[richlp]

NickRW, on 2011-May-30, 21:18, said:

Well, put it this way - I've been playing this way and alerting this way for yonks with this and other partners both at this club and elswhere against pretty well all classes of opponents and nobody has so much as queried it before. Indeed one of the other players with whom I play this way saw the South hand and did not think it particularly unreasonable to have responded 3♦.

Perhaps some of you come from other places and have different norms???

I'll chime in for what little it may be worth.

I don't care about the merits of a 3♦ bid on that hand. Your system can define a bid to mean whatever you want it to mean.

OTOH, calling a hand weak that is an opening bid for some, a Jack shy of an opening bid for most, and a Queen shy of an opening bid for almost everybody seems to go against the definition of weak for me (and I would speculate for just about every other bridge player I know). You may define it as weak, but doing so reminds of

"When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean; neither more, nor less"--Humpty Dumpty to Alice

You might as well have been speaking a foreign language for all the shared understanding of the word you had with your opponents.

[lamford]

I agree there is misinformation - "weak" will be interpreted by most as pre-emptive here, perhaps less than six points with four or more diamonds.

If it was described correctly, East might bid again, and he might double, or West might bid 3♠. If East knows South's hand could be this good, he may well make 3♠. I guess he got the spades wrong after the MI.

It is going to be tough to decide the weightings, as 3♦ could well go off - I don't even think it is normal to get the trumps right, as the double finesse looks worse than playing trumps from the top even allowing for spade length with East.

If I had to guess, I would give East-West 35% of 3♠=, 15% of 3♠-1, 35% of 3♦-1(NS) and 15% of 3♦=(NS).

[Vampyr]

Nick, I hope you have gathered from this discussion that your explanation will seriously mislead opponents, and that it is, incidentally, contrary to regulations. Instead of insisting that you are in the right, you might want to try to formulate a more helpful explanation of this bid. For example:
"Shows 4+ diamonds, 6-11 HCP if balanced, 3-9 if unbalanced". I do not think anyone will find fault with this.

[bluejak]

NickRW, on 2011-May-30, 18:16, said:

Well, I was, in fact, the North player. South had really only two choices, 2♦ which would have been inv+ and forcing to 2NT/3♦ at least and 3♦, not inv, could be very weak. Opposite a third seat opener, though it is a close call between the two, I was not dissatisfied with my partner's judgement.

Your judgement is, of course, not in question. If you want to play this as a 3♦ bid so be it. But that is not the way other people play it, so you are creating MI by describing it as weak. Incidentally, does that mean you need a full opening bid to bid 2♦ after a pass? <puzzled>

NickRW, on 2011-May-30, 19:37, said:

Well, clearly you think the same way as East did. My understanding and that of my partner and that of another poster was that '"Weak" hands are assumed to be below invitational strength' and this is considered by us to be below invitational strength - just.

But others don't - and it is their view that matters, since they are the ones trying to understand your methods. In most people's view 11 HCP is invitational, especially with well placed spades. Typically, 2♦ shows 10-12, 3♦ 5-9.

655321, on 2011-May-30, 20:00, said:

Someone with more knowledge of the laws than me will know if the non-offending side is allowed to lead a heart all the time, for a 100% weighting for 3♦ down 1. On a heart lead it is far from clear to *cough* double hook the diamonds - personally I would just play them from the top.

When adjusting you decide what you think might have happened, considering all th possibilities. Do you believe that a heart would be led over 90% of the time? If so, then yes, a weighting may consider it would be led all the time. I cannot see it myself.

NickRW, on 2011-May-31, 01:38, said:

Anyway, weighted results don't seem to be compatible with Scorebridge - eugh - it seems that to get this scored right will waste another hour putting it all into Pairs Scorer - assuming that will do it either.

Perhaps it is time you invested in Jeff Smith's scorers. They are free and do weighted scores.

mrdct, on 2011-May-31, 02:27, said:

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

The basic problem with wrong rulings is that they are wrong. Sure you could make something up, but really you should do it properly.

You calculate the imps first, then apply the weighting. If you have to use a poor scoring program, ok, but the calculation should take a couple of minutes and then you put it in manually.

NickRW, on 2011-May-31, 04:13, said:

So the upshot seems to be that this has been a complete waste of everyone's time and that weighted scores are something that appears in a rule book which are obviously so little used in practice as to have been effectively ignored by the software developers and are, in fact, unusable in the real world.

I am not convinced that giving correct rulings is a waste of time, and certainly I see little point in posting to this forum if we are not going to bother with correct answers.

As to software developers, the Scorebridge man tends not to listen to what he is told, true, but others do, and I really think more people should use Jeff Smith.

It seems clear to me that we have a vicious circle here. Most adjustments should be weighted, but inexperienced TDs are unlikely to do it properly when software are makes it difficult for them. So it is important that good software is obtained.

Even here, we have many threads - one I have replied to recently - where people have various views as to what might have happened but do not suggest weighting. Weighting is the norm outside North America and TDs need to learn this - and they should tell software developers so - or just get Jeff Smith!



My latest version of MultiQuote: I am writing this on the New Zealand forum then transferring it!

[aguahombre]

Only comment here is a suggestion for wording the disclosure. Whether South decided to operate or misbid or whatever was up to South.

We word the explanation as "not inviting game, but 6+ in support of diamonds".