Talk:Norman four notrump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Contract bridge, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Normalisation different from OEoB

The OEoB denotes the responses in terms of number of aces and 'half-aces' (kings). So their normalisation differs by a factor of two from the more common control count (A = 2, K = 1). Have corrected this in the article. JocK 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have (again) changed the normalisation to the wrong values: A = 1 control, K = 1/2 control. Why? The OEoB clearly states: A = 2 control and K = 1 control. Also, Rosenkranz' table uses that metric, and so does Klinger, etc. Note that the description of the Norman 4Nt in the OEoB utilises 'points' (and not 'controls'). JocK 13:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem, you are using an out of date edition; the 6th edition uses the terms 'control' (an ace) and 'half control' (a king) ... even the 5th edition uses point and half point so it is difficult to see why you have doubled up on the referenced method. However, I presume you will allow me to correct the statement in the article to match the referenced book? Don't forget this article is about Norman 4NT not the control count method. Abtract 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. All literature I am aware of utiluses the 2/1 normalisation for the control count, and not the 1/.5 normailsation. Apparently the 6th edition of the OEoB uses the term controls (with A = 1) and control count (with A = 2) interchangeably? (I assume they still use A = 2 in the article Expectation number of controls in balanced hands?) We should not follow that confusing practice here and create differences in normalisation by defining A = 2 controls (in the context of 'control count', see article hand evaluation), and here use the convention A = 1 control. JocK 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But that would be either OR or POV (possibly both) and I know you would't want that ... it is not for us to decide that the Norman 4NT convention would be better expressed as A = 2 controls just to fit in with other articles in wp ... our job is to reflect, with citations, what others have published, and in this context it is very clear: an ace = 1 control and a king = 1/2 as published in the 6th edition. I see no alternative. Abtract 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to help, I repeat what I said above: "Don't forget this article is about Norman 4NT not the control count method" Abtract 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are unbelieveably dogmatic: sticking to a clumsy and inconsistent normalisation just because someone else introduced that error...! The reference to OR makes it even amusing. (Have you ever reflected on the intentions of the no-OR policy?) I believe our job is to write correct and assessible articles. Anyway, I don't have the time to battle this nonsence: we stick to your proposal to knowingly create this normalisation inconsistency but warn the reader in a footnote. (Obviously, it would be way better to do the opposite; stick to the accepted integer count, and make a footnote that the OEoB adopts a less common half-integer normalisation. But from previous encounters I know at least one person would then dig in his heels...) JocK 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

mmm - attitude again. All you have to do is find another source for the Norman 4NT that uses 2 for an ace and problem solved. I appreciate exactly what you are saying that it may well be more consistent and easier to use A = 2 in all the related articles but this flies in the face of wp policy on citations. The only citation we have, and its a pretty good one I'm sure you agree, says a Norman ace = 1 control. How can we say it = 2 in this article? It's not a question of sticking my heels in but of sticking to the citation and not inventing our own methods however much we may know it to be true. Abtract 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)