[P_Marlowe]

1eyedjack, on Sep 1 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Sep 1 2007, 08:12 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 1 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 31 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

1♠, followed by 2♦ and passing 2♠: 100
<<Snip>>
1♠, followed by pass: 0.

Given the other options to which you award marks, never below 70, I find the disparity beween the 100 score and the 0 score to be very odd. If you intend to rebid 2D and then pass 2S without making a further game try, then the only possible reason for bidding 2D is to improve the partscore.
<snip>

No.

2D gives you have the chance to catch a raise
to 3D from partner.

Over which, your plan is?

Bidding 3NT?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

Jlall, on Sep 1 2007, 11:30 PM, said:

I'll go with

1S=100
1N=0

2D=100
2N=0
pass=0

The ranking seems fine. The weighting is questionable.

An option should only ever have a score of zero if it is inconceivable that it might ever work out better than the alternatives. I have no difficulty constructing hands (perhaps a minority but that is not the issue) where 1NT is the right spot and where opening 1NT is the only route there.

[jdonn]

1eyedjack, on Sep 2 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

An option should only ever have a score of zero if it is inconceivable that it might ever work out better than the alternatives.

So if there are three passes to you in fourth seat and you hold a balanced 17, and you can construct a layout such that any opening will lead to a minus score, does that mean you don't give pass a 0?

[1eyedjack]

jdonn, on Sep 2 2007, 08:44 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 2 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

An option should only ever have a score of zero if it is inconceivable that it might ever work out better than the alternatives.

So if there are three passes to you in fourth seat and you hold a balanced 17, and you can construct a layout such that any opening will lead to a minus score, does that mean you don't give pass a 0?

OK I suppose if a realisting weighting works out at less than a half, you could justifiably round it down to zero. Not interested in decimal fractions. Indeed you can probably do that if it scores less than 5, as it seems that scores are invariably rounded to the nearest 10. I don't think that invalidates the principal point in my previous post.

[SoTired]

16hcp, 2 jacks, rest aces and kings. not even 1 lousy queen. 1S = 100, 1N=50.
after 1N NF response: 2D=100, 2N=90, pass = 20. If responder raises 2D to 3D: 3N=100, 4D=20, pass = 20. If responder takes 2S preference: 2N=100, 3S=40, pass = 20 (Why pass 2S when you could have passed 1N?)

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Sep 1 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 31 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

1♠, followed by 2♦ and passing 2♠: 100
<<Snip>>
1♠, followed by pass: 0.

Given the other options to which you award marks, never below 70, I find the disparity beween the 100 score and the 0 score to be very odd. If you intend to rebid 2D and then pass 2S without making a further game try, then the only possible reason for bidding 2D is to improve the partscore. I agree that it is quite likely to improve the partscore, but if you are committed to stopping in a low level partscore, it seems to me that (sans major fit) 1NT is going to be the right spot a significant proportion of the time.

Yes you're right, it doesn't make much sense what I wrote. I think I had a style in mind in which responder can make a game try with 2N at his second turn but that probably isn't possible in SAYC (not 100% sure about this, though).

Btw since spades is our best candidate for a source of tricks in notrump, responder's preference bid of 2♠ may in some sense be better news than a raise of diamonds. Not sure if I would bid 3N over 3♦. I probably would but I see it´s not really consistent with my preference for passing responder's 2♠. Maybe passing 2♠ is too pessimistic after all ....

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Aug 31 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

1♠ for me, and this is comming from someone who likes offshape 1NT openings.

Same to me but for a different reason. It just doesn't "feel" right to open 1NT.. go figure

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Sep 2 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 2 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

An option should only ever have a score of zero if it is inconceivable that it might ever work out better than the alternatives.

So if there are three passes to you in fourth seat and you hold a balanced 17, and you can construct a layout such that any opening will lead to a minus score, does that mean you don't give pass a 0?

I am more worried about having to rate 7NT (actually all the bids) since it might have a chance to work

[1eyedjack]

Fluffy, on Sep 2 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 2 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 2 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

An option should only ever have a score of zero if it is inconceivable that it might ever work out better than the alternatives.

So if there are three passes to you in fourth seat and you hold a balanced 17, and you can construct a layout such that any opening will lead to a minus score, does that mean you don't give pass a 0?

I am more worried about having to rate 7NT (actually all the bids) since it might have a chance to work

See above, re roundings
Anyway, 7NT would only be worth assigning a rating if it might have a chance to work AND the result would not be achieved by the alternative routes under discussion. And if the original post only asks a ranking of a limited options, those are all that need to be considered. If 7NT actually justified a positive rating then it is likely that the other alternatives would be worth zero. If an option deserves a positive score but has been omitted from the list, then I suppose it would add value to the posting to mention it. But if it is both omitted from the list and justifies a zero score, then I think it would be recommended not to comment on it.

[han]

I think the scoring should work more like this:

100 = would be the most popular choice among experts.
50 = A call many experts would consider but most would probably reject.
0 = no expert would seriously consider this call.

[helene_t]

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 02:20 AM, said:

I think the scoring should work more like this:

100 = would be the most popular choice among experts.
50 = A call many experts would consider but most would probably reject.
0 = no expert would seriously consider this call.

Agree. Merely that a call might work is not enough reason for giving it a positive rating. Everything might work.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Sep 3 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 3 2007, 02:20 AM, said:

I think the scoring should work more like this:

100 = would be the most popular choice among experts.
50 = A call many experts would consider but most would probably reject.
0 = no expert would seriously consider this call.

Agree. Merely that a call might work is not enough reason for giving it a positive rating. Everything might work.

If done sensibly, ie rounding as appropriate, and discounting actions that might work but would also work using alternative routes, I would expect a pretty close correllation between the results, whatever route or method is taken to get there.