[1eyedjack]

---

MP, best hand south, instant tourney, advanced robot v 30.

Another failure for "total points" valuation. Are we to assume that 3C is an instruction that South is barred from bidding 3N? OK the system opener for South is 1D, but I don't see that as relevant.

It could be that GIB judges the occasional 3N rebid by opener as a price worth paying for the other benefits of a pre-emptive raise. I am unconvinced.

[1eyedjack]

There is a recent thread concerning use of total points instead of HCP in evaluating NT levels. In that thread I added a comment that the problem is extended to minor suit raises, where 3N is the most likely game if any. The above hand is an example of this, and by way of contrast, if responder bids 3C in response to the above hand and also the one below, how is opener ever expected to make an intelligent stab at whether to move over 3C?

---

MP best hand south.

[lycier]

Oh, these are normal things.We should say the bridge is only a probability of game,while the suits distributions are favorable to us,we can do whatever we want,otherwise the result of the failure maybe occur.
I think this is known as "luck".
As we know,after pd jump raise with 5-card ♣ at three level,we usually have no more space to explore best contract.
For example auction:
1♣ --- 3♣
3nt

We know the fact that we may not be successful on 3nt,even we have 25-26 combined hcp or TP.
The pre-emptive often is a double-edged sword.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2014-June-14, 17:55, said:

We know the fact that we may not be successful on 3nt,even we have 25-26 combined hcp or TP.

My point is that with 25-26 HCP I don't mind bidding 3N which fails on an unlucky lie of cards.

But I do mind bidding 3N on 25-26 total points that has considerably fewer high card points and has no chance of making 3N no matter how favourable the cards lie.

Singletons and voids, which account for the difference between HCP and TP, are an asset in suit contracts but liability in NT.

lycier, on 2014-June-14, 17:55, said:

The pre-emptive often is a double-edged sword.

This statement is true only if you choose to play wide range pre-empts (opposite an unlimited partner). That is a matter of choice. How sensible is that choice may vary with context. The relative likelihood of your pre-empting partner changes with the initial conditions in place at the point of pre-emption.

If you open 3-suit in first seat with a wide range you are taking a reasonable gamble. There are two potentially strong opponents, but only one partner. It is also a reasonable gamble in 3rd seat, because LHO is sure to be strong and partner is not going wild having initially passed. 2nd seat? Starts to get a bit frayed. May still be right but the margin narrows.

On the first hand in this thread responder knows that it is his partner who is being pre-empted. East passed as dealer. West might have bid over 1C but did not. Even if 1C had been in 1st seat I think that the likelihood is that it is opener who is being pre-empted here, and that does not argue in favour of the choice to play wide range pre-emptive raises.

[lycier]

1eyedjack :
may I consult with you again?
Size "499|350" - let readers feel comfortable,such diagram is very clear.
If your diagram is small than "499|350",it is too small for me since I can't see your diagram clearly.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2014-June-14, 23:45, said:

1eyedjack :
may I consult with you again?
Size "499|350" - let readers feel comfortable,such diagram is very clear.
If your diagram is small than "499|350",it is too small for me since I can't see your diagram clearly.

As you know (as you have responded to it), I set up a poll to gain opinions in the forum members generally, in the BBO General forum, here

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__797422

For the record, I have not voted in that poll, but were I to do so I would vote no preference.

If we are going to continue this discussion, then I suggest that the most appropriate place to do so is within that thread. Perhaps if it is possible, a moderator might move the above post and this response so that it is tacked onto that thread? Just a suggestion.

That poll was prompted by conflicting requests made of me. So far only two individuals have expressed a request. You, Lycier, want them larger. The other wants them even smaller than my current posing size 400|300.
A few more have expressed a preference by voting in the poll, but currently the number of votes is perhaps rather low for drawing meaningful conclusions. Folks, if you are reading this, the poll is anonymous. Don't be afraid to pile in.

As at the time of writing this, the vote count is

No preference = 1
Smaller = 4
Same = 5
Larger = 6

So you can take some comfort that you currently have more support than any other individual setting. That said, a more meaningful interpretation is that 9 members would prefer a size smaller than the maximum posed, while 11 would prefer a size larger than the minimum. This currently suggests (to me) that 400|300 is the most appropriate compromise.

Lycier, you say "let the readers feel comfortable", but I don't see how you can claim to speak for anyone other than yourself. My poll was intended to get a feeling for the broader opinion on what indeed did let readers "feel comfortable".

Furthermore, in earlier posts you have given as an argument for the larger size that it is the forum default standard. This has been shown incorrect. The standard is the current 400|300 that I am currently using.

I really don't know what to do. I opine that those who contribute to the forums should have a greater say than lurkers, and the poll does not distinguish. Lycier is a regular forum contributor, but then so is the only other individual to express a "signed" preference, and that is for a smaller diagram.

In an ideal democracy each vote would not be of equal value. If a larger size is a mere inconvenience to those with a preference for small, while a small size critically impinges on the ability to read the post at all, then possibly the vote for larger size should hold sway.

It may be worth pointing out that you can change the size of the image on your own screen. I have a touch sensitive windows 8 machine and I can make the diagrams larger simply by spreading my fingers apart on the screen. I cannot make it smaller, however. This seems to argue in favour of posting in the smaller size as providing greater flexibility. I expect that for those without touchscreens you have a menu driven option to adjust the zoom.

I feel uncomfortable making a unilateral decision about this. I am not a forum moderator and it is not fair to ask me to alienate other members. Can someone independent of the argument help?

[lycier]

I have already politely tell you the reasons.
That's all for this topic.

[1eyedjack]

lycier, on 2014-June-15, 02:19, said:

I have already politely tell you the reasons.

Indeed you have. And I am not aware of any suggestion of intemperance or rudeness. However just because the request was polite does not by itself justify compliance, for the reasons that I also have set out in detail. Be in no doubt that if there were no reasons not to comply with your request I would comply. And I may yet do so. I have an open mind, but I have yet to be persuaded.

As for your reasons, as I read it there are three that you have told me:

1) You find it easier to read the larger diagrams
2) You believe that you speak for a majority of the same opinion
3) You believe that the forum standard is aligned with your preference.

The third reason has been shown to be incorrect:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__797444

The second reason is at best unjustified, and at worst shown to be flawed per the poll conducted, at the same time acknowledging that your views are shared by some.

The first reason I acknowledge, but is no more compelling than the preferences for smaller diagrams expressed by another, who has some support in the poll.

What am I supposed to do? Are you incapable of adjusting your zoom setting?