the term "HCP", especially when one does not have the personal or pairwise skills to back it up, is a recipe for bad results.