[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners

Posted By: Axel Reichert
Date: Sunday, 14 May 2017, at 8:18 p.m.

In Response To: Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners (Nack Ballard)

Hi Nack,

> I'm not sure we'll ever agree on the arbitrariness issue.

Well, thanks to your constant insisting, I took the pain on a rainy weekend to check the roll-out data for the replies recommended by my rule set. ALL of the suggested reply moves AND the corresponding best reply moves HAVE been rolled out (NOT evaluated by XGR, XGR+, or XGR++). And NONE of the differences between my suggestions and the best replies is larger than 0.06.

> You haven't earned a straightforward claim of .06.

Now I have. (-:

> careless to assume that beginners, without being informed, will automatically hit on the highest point

I have added a comment in my heading for the "Hitting" section.

> I think it does matter that 62$ is eliminated (beyond that it costs .045 as an opener).

We have to distinguish between the set of openings for which this reply rule set is applicable and the set of replies from which to chose for non-hitting rolls. My rule set works for the same 30 openings as listed by Jeremy (your 27 plus 62R, 62$, and 43U). If the hitting rule is augmented along the lines of your "Hit-more-6" (which was my tacit assumption anyway), the 43U-xxK replies will indeed be played. The "library", however, will not include 62$ (might cause problems), 43U (not needed, since either S and Z cannot both be blocked for 43). By the way, 64R is also not needed, since 64P cannot be blocked either. Probably though, again for consistency reasons, I will omit only 62$, since then both sets are identical (29 moves each).

> I'm not sure you understood my point about "two outer boards."

I did. But you are probably right in that language consistency can become ridiculous. It seems I was suffering a classic case. (-:

But your "one-liner" also needs another line to clarify the blocked case.

> We're in definite disagreement about [...] Otherwise, we're not far apart.

No problem. We can agree to disagree.

Anyway, many thanks again for your extremely valuable help. I was not expecting that someone so deep into replies would care that much about beginners' worries. I really appreciate this.

Best regards

Axel

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.