C*****9
发帖数: 147 | 1 IMP game，双有局，play normal 2/1, 你拿:
S4
HAK9654
DQT
CKQT9
叫牌:
pd - you
1c - 1h
1s - 2d
3d - 3h
3s - ? | b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 2 ３Ｈ已经叫错了，后面的问题也就无意义了。
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: IMP game，双有局，play normal 2/1, 你拿:
: S4
: HAK9654
: DQT
: CKQT9
: 叫牌:
: pd - you
: 1c - 1h
: 1s - 2d
: 3d - 3h
| m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 3 应该怎样呢? 我怀疑我会叫4c.
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: ３Ｈ已经叫错了，后面的问题也就无意义了。
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 4 2D, 无论是 4sf 还是 xyz, 都是逼局了.
3D, 那么就是显示没有H 支持了(大约4234, 4144, 4135)
3D 转过来, 我如果是应叫人, 会选择叫4C 了. | b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 5 ３Ｄ最有可能的是４０４５，也有可能是４１４４较弱的方块，总之基本上是强调红心
单缺。这时候应叫方坚持再叫３Ｈ，应该是独立可打的强套。这里一旦叫错，后面很难
纠正，之后即便再叫４Ｃ，也会被认为是扣叫而不是梅花配合。
如果在３Ｄ之后叫４Ｃ确定王牌，后面就简单多了。假设开叫方能够扣叫４Ｄ，应方可
以再扣４Ｈ。 | j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 6 学习了。
开叫方4135是不是也叫3D？
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: ３Ｄ最有可能的是４０４５，也有可能是４１４４较弱的方块，总之基本上是强调红心
: 单缺。这时候应叫方坚持再叫３Ｈ，应该是独立可打的强套。这里一旦叫错，后面很难
: 纠正，之后即便再叫４Ｃ，也会被认为是扣叫而不是梅花配合。
: 如果在３Ｄ之后叫４Ｃ确定王牌，后面就简单多了。假设开叫方能够扣叫４Ｄ，应方可
: 以再扣４Ｈ。
| C*****9
发帖数: 147 | 7 这手牌有值得思考的地方。1c-1h-1s-2d(4sf)是自动的，3D可以是4135，4045或4036，还有极少可能是4144(即低花44，C>>D)。但3H still looking for game, 强调H一定独立可打则有失偏颇，因为持很多6322或6331类，如:
SK94
HAK9654
DQT
CQ9
你还是需要表示H6+，由同伴作出选择，如持单张H大牌加叫4H。
这手牌3D后肯定是4C好，因为一旦3d-3h-4h你6-4型好的C配合没有显示，实在心有不甘。我原意是3S后如果你还不敢越过3N叫4C，那就不可忍受了。同伴持:
SA984
H-
DA876
DAJ432
在BBO tournament上只有5 of 45桌叫6或7C。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: ３Ｄ最有可能的是４０４５，也有可能是４１４４较弱的方块，总之基本上是强调红心
: 单缺。这时候应叫方坚持再叫３Ｈ，应该是独立可打的强套。这里一旦叫错，后面很难
: 纠正，之后即便再叫４Ｃ，也会被认为是扣叫而不是梅花配合。
: 如果在３Ｄ之后叫４Ｃ确定王牌，后面就简单多了。假设开叫方能够扣叫４Ｄ，应方可
: 以再扣４Ｈ。
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 8 这个部分取决于你们１Ｃ－１Ｈ－１Ｓ这种进程的风格。就我个人而言，开叫方持１２
－１４点均型牌一般都是再叫１ＮＴ，即便是持有４张黑桃（比方４２３４）。缺点是
应叫方低限时可能错过４－４黑桃配合，好处是１Ｃ－１Ｈ－１Ｓ一般显示至少５张梅
花（或是４张梅花但点力集中在黑套上），对整体特征的描述更加清晰。
回到叫牌序列：１Ｃ－１Ｈ；１Ｓ－２Ｄ，如果开叫方可以是４２３４甚至是４３３３
牌型，那么真正持有５＋张梅花的时候大部分都应该叫３Ｃ，因为第５张梅花是重要的
尚未披露的信息。具体到４１３５的牌型，如果方块挡张好的话就叫２ＮＴ，否则就是
３Ｃ。这样３Ｄ就可以明确是４张方块，红心单缺。
如果１Ｃ再１Ｓ已经暗示５＋张梅花，那么３Ｄ就是显示４０４５／４１３５／４１４
４牌型，强调的是红心单缺。这时候的３Ｃ就应该是显示６＋张梅花，或是很好的５张
套。
顺便提一下，第四花逼叫后，一般还应该有一个default叫品，也可以称为“垃圾箱”
叫品，用来作为等叫。１Ｃ－１Ｈ－１Ｓ－２Ｄ之后，２Ｓ就可以是这样一个叫品，表
示开叫方没有３张红心，没有方块挡张，没有好的梅花，等等。
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: 学习了。
: 开叫方4135是不是也叫3D？
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 9 这么说也有道理。尤其是如果把１Ｄ－２Ｈ作为强跳叫，那么先期的叫牌已经基本上否
定持有独立可打的强套了。但我仍然认为叫３Ｈ的话，红心质量应该更好一些，或是更
长一些，不然同伴单张小牌的话不知道该不该加叫。拿着你这个6322的例子，可能我在
３Ｄ后就直接３ＮＴ了，ＣＱ／ＤＱ都是软点，更适合无将。
但最关键的是，３Ｈ应该否定好的梅花支持。所以叫了３Ｈ之后，你就没法再告诉同伴
你有这么好的梅花了。
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: 这手牌有值得思考的地方。1c-1h-1s-2d(4sf)是自动的，3D可以是4135，4045或4036，还有极少可能是4144(即低花44，C>>D)。但3H still looking for game, 强调H一定独立可打则有失偏颇，因为持很多6322或6331类，如:
: SK94
: HAK9654
: DQT
: CQ9
: 你还是需要表示H6+，由同伴作出选择，如持单张H大牌加叫4H。
: 这手牌3D后肯定是4C好，因为一旦3d-3h-4h你6-4型好的C配合没有显示，实在心有不甘。我原意是3S后如果你还不敢越过3N叫4C，那就不可忍受了。同伴持:
: SA984
: H-
: DA876
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 10 BBO上就不用提了。即便是叫到６Ｃ／７Ｃ的，也多半是蒙的。
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: 这手牌有值得思考的地方。1c-1h-1s-2d(4sf)是自动的，3D可以是4135，4045或4036，还有极少可能是4144(即低花44，C>>D)。但3H still looking for game, 强调H一定独立可打则有失偏颇，因为持很多6322或6331类，如:
: SK94
: HAK9654
: DQT
: CQ9
: 你还是需要表示H6+，由同伴作出选择，如持单张H大牌加叫4H。
: 这手牌3D后肯定是4C好，因为一旦3d-3h-4h你6-4型好的C配合没有显示，实在心有不甘。我原意是3S后如果你还不敢越过3N叫4C，那就不可忍受了。同伴持:
: SA984
: H-
: DA876
| | | j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 11 牌理都讲清楚了，谢谢！
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 这个部分取决于你们１Ｃ－１Ｈ－１Ｓ这种进程的风格。就我个人而言，开叫方持１２
: －１４点均型牌一般都是再叫１ＮＴ，即便是持有４张黑桃（比方４２３４）。缺点是
: 应叫方低限时可能错过４－４黑桃配合，好处是１Ｃ－１Ｈ－１Ｓ一般显示至少５张梅
: 花（或是４张梅花但点力集中在黑套上），对整体特征的描述更加清晰。
: 回到叫牌序列：１Ｃ－１Ｈ；１Ｓ－２Ｄ，如果开叫方可以是４２３４甚至是４３３３
: 牌型，那么真正持有５＋张梅花的时候大部分都应该叫３Ｃ，因为第５张梅花是重要的
: 尚未披露的信息。具体到４１３５的牌型，如果方块挡张好的话就叫２ＮＴ，否则就是
: ３Ｃ。这样３Ｄ就可以明确是４张方块，红心单缺。
: 如果１Ｃ再１Ｓ已经暗示５＋张梅花，那么３Ｄ就是显示４０４５／４１３５／４１４
: ４牌型，强调的是红心单缺。这时候的３Ｃ就应该是显示６＋张梅花，或是很好的５张
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 12 4th suit gf is a rather bad convention. If 1C 1H 1S shows at least 5-4 in C
and H, this hand becomes very slamish and the ability to set up C at or
below three level becomes critical. Standard treatment sucks big time in
this area.
A simple improvement is to play 2D to show any invitational hands or sign
off hands in 2H. Then you free up all the bids above 2D as natural and gf.
Your life will be much much easier in that sense. Saving only one bid for gf
hands and a lot of bids for sign offs and invitational hands is the major
weakness of all standard treatments, which is just against the basic bidding
principles, save a lot of bidding space for strong hands and don't bid your
partials or games too accurately.
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: IMP game，双有局，play normal 2/1, 你拿:
: S4
: HAK9654
: DQT
: CKQT9
: 叫牌:
: pd - you
: 1c - 1h
: 1s - 2d
: 3d - 3h
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 13 1，1C-1H; 1S-2D, 这种4sf(gf)确实有些争议
2，但是如果把2D 设定为邀请牌力, 开叫人可能没有好的落脚点, 一律叫2H 吗?
3，"Then you free up all the bids above 2D as natural and gf."
H 还是需要一些支持的, 如果叫2H 逼局, 定将牌吗? 还是显示5+H ?
以上这些问题, xyz 都给了比较圆满的处理, 既不是只有一个逼局叫品, 也可以在强牌
的时候在低阶显示配合. | p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 14 XYZ is rather bad because it works best when opener is limited. The range
for 1x 1y 1z is really wide. That's why XYZ isn't popular at all for that
purpose. Also, the sign offs have to be at 3 levels in some cases.
For example, suppose responder bid 3C over 1C 1D 1S to set up C as trumps,
which is merely a gf bid, opener usually has quite a tough time to continue.
【在 l****a 的大作中提到】
: 1，1C-1H; 1S-2D, 这种4sf(gf)确实有些争议
: 2，但是如果把2D 设定为邀请牌力, 开叫人可能没有好的落脚点, 一律叫2H 吗?
: 3，"Then you free up all the bids above 2D as natural and gf."
: H 还是需要一些支持的, 如果叫2H 逼局, 定将牌吗? 还是显示5+H ?
: 以上这些问题, xyz 都给了比较圆满的处理, 既不是只有一个逼局叫品, 也可以在强牌
: 的时候在低阶显示配合.
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 15 Also, the sign offs have to be at 3 levels in some cases.
For example, suppose responder bid 3C over 1C 1D 1S to set up C as trumps,
which is merely a gf bid, opener usually has quite a tough time to continue.
不明白你说的什么。
1C-1D; 1S-3C 你处理成 gf ?
还是来中文吧。 | p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 16 There are two issues: one is that you have to sign off at 3 level with some
rather bad hands, which creates a lot of safety problems. Suppose the
bidding is 1C 1H 1S, you have Ax Qxxxx xxx xxx, here 2C is a relay to 2D,
then you can't sign off at 2C. A normal treatment is to bid 2NT, which
relays to 3C, then you are one level too high here. This is an intrinsic
disadvantage.
Another issue is that XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands.
Suppose the bidding is 1C 1H 1S, you hold x AKxxx AJxx Qxx, how to proceed
here is an open question. You can bid 2D as a gf, then if opener bids 3C to
show 6 or more clubs, you actually don't know whether you should try for
slams.
The intrinsic problem of 2D is that it just creates a gameforcing situation,
no any distributional information or accurate strength information in that
one bid. Therefore, it is not a very good design. Usually a bid at two level
should pass two types of information at the same time, shape and strength.
The general design of xyz comes from two way Stayman, which indeed has the
intrinsic problem of two way Stayman, too slow to show the responder's shape
to allow the opener to evaluate his hand intelligently. This is not a huge
issue after 1NT rebid, because 1NT is a limited bid; but it is rather bad
after 1x 1y 1z, because it has very wide ranges.
continue.
【在 l****a 的大作中提到】
: Also, the sign offs have to be at 3 levels in some cases.
: For example, suppose responder bid 3C over 1C 1D 1S to set up C as trumps,
: which is merely a gf bid, opener usually has quite a tough time to continue.
: 不明白你说的什么。
: 1C-1D; 1S-3C 你处理成 gf ?
: 还是来中文吧。
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 17 Are you cozofu? Sound like him. :-))
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: 4th suit gf is a rather bad convention. If 1C 1H 1S shows at least 5-4 in C
: and H, this hand becomes very slamish and the ability to set up C at or
: below three level becomes critical. Standard treatment sucks big time in
: this area.
: A simple improvement is to play 2D to show any invitational hands or sign
: off hands in 2H. Then you free up all the bids above 2D as natural and gf.
: Your life will be much much easier in that sense. Saving only one bid for gf
: hands and a lot of bids for sign offs and invitational hands is the major
: weakness of all standard treatments, which is just against the basic bidding
: principles, save a lot of bidding space for strong hands and don't bid your
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 18 who is him?
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: Are you cozofu? Sound like him. :-))
| g****o
发帖数: 1284 | 19 then you are not him. He has not appeared for a long long time...
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: who is him?
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 20 Nevermind if you don't know him. I just found some similarities and thought
I'd ask. :-)
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: who is him?
| | | o*******n
发帖数: 6500 | | v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 22 解答得很全面，也很符合北美主流专家的观点，bucky完全可以在bulletin上做一个中
高级的答疑专栏了。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: ３Ｄ最有可能的是４０４５，也有可能是４１４４较弱的方块，总之基本上是强调红心
: 单缺。这时候应叫方坚持再叫３Ｈ，应该是独立可打的强套。这里一旦叫错，后面很难
: 纠正，之后即便再叫４Ｃ，也会被认为是扣叫而不是梅花配合。
: 如果在３Ｄ之后叫４Ｃ确定王牌，后面就简单多了。假设开叫方能够扣叫４Ｄ，应方可
: 以再扣４Ｈ。
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 23 这个点上还是有很多地方可以讨论的。第四花色无论逼局与否均可，优劣也不易评判，
主要还是看后续进程的设计。
为了便于推广，美国标准或2/1的中约定叫设计比较少，也粗糙，这种情况下第四花色
逼局含义明确，应该比较有优势。
some
to
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: There are two issues: one is that you have to sign off at 3 level with some
: rather bad hands, which creates a lot of safety problems. Suppose the
: bidding is 1C 1H 1S, you have Ax Qxxxx xxx xxx, here 2C is a relay to 2D,
: then you can't sign off at 2C. A normal treatment is to bid 2NT, which
: relays to 3C, then you are one level too high here. This is an intrinsic
: disadvantage.
: Another issue is that XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands.
: Suppose the bidding is 1C 1H 1S, you hold x AKxxx AJxx Qxx, how to proceed
: here is an open question. You can bid 2D as a gf, then if opener bids 3C to
: show 6 or more clubs, you actually don't know whether you should try for
| j*******e
发帖数: 2168 | 24 不明白为什么这个斑斑从来不发包子
不然人家bucky早成富翁了
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 解答得很全面，也很符合北美主流专家的观点，bucky完全可以在bulletin上做一个中
: 高级的答疑专栏了。
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 25 过奖了。别说是bulletin了，就在这BBS上，不是还被人指摘前后矛盾缺乏资质的么？:
-)
正经地说，纸上谈兵是相对容易的，实战制胜才是硬道理。没有那个能耐，说啥别人都
不服的。
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 解答得很全面，也很符合北美主流专家的观点，bucky完全可以在bulletin上做一个中
: 高级的答疑专栏了。
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 26 感觉这条线上有些对XYZ的评论有失偏颇，就再多说几句。在我看来，与其说XYZ是一个
约定叫，不如说是一种理念。其基本思想是所有邀叫的牌都从２Ｃ接力叫起步，而把三
阶上的跳叫都作为逼局。主要目的正是为了描述各种逼局的牌况，以利寻求最佳的成局
或是满贯定约。在XYZ的框架下，1C-1H-1S-2D这种进程，并不是含糊的总括性的 GF 而
已，而是已经排除了好梅花（不然可叫３Ｃ）、好方块（不然可叫３Ｄ）、好红心（不
然可叫３Ｈ）、黑桃支持（不然可叫３Ｓ）、均型限制牌力（不然可叫３ＮＴ）之外的
一些牌。"XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands"，我认为这种说法是对 XYZ
的不够了解造成的。
个人认为，XYZ 最大的缺点是不能停在２Ｃ上。有些专家牌手主要就因为这点而弃用
XYZ. | m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 27 我还真的不知道xyz是那个叫法? 为啥大家都不敢直接说它的真名字. 而是用xyz代替
. 有点意思.
XYZ
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 感觉这条线上有些对XYZ的评论有失偏颇，就再多说几句。在我看来，与其说XYZ是一个
: 约定叫，不如说是一种理念。其基本思想是所有邀叫的牌都从２Ｃ接力叫起步，而把三
: 阶上的跳叫都作为逼局。主要目的正是为了描述各种逼局的牌况，以利寻求最佳的成局
: 或是满贯定约。在XYZ的框架下，1C-1H-1S-2D这种进程，并不是含糊的总括性的 GF 而
: 已，而是已经排除了好梅花（不然可叫３Ｃ）、好方块（不然可叫３Ｄ）、好红心（不
: 然可叫３Ｈ）、黑桃支持（不然可叫３Ｓ）、均型限制牌力（不然可叫３ＮＴ）之外的
: 一些牌。"XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands"，我认为这种说法是对 XYZ
: 的不够了解造成的。
: 个人认为，XYZ 最大的缺点是不能停在２Ｃ上。有些专家牌手主要就因为这点而弃用
: XYZ.
| o*******n
发帖数: 6500 | 28 哈哈哈哈哈
？:
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 过奖了。别说是bulletin了，就在这BBS上，不是还被人指摘前后矛盾缺乏资质的么？:
: -)
: 正经地说，纸上谈兵是相对容易的，实战制胜才是硬道理。没有那个能耐，说啥别人都
: 不服的。
| o*******n
发帖数: 6500 | 29 就是叫品是
1x-1y-1z之后之后怎么叫的约定
包括
1c-1d-1h
1c-1d-1s
1c-1d-1n
1c-1h-1s
1c-1h-1n
1c-1s-1n
1d-1h-1s
1d-1h-1n
1d-1s-1n
1h-1s-1n
【在 m****r 的大作中提到】
: 我还真的不知道xyz是那个叫法? 为啥大家都不敢直接说它的真名字. 而是用xyz代替
: . 有点意思.
:
: XYZ
| m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 30 你真能写.
我个人意见, 用xyz, 有点confusing. 因为加倍也用x做商标. 所以, 用opq, 比较不
容易混淆.
【在 o*******n 的大作中提到】
: 就是叫品是
: 1x-1y-1z之后之后怎么叫的约定
: 包括
: 1c-1d-1h
: 1c-1d-1s
: 1c-1d-1n
: 1c-1h-1s
: 1c-1h-1n
: 1c-1s-1n
: 1d-1h-1s
| | | o*******n
发帖数: 6500 | 31 可惜我们还不到能命名的水平:-)
【在 m****r 的大作中提到】
: 你真能写.
: 我个人意见, 用xyz, 有点confusing. 因为加倍也用x做商标. 所以, 用opq, 比较不
: 容易混淆.
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 32 2C 起步是模糊性邀请
2D 起步是模糊性逼局
这些模糊性都有可能是存在潜在配合的, 或者不能简单描述的牌.
其他的都可以直接描述, 比如半坚固以上的套, 或者均型
看几个进程
1C-1H; 1S-2NT
1C-1H; 1S-2C; 2D-2NT
1C-1H; 1S-3NT
1C-1H; 1S-2D; whatever-3NT
如果把上面的1H 换成 1D 的话(假设使用walsh),
这些进程就更值得品味了.
实战中,我自己的体会,最大的弱点也正如bucky 所说, 放弃了2C 的自然含义.
话又说回来,如果没这个弱点,其他的约定叫可能就大多得淘汰了.
xyz如果没有优点, 这个约定叫也许根本不会诞生的.
XYZ
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 感觉这条线上有些对XYZ的评论有失偏颇，就再多说几句。在我看来，与其说XYZ是一个
: 约定叫，不如说是一种理念。其基本思想是所有邀叫的牌都从２Ｃ接力叫起步，而把三
: 阶上的跳叫都作为逼局。主要目的正是为了描述各种逼局的牌况，以利寻求最佳的成局
: 或是满贯定约。在XYZ的框架下，1C-1H-1S-2D这种进程，并不是含糊的总括性的 GF 而
: 已，而是已经排除了好梅花（不然可叫３Ｃ）、好方块（不然可叫３Ｄ）、好红心（不
: 然可叫３Ｈ）、黑桃支持（不然可叫３Ｓ）、均型限制牌力（不然可叫３ＮＴ）之外的
: 一些牌。"XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands"，我认为这种说法是对 XYZ
: 的不够了解造成的。
: 个人认为，XYZ 最大的缺点是不能停在２Ｃ上。有些专家牌手主要就因为这点而弃用
: XYZ.
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 33 XYZ的范围还是很广，后续不好一概而论，特别是包含1N的进程,所以说成是一个理念更
好；对于一个严谨的叫牌体系，每个进程都是单独设计的。
【在 o*******n 的大作中提到】
: 就是叫品是
: 1x-1y-1z之后之后怎么叫的约定
: 包括
: 1c-1d-1h
: 1c-1d-1s
: 1c-1d-1n
: 1c-1h-1s
: 1c-1h-1n
: 1c-1s-1n
: 1d-1h-1s
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 34 说到命名，大家可以试试张德生(ZDS)转移叫。
【在 o*******n 的大作中提到】
: 可惜我们还不到能命名的水平:-)
| j******w
发帖数: 4429 | 35 马克的文章有时候有包子 有时候没。。
我版穷啊 上次给bucky做合计
我还自掏腰包 呵呵
地主家也没啥余粮阿。。
【在 j*******e 的大作中提到】
: 不明白为什么这个斑斑从来不发包子
: 不然人家bucky早成富翁了
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 36 You didn't get my point. The basic problem of xyz is that opener has a very
very wide range after 1x 1y 1z(z is not NT), from 11 to 18. Therefore, it is
really not easy to know how high you want to push. So for serious
partnership, they have to have some gadgets to show the strength after xyz,
which is not well defined at all. For example, suppose you play xyz, do you
have a firm partnership understanding of how strong 1c 1H 1S 3C is? Does it
show good 12-14 with long clubs and some shape? or does it show 15 or above?
or does it guarantee slam interest? All these are open questions. Also,
from opener's side, after 1c 1H 1S 2D, does 3C show extra? Do you have a
gadget to distinguish hands with extra? In some sense, it is pretty much the
same as 2/1 gf systems. Without much partnership agreement to accurately
define the strength, it is just a very rough system. In some sense, 2/1 gf
and xyz are still rather tough for intermediate to advanced players, because
a lot of things are not well defined, so a lot of judgement calls have to
make to reach a good spot.
XYZ
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 感觉这条线上有些对XYZ的评论有失偏颇，就再多说几句。在我看来，与其说XYZ是一个
: 约定叫，不如说是一种理念。其基本思想是所有邀叫的牌都从２Ｃ接力叫起步，而把三
: 阶上的跳叫都作为逼局。主要目的正是为了描述各种逼局的牌况，以利寻求最佳的成局
: 或是满贯定约。在XYZ的框架下，1C-1H-1S-2D这种进程，并不是含糊的总括性的 GF 而
: 已，而是已经排除了好梅花（不然可叫３Ｃ）、好方块（不然可叫３Ｄ）、好红心（不
: 然可叫３Ｈ）、黑桃支持（不然可叫３Ｓ）、均型限制牌力（不然可叫３ＮＴ）之外的
: 一些牌。"XYZ is not very well defined for GF hands"，我认为这种说法是对 XYZ
: 的不够了解造成的。
: 个人认为，XYZ 最大的缺点是不能停在２Ｃ上。有些专家牌手主要就因为这点而弃用
: XYZ.
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 37 1c 1H 1S 3C
xyz 里面, 对这个有明确描述, 别费心思猜了.
压根儿不是什么open question
after 1c 1H 1S 2D, does 3C show extra ?
什么叫 extra? 被逼叫以后, 优先是先找落脚点, 有余力再显示 extra,
这个序列, 如果 S=4张, H<=2, D无挡张, 只能勉强3C 维持, 是不是? | b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 38 This is intrinsic to the wide range of 1x 1y 1z. Partnership discussion is
needed on how to show different strength range. Even with your proposed
framework, 1D 1H 1S 2D relays to 2H, higher bids GF, how strong is 1D 1H 1S
3D? Don't you still have the same problem as xyz?
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: You didn't get my point. The basic problem of xyz is that opener has a very
: very wide range after 1x 1y 1z(z is not NT), from 11 to 18. Therefore, it is
: really not easy to know how high you want to push. So for serious
: partnership, they have to have some gadgets to show the strength after xyz,
: which is not well defined at all. For example, suppose you play xyz, do you
: have a firm partnership understanding of how strong 1c 1H 1S 3C is? Does it
: show good 12-14 with long clubs and some shape? or does it show 15 or above?
: or does it guarantee slam interest? All these are open questions. Also,
: from opener's side, after 1c 1H 1S 2D, does 3C show extra? Do you have a
: gadget to distinguish hands with extra? In some sense, it is pretty much the
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 39 不是很同意。
第一个进程看下来怎么设计都有道理，取决于体系的总体设计。
第二个进程3C是描述性的，是在描述整体牌型的倾向，否定均牌，描述长度强度所在是
此处叫品的意义。
【在 l****a 的大作中提到】
: 1c 1H 1S 3C
: xyz 里面, 对这个有明确描述, 别费心思猜了.
: 压根儿不是什么open question
: after 1c 1H 1S 2D, does 3C show extra ?
: 什么叫 extra? 被逼叫以后, 优先是先找落脚点, 有余力再显示 extra,
: 这个序列, 如果 S=4张, H<=2, D无挡张, 只能勉强3C 维持, 是不是?
| a****s
发帖数: 524 | 40 I happened to have some thought on XYZ, or the more general concept, "check-
back". IMHO, hardly are there any better ways than XYZ to do the job.
sign-off: If you use any check-backs at all, new minor forcing, check-back
Stayman,4th-suit forcing, 5th-suit forcing, or whatever, there's no way you
can sign-off all suits at two level. Nothing to whine about on this.
XYZ, uses less than one bid for weak hand, and creates a lot of meaningful
sequences for constructive bidding, To name a few:
*ALL* invitational sequence go through 2C (force 2D)
*ALL* 3 level bids are natural game forcing. (except double jumpshift 3S).
Immediate double jumpshift(even to X) is a splinter for Z,
2C then double jumpshift(even to Z) is a splinter for X.
2N (force 3C) signoff at club, or self-splinter (for Y) if bid on.
2D is a game forcing *check-back*, asking opener to further describe his
hand. When to use it (as an alternative to a natural game forcing) and how
to proceed thereafter, is a matter of judgement and skill. I see no weakness
in the treatment itself, as it keeps the level as low as possible.
Just like after 2/1 GF, many have a hard time to figure out whether it's 12
facing 13 or 15 facing 16. It's because they are lack of the judgement and
skills the first place, not a problem of the system. Many play 2/1 because
with a simple SAYC, they won't even know what are forcing, what are not. | | | p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 41 That's why I don't play it either, what I said is that it is an improvement
of standard treatments.
After sequences like 1D 1H 1S, the best treatment is to play 2C as a relay
to 2D, you can either sign off in 2D/2H/3C or invite in 2S/2N/3D/3H.
Therefore, all other bids are natural and gf. Now you see why xyz is bad.
xyz 2D merely sets up a gf situation without showing any shape information.
Also, you can further define the strength of 2D and 3D well, so 3D can show
serious slam interest, hands like xx AKQx AKxx Qxx. 2D can be bid based on 3
diamonds with 5 hearts, and 2H denies D support. Later, opener can
distinguish his strength by some further refinement of this structure, which
I won't show it here. Bridge bidding is not a guessing game in many
situations (especially constructive bidding) and those who want to win
frequently should avoid things like judgment calls as possible as they can.
1S
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: This is intrinsic to the wide range of 1x 1y 1z. Partnership discussion is
: needed on how to show different strength range. Even with your proposed
: framework, 1D 1H 1S 2D relays to 2H, higher bids GF, how strong is 1D 1H 1S
: 3D? Don't you still have the same problem as xyz?
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 42 A sensible treatment, but I would be careful using words like "best". In
bridge, there is only "better", no "best", otherwise the game won't have
room of growth.
You will still have ambiguity. There is no way around it, you only have
limited number of bids available to describe virtually infinite amount of
hands. If your 2D bid shows 3D+5H, 3D shows serious slam interest, then how
do you describe GF hands with 4D+4H but not quite slamish? Remember that
looking for best game should always have priority over slams. Similarly, 3H
ought to show 6+ hearts, but how do you define its strength?
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: That's why I don't play it either, what I said is that it is an improvement
: of standard treatments.
: After sequences like 1D 1H 1S, the best treatment is to play 2C as a relay
: to 2D, you can either sign off in 2D/2H/3C or invite in 2S/2N/3D/3H.
: Therefore, all other bids are natural and gf. Now you see why xyz is bad.
: xyz 2D merely sets up a gf situation without showing any shape information.
: Also, you can further define the strength of 2D and 3D well, so 3D can show
: serious slam interest, hands like xx AKQx AKxx Qxx. 2D can be bid based on 3
: diamonds with 5 hearts, and 2H denies D support. Later, opener can
: distinguish his strength by some further refinement of this structure, which
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 43 Well, I don't want to discuss too much about it because I have no intention
to publish it at all. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and
nobody here really care. You still can play your game, applying your
judgment. What I want to point out is that there are optimized structures in
many sequences, most bridge players are just too lazy to work on them.
how
3H
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: A sensible treatment, but I would be careful using words like "best". In
: bridge, there is only "better", no "best", otherwise the game won't have
: room of growth.
: You will still have ambiguity. There is no way around it, you only have
: limited number of bids available to describe virtually infinite amount of
: hands. If your 2D bid shows 3D+5H, 3D shows serious slam interest, then how
: do you describe GF hands with 4D+4H but not quite slamish? Remember that
: looking for best game should always have priority over slams. Similarly, 3H
: ought to show 6+ hearts, but how do you define its strength?
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | 44
improvement
.
"without showing" *is* information.
If it does not tell what I have, at least it tells what I don't.
show
3
which
I'm always interested in new designs, such as yours.
To help us understand you better,
could you clarify the following sequence?
1, 1D-1H; 1S-2C; 2D-3D? invitational? (yes/no)
2, 1D-1H; 1S-2D gf with D support? (yes/no)
3, 1D-1H; 1S-2C; 2D-2H signoff? (yes/no)
4, 1D-1H; 1S-2H invitational? (yes/no)
5, 1D-1H; 1S-3H gf? solid H suit or semi-solid?
It is essential to differentiate. For example,
if opener has single H or void, how does he judge to play 3NT or 4H?
Note, I am not saying xyz is the best convention.
It has its own disadvantages, as bucky already pointed out earlier.
In your treatment, you also use 2c as relay instead of natural bid.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: That's why I don't play it either, what I said is that it is an improvement
: of standard treatments.
: After sequences like 1D 1H 1S, the best treatment is to play 2C as a relay
: to 2D, you can either sign off in 2D/2H/3C or invite in 2S/2N/3D/3H.
: Therefore, all other bids are natural and gf. Now you see why xyz is bad.
: xyz 2D merely sets up a gf situation without showing any shape information.
: Also, you can further define the strength of 2D and 3D well, so 3D can show
: serious slam interest, hands like xx AKQx AKxx Qxx. 2D can be bid based on 3
: diamonds with 5 hearts, and 2H denies D support. Later, opener can
: distinguish his strength by some further refinement of this structure, which
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 45 好与不好的确不易评价。对于个人而言，各种处理方法只能说喜欢和不喜欢。
体系的软肋总归存在，扬长避短是使用体系的关键。比如有的时候发现叫牌即将进入了
体系的死角，直接拍个定约很可能是最好的选择，既不暴露额外信息，又能避免误会。
如果事后发现另一桌敌人用某些装置漂亮地叫到了最佳定约，那就只能怨运气不好并考
虑一下体系此处是否有改进加强的可能。
how
3H
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: A sensible treatment, but I would be careful using words like "best". In
: bridge, there is only "better", no "best", otherwise the game won't have
: room of growth.
: You will still have ambiguity. There is no way around it, you only have
: limited number of bids available to describe virtually infinite amount of
: hands. If your 2D bid shows 3D+5H, 3D shows serious slam interest, then how
: do you describe GF hands with 4D+4H but not quite slamish? Remember that
: looking for best game should always have priority over slams. Similarly, 3H
: ought to show 6+ hearts, but how do you define its strength?
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 46 See, that's why I said you sounded like cozofu. :-) He's been saying that
for years, that bridge players stick with bad systems because they are lazy.
You are not the first one doing that. :-))
Most people play bridge for fun anyway. On top of that, a simple system
means one can concentrate more on judgment and card play, which is much more
important, especially in long days of battle. That's why even many pros,
although adding fancy treatments in their systems, still play a natural-
based system. In theory one can benefit from a totally artificial relay
system (when properly designed), but the memory burden is just not worth it.
Regardless of your structure, judgment still has an important role,
otherwise computer robots would have already wiped out human competitors in
bridge. :-))
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Well, I don't want to discuss too much about it because I have no intention
: to publish it at all. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and
: nobody here really care. You still can play your game, applying your
: judgment. What I want to point out is that there are optimized structures in
: many sequences, most bridge players are just too lazy to work on them.
:
: how
: 3H
| v**********e
发帖数: 1295 | 47 呵呵，看起来你是完美主义者，不过完美只在理论上存在。
不断的引入各种约定，本来就使自然类体系的结构越来越不完美，尽管作用上可能会更
合理。
对于自然体系本身而言，一阶低花开叫就是软肋之一，牌型点力范围很宽，需要后续澄
清的东西很多。因此应叫方的第二次叫牌指示性多于描述性，这种方式放弃了应叫人的
自身描述，在指明方向的基础上，指导开叫人更进一步陈述牌情。问题在于也许指挥权
并不完全在应叫人手中，也可能开叫人并没有合适的自然叫品可供选择。这时我们当然
可以求助于约定叫，用非自然的方式把开叫人的点力牌型精确的描述出来，不过这种方
式却在一定程度上放弃了对点力配置的描述。这对于满贯定约也许影响并不大，因为后
续还有描述空间。但对于成局定约却很有问题，即使应叫人精确地知道开叫人的点力牌
型，也未必能确定最终打什么局好，而且开叫人在描述手牌时缺乏主观能动性的，也会
造成最终定约的偏差。
我们可以回想一下，通常来说我们是如何避开3NT的陷阱而叫五低花或四三配的高花定
约，我想多半是通过自然性地描述而叫进的，不过在叫到五低花的同时，你能保证没有
天仙配的六低花吗？矛盾在于很难兼顾局的选择和满贯的试探，孰轻孰重，只能是萝卜
白菜各有所爱了。
intention
in
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Well, I don't want to discuss too much about it because I have no intention
: to publish it at all. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and
: nobody here really care. You still can play your game, applying your
: judgment. What I want to point out is that there are optimized structures in
: many sequences, most bridge players are just too lazy to work on them.
:
: how
: 3H
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 48 Relay structures are also rather bad in many areas. Bidding is not a matter
of asking and answering. A good system should be based on information
showing, not relaying, asking and answering. A simple system is actually
often more difficult to play, because there are a lot of undefined areas and
the system itself doesn't have to be coherent and the simpler it is, the
more likely it may have many holes. If you want to solve all of them, you
have to discuss carefully with your partner, then you may actually have a
heavier memory burden. For inexperienced players who want to defeat experts,
they have to work hard both on their card plays and their system and
partnership understandings. Experts usually play way more years and way more
hands than inexperienced players. The only good news is that most bridge
experts are still quite lazy at refining their partnership understandings
and systems (also defensive carding and situations), that may offer new
players a chance to beat them. Still, one has to work very hard to beat them
.
Also, if you think judgment is about hand evaluation, it is not judgment in
my definition. Hand evaluation is a skill that can be mastered by most
players with enough practice and theoretical learning. Judgment calls are
the calls that are undiscussed in your partnership and you have to guess to
find the right spot. IMO, system is like strategy and judgment is at best
like tactic. Now a lot of people claim that tactic is more important than
strategy, which is simply absurd.
lazy.
more
it.
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: See, that's why I said you sounded like cozofu. :-) He's been saying that
: for years, that bridge players stick with bad systems because they are lazy.
: You are not the first one doing that. :-))
: Most people play bridge for fun anyway. On top of that, a simple system
: means one can concentrate more on judgment and card play, which is much more
: important, especially in long days of battle. That's why even many pros,
: although adding fancy treatments in their systems, still play a natural-
: based system. In theory one can benefit from a totally artificial relay
: system (when properly designed), but the memory burden is just not worth it.
: Regardless of your structure, judgment still has an important role,
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 49 Well, maybe I should not say "relay system", but just "artificial system".
You can use mathematical models to define a cost function, then design a
system that maximizes the efficiency. It will probably not be a total relay-
based system, but it can hardly be natural based either. Even 4-3-2-1 point
count is not optimal, there probably should be some fraction number assigned
, and also adjustment for groups of honor card combination. The main
question is, do you want to spend energy to learn and use the "optimal"
system, or would you rather use a simple yet "good enough" system, and
channel your reserved energy for something else (such as concentration,
evaluation, card play)? At some point, there will be diminishing return, you
might end up spending 10 times energy in improving your bidding by 1
percent, but when you spend the same energy in card play, you can gain huge
benefit. So it is really a matter of what is your weakness, how much work do
you have to do to improve it, and what is the cost. And all this is based
on the assumption that you actually do have a better solution...
As I said, most people just play bridge for fun. But even for serious
players, they may choose to spend time and effort to develop other areas.
After all, bridge is a ever-learning process, who can really claim his/her
card play is perfect? So I wouldn't be so quick to label them as being lazy.
..
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Relay structures are also rather bad in many areas. Bidding is not a matter
: of asking and answering. A good system should be based on information
: showing, not relaying, asking and answering. A simple system is actually
: often more difficult to play, because there are a lot of undefined areas and
: the system itself doesn't have to be coherent and the simpler it is, the
: more likely it may have many holes. If you want to solve all of them, you
: have to discuss carefully with your partner, then you may actually have a
: heavier memory burden. For inexperienced players who want to defeat experts,
: they have to work hard both on their card plays and their system and
: partnership understandings. Experts usually play way more years and way more
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 50 No. What I mean is that optimized structures exist in many areas. Even if
you play an optimized system, you still may have problems in some hand types
. In that sense, I don't really care about perfection at all. There is one
simple example, before RKC was invented, players play Blackwood for many
years. In many cases, you have to guess whether partner holds trump K and Q.
These kind of guesses are so called judgment calls. When RKC was invented,
all these kinds of "judgment calls" just disappear. In that sense, RKC is a
way more optimized convention than Blackwood. However, even if you play RKC,
you still may have problems in many slam biddng areas. A combination of RKC
and cuebidding kings proposed by Rodwell can solve some of those problems,
so this treatment is certainly more optimized than the original RKC. Bridge
bidding theory is often developed in such a fashion. The reason why
cuebidding at 6 level is good is just because it shows the hand naturally
and allows responder to also involve decision making.
As I said, bidding is often not a matter of asking and answering, except a
few occasions. The only solution to a wide ranged 1x 1y 1z is to keep the
bidding as natural as possible for gameforcing hands and assign the accurate
meanings to subsequent bids, also making some simple treatment to
distinguish the strength of opener or responder early.
【在 v**********e 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，看起来你是完美主义者，不过完美只在理论上存在。
: 不断的引入各种约定，本来就使自然类体系的结构越来越不完美，尽管作用上可能会更
: 合理。
: 对于自然体系本身而言，一阶低花开叫就是软肋之一，牌型点力范围很宽，需要后续澄
: 清的东西很多。因此应叫方的第二次叫牌指示性多于描述性，这种方式放弃了应叫人的
: 自身描述，在指明方向的基础上，指导开叫人更进一步陈述牌情。问题在于也许指挥权
: 并不完全在应叫人手中，也可能开叫人并没有合适的自然叫品可供选择。这时我们当然
: 可以求助于约定叫，用非自然的方式把开叫人的点力牌型精确的描述出来，不过这种方
: 式却在一定程度上放弃了对点力配置的描述。这对于满贯定约也许影响并不大，因为后
: 续还有描述空间。但对于成局定约却很有问题，即使应叫人精确地知道开叫人的点力牌
| | | p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 51 This discussion is getting more and more strange. If a convention that
assigns 2C as a relay to 2D then starting sign offs and invitational
sequences. All other bids above 2C are natural and gameforcing (of course,
they may have different strengths in the GF range); another convention has
2C and 2D both being unnatural, how can one claim the former one is
artificial and the second one is more natural?
If you memorize every card played in a hand, you are "focusing" well. If you
design and memorize an advanced system, you are "spending a lot of energy"
to improve a little bit. There is nothing more absurd than this IMO. In some
sense, a well designed system would just help the player to "focus" well in
card play because he doesn't have to spend a lot of energy in figuring out
how strong partner's hand is.
relay-
point
assigned
you
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: Well, maybe I should not say "relay system", but just "artificial system".
: You can use mathematical models to define a cost function, then design a
: system that maximizes the efficiency. It will probably not be a total relay-
: based system, but it can hardly be natural based either. Even 4-3-2-1 point
: count is not optimal, there probably should be some fraction number assigned
: , and also adjustment for groups of honor card combination. The main
: question is, do you want to spend energy to learn and use the "optimal"
: system, or would you rather use a simple yet "good enough" system, and
: channel your reserved energy for something else (such as concentration,
: evaluation, card play)? At some point, there will be diminishing return, you
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 52 I was making a general statement that, if you aim at a "perfectly optimized"
system, you may have to introduce quite a bit artificial bids which are
prone to being forgotten. I didn't make judgment on your particular
conventions. To me, your treatment is worth considering, but whether it is "
best", only time can tell. That is not my main point anyway, neither is
whether yours is more artificial or not. What I want to point out is that,
people have the freedom to choose the areas that they want to develop. What
are the reasons that they make such a choice instead of working towards a
perfectly designed system? There can be many reasons, it is just premature
to conclude that they are all lazy or unwise.
BTW, spending time to improve card play is different from "memorize every
card played", I thought at your level you ought to have known that already.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: This discussion is getting more and more strange. If a convention that
: assigns 2C as a relay to 2D then starting sign offs and invitational
: sequences. All other bids above 2C are natural and gameforcing (of course,
: they may have different strengths in the GF range); another convention has
: 2C and 2D both being unnatural, how can one claim the former one is
: artificial and the second one is more natural?
: If you memorize every card played in a hand, you are "focusing" well. If you
: design and memorize an advanced system, you are "spending a lot of energy"
: to improve a little bit. There is nothing more absurd than this IMO. In some
: sense, a well designed system would just help the player to "focus" well in
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 53 No worries. If a convention is both superior and as simple (such as RKC over
blackwood), it will be adopted by majority of bridge players in no time. Of
course it also helps if the proponents of these conventions are well-known
experts. :-)
I don't think to guess about trump K or Q is "judgment". It is just "guess".
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: No. What I mean is that optimized structures exist in many areas. Even if
: you play an optimized system, you still may have problems in some hand types
: . In that sense, I don't really care about perfection at all. There is one
: simple example, before RKC was invented, players play Blackwood for many
: years. In many cases, you have to guess whether partner holds trump K and Q.
: These kind of guesses are so called judgment calls. When RKC was invented,
: all these kinds of "judgment calls" just disappear. In that sense, RKC is a
: way more optimized convention than Blackwood. However, even if you play RKC,
: you still may have problems in many slam biddng areas. A combination of RKC
: and cuebidding kings proposed by Rodwell can solve some of those problems,
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 54 Well, it appears that in your opinion, those who incorporate a lot of
artificial bids can achieve some kind of better bidding accuracy, which is
certainly not true. As I said again and again, naturally showing one's shape
and showing the strength accurately are the keys to the high bidding
accuracy. That's also why "serious" or "non-serious" 3NT was invented by
Rodwell, to distinguish the hand strength.
optimized"
"
What
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: I was making a general statement that, if you aim at a "perfectly optimized"
: system, you may have to introduce quite a bit artificial bids which are
: prone to being forgotten. I didn't make judgment on your particular
: conventions. To me, your treatment is worth considering, but whether it is "
: best", only time can tell. That is not my main point anyway, neither is
: whether yours is more artificial or not. What I want to point out is that,
: people have the freedom to choose the areas that they want to develop. What
: are the reasons that they make such a choice instead of working towards a
: perfectly designed system? There can be many reasons, it is just premature
: to conclude that they are all lazy or unwise.
| p***r
发帖数: 20570 | 55 RKC is not a simple convention at all and many conventions and systems take
many many years to be invented.
A player with "good judgment" is a player who guesses well. Those "good
judgment" calls can happen in many ways and that's often not the right
direction for players to develop IMO.
Of course, many mixed good hand evaluation with good judgment, so we indeed
may be talking about different issues.
over
Of
known
".
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: No worries. If a convention is both superior and as simple (such as RKC over
: blackwood), it will be adopted by majority of bridge players in no time. Of
: course it also helps if the proponents of these conventions are well-known
: experts. :-)
: I don't think to guess about trump K or Q is "judgment". It is just "guess".
| n******r
发帖数: 718 | 56 完全不同意. 叫3D一定是4张. 3张不能作为一个套来叫, 这是原则问题
低花44，C>>D)。
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: 这手牌有值得思考的地方。1c-1h-1s-2d(4sf)是自动的，3D可以是4135，4045或4036，还有极少可能是4144(即低花44，C>>D)。但3H still looking for game, 强调H一定独立可打则有失偏颇，因为持很多6322或6331类，如:
: SK94
: HAK9654
: DQT
: CQ9
: 你还是需要表示H6+，由同伴作出选择，如持单张H大牌加叫4H。
: 这手牌3D后肯定是4C好，因为一旦3d-3h-4h你6-4型好的C配合没有显示，实在心有不甘。我原意是3S后如果你还不敢越过3N叫4C，那就不可忍受了。同伴持:
: SA984
: H-
: DA876
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 57 Before I go any further, let me just state that I have respect on your
passion of bridge, especially in the area of bidding theory. In fact I am a
fan of structure optimization myself. I also agree that accurately showing
shape and strength is the elements in all good bidding, regardless of
systems and conventions. What you didn't realize is that many players choose
to decline some optimization on purpose, for the sake of achieving better
overall result. How can people gain by refusing to use optimized structures?
You may ask. Well, look no further than 2011 Venderbilt final. Both team
reached 7D contract when missing the trump ace. At least one team screwed up
in response of exclusion rkc. Obviously with more thorough discussion of
systems, conventions, treatments, this disaster can be avoided. Does this
mean all these players are lazy, they haven't studied enough?
I'll give you another example. You already know about "serious 3NT". I have
two semi-regular partners, with each of whom I have a full page of notes
describing when this convention applies. Then I proposed two simple
optimizations. One is to change "serious 3NT" to "non-serious 3NT", the
other one is to swap the meaning of 3S and 3NT when the agreed trump suit is
heart (so 3S would be "non-serious" slam try in hearts, 3NT would be "
serious" cuebid in spades). Both of my partners agree that my proposal made
lots of sense. The use of "non-serious" conceals information from opponents
when we more likely would only stop at game, the swap of 3NT and 3S is a
perfect application of useful space principle. Yet, neither of them wanted
to play the 3S/3NT inter-change. Only one of them agreed to play "non-
serious" version. Are you suggesting they are lazy? After all, they were
both willing to dedicate an entire page of notes to just clarify the
application of a convention (this cannot be compared to the pros, but we
play "semi-regularly" only, which means twice a year). Their argument is
that, by playing "serious 3NT", we are already ahead of many partnership; to
add small optimization on top of it, which only shows benefit quite rarely
(but risks being forgotten and causing disasters), it is just not worth it.
This is what I meant: you have to show enough benefit in your optimization
to make it worthwhile. In the case of XYZ convention, other treatments haven
't been able to show enough benefit, that's why people don't use more
optimized versions, not because they are lazy.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: Well, it appears that in your opinion, those who incorporate a lot of
: artificial bids can achieve some kind of better bidding accuracy, which is
: certainly not true. As I said again and again, naturally showing one's shape
: and showing the strength accurately are the keys to the high bidding
: accuracy. That's also why "serious" or "non-serious" 3NT was invented by
: Rodwell, to distinguish the hand strength.
:
: optimized"
: "
: What
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 58 Guessing with total lack of information is, well, pure guess. "Good judgment
" is essentially good educated guess. A good bidding sequence is such an
example. Although the bidding doesn't reveal complete information (e.g.
whether a particular suit is T9876 or T9654), it gives sufficient clue as to
what the best contract would likely be.
"Good judgment" is also about looking ahead. A good-judgment call is one
that aims at maximizing our benefit and minimizing the risk. It guides the
bidding in a framework that allows useful information exchange, and avoids
running off the wheel.
This is analogous of taking a two-way finesse in declarer play. Without any
single clue, to decide which way to finesse is just guess, even if it
guesses right, that is still guess, not good judgment. But when making a
percentage play with consideration of bid (or no-bid), this is good judgment
, even if it fails occasionally.
【在 p***r 的大作中提到】
: RKC is not a simple convention at all and many conventions and systems take
: many many years to be invented.
: A player with "good judgment" is a player who guesses well. Those "good
: judgment" calls can happen in many ways and that's often not the right
: direction for players to develop IMO.
: Of course, many mixed good hand evaluation with good judgment, so we indeed
: may be talking about different issues.
:
: over
: Of
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 59 呵呵，桥牌里哪有不可变通的原则？:-))
【在 n******r 的大作中提到】
: 完全不同意. 叫3D一定是4张. 3张不能作为一个套来叫, 这是原则问题
:
: 低花44，C>>D)。
| m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 60 原则上, A比K大, 总不能变通了吧?
//昂首挺胸
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，桥牌里哪有不可变通的原则？:-))
| | | C*****9
发帖数: 147 | 61 还是有变通的时候， 有人拿将牌A防7S，因为想宕2被人变通打成了。你别走，我下
回分解。
这楼歪了，本来是想讨论叫牌判断和过不过3NT的，结果成了xyz后约定叫大全了。
【在 m****r 的大作中提到】
: 原则上, A比K大, 总不能变通了吧?
: //昂首挺胸
| m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 62 我发现, 我们一个区号的, 所以, 走, 也走不远.
【在 C*****9 的大作中提到】
: 还是有变通的时候， 有人拿将牌A防7S，因为想宕2被人变通打成了。你别走，我下
: 回分解。
: 这楼歪了，本来是想讨论叫牌判断和过不过3NT的，结果成了xyz后约定叫大全了。
| w****b
发帖数: 623 | 63
a
choose
structures?
up
我觉得你们未必有什么根本的分歧。
结构重要，还是判断重要，在一个孤立的语境里讨论没有多大的意义。每个人的技术都
有长处和短处，重要的是选择什么样的策略，在有限的时间和精力里，弥补短处，加强
长处，在自己树立的目标上获得最大的收益。
假如你的目标并不是vanderbilt或spingold，那么满贯叫牌虽然重要，也不一定到了最
重要的地步，尤其在其他方面还有弱项的时候。
对于很多搭档，如果我和他的目标仅仅是在一个regional或者national里比较次要的项
目，很多时候，我感觉未必需要在体系上多花精力。
此外，打完全同一个体系，不同的人也会有不同的理解，很多时候，沟通重于体系的设
计本身。
看王建坚的文章，他提到一点，在中国，大部分职业级别的牌手都有固定的（一位）搭
档。在这个情况下，完全应该多花精力把体系搞完整一点。可是在美国，我们大部分牌
手做不到这一点。叫牌的优势，多少是同伴共有的。当你的搭档离去后，你可能会失去
这一点，而庄防的基本功，无论如何会跟随你。所以对于大部分人，投资到庄防上，收
益一般要大一点。
另外一点，是叫牌和庄防技术是切切相关的。如果庄防不到位，那么那些optimized的
结构，虽然叫到了最佳定约，可是那是别人的最佳，未必是你的。从结果上来说，并不
理想。
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: Before I go any further, let me just state that I have respect on your
: passion of bridge, especially in the area of bidding theory. In fact I am a
: fan of structure optimization myself. I also agree that accurately showing
: shape and strength is the elements in all good bidding, regardless of
: systems and conventions. What you didn't realize is that many players choose
: to decline some optimization on purpose, for the sake of achieving better
: overall result. How can people gain by refusing to use optimized structures?
: You may ask. Well, look no further than 2011 Venderbilt final. Both team
: reached 7D contract when missing the trump ace. At least one team screwed up
: in response of exclusion rkc. Obviously with more thorough discussion of
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 64 呵呵，我为自己树立的目标很简单（但是经常达不到），就是把13张牌数清了。
【在 w****b 的大作中提到】
:
: a
: choose
: structures?
: up
: 我觉得你们未必有什么根本的分歧。
: 结构重要，还是判断重要，在一个孤立的语境里讨论没有多大的意义。每个人的技术都
: 有长处和短处，重要的是选择什么样的策略，在有限的时间和精力里，弥补短处，加强
: 长处，在自己树立的目标上获得最大的收益。
: 假如你的目标并不是vanderbilt或spingold，那么满贯叫牌虽然重要，也不一定到了最
| b***y
发帖数: 2804 | 65 发现我们也是一个区号的。什么时候一起打羽毛球？
【在 m****r 的大作中提到】
: 我发现, 我们一个区号的, 所以, 走, 也走不远.
| l****a
发帖数: 272 | | m****r
发帖数: 6639 | 67 好呀. 明天晚上如何?
【在 b***y 的大作中提到】
: 发现我们也是一个区号的。什么时候一起打羽毛球？
|
|
