JonnyQuest

:blink: Please explain the source of your numbers. I always thought that, lacking additional information, a finesse was roughly 50% . . . or thereabouts.

Addressing hand 1 only: Curious what the cognoscenti would choose, I posted a poll on BW: 1 Spade or 2 Clubs? Personally, I prefer 1♠, but would not shoot partner for opening 2♣.

3♦ is the GF? Not the 2♠ jump-shift?

RedSpawn, your leap into the fray on this topic came in grand fashion. Your initial post (#34), included some pretty formatting, some obvious thought—and strong opinions--into what YOU believe to be a “must PASS” hand. However, you included some ridiculous hyperbole in an attempt to bolster your position. “Can you honestly justify taking out your partner's 4♠ overcall of a 2♣ open?” Really? Is this a serious question? Isn't this sort of like asking an innocent man "When did you stop beating your wife?" Then, in your post (#38) you wrote, “Opening 4♥ with such obscene garbage is not bridge, it is Texas Hold Em Poker. It's not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” All of this followed by further pontificating. Intent on teaching us are you? This is not a recipe to endear oneself to the BBF. But maybe it's your style. Then, in a vain attempt to show us your bona fides, in post (#39) you cite chapter and verse of your recent BBO glory, even closing it with a “Nice try. Better luck next time.” Really? Please don't say, "But he did it first!" Now you attempt to double down (post #51) on your previous statements with, “COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO REAL EXPERTS AND OPENING LIGHT ON HCP OR SUIT QUALITY: PLEASE SEE BELOW” in citing Rainer Hermann’s post from several days before. You write, “It seems to me he [Meckstroth] is saying if you want Standard to work for you, whether preemptive bids or 1-of-a-suit-bids, the openings need to decent and sound.” No, he did not say anything about preempts. Your conclusion (wild ass guess) is wrong. But enough about your entry into the fray, let’s address mine. I responded to a post (#78) that sfi made. It was in response to your question, “[W]hy do you believe it [the law of averages] will help you avoid getting a 4-0-0 trump split.?” sfi wrote, “Because, well, math.” Easily the best post today! My pithy response to his post was “Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic. :P [For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]” My post referred to the probability of a 4-0 trump split---AS DID YOURS! Was my remark intended as a “poisoned dart?” You bet. The pontificatng was becoming tiresome. I then followed up with a link to Timo’s poll on BW. I had made the trip there myself, intending to post a poll, knowing full well I would get a few world class responses and many, many real expert opinions. However, I had the sense to check first to see if someone had beaten me to the punch. Timo had. :) Your further attempts to educate by quoting “expected frequency” and “probability” percentages continued the “I AM TEACHING THESE POOR SOULS WHAT’S WHAT” theme. We’ve seen them before. We know how to find them. We can all spell G-O-O-G-L-E. Now, in your post (#90) you quote my post, but respond to expected frequency probabilities of 9-2-1-1 splits and 13-0-0-0 splits. Why? It is unrelated to the question of whether a 4-0 trump split is affected by the law of averages. Now . . . as far as “no response” from me. I work. I’ll leave it at that. As to your statement, “you were posting for self-aggrandizement,” well, no. I was only adding a bit of levity--and yes it was snarky--to what I perceived to be a bit of grandstanding by a seemingly self-professed “knower of all things bridge related.” Now--- in response to your post (#106), well, frankly RedSpawn, I don’t give a *&^% if you have a shred of respect for me. Why am I required to respond to your, “You haven't responded about the nit-picking of semantics of "likelihood" versus "expected frequency" screed when my post was NEVER regarding either of those topics. You are attempting to misdirect. Can you spell S-T-R-A-W-M-A-N? Aaaah, but you were not finished. In your post (#112) you write, “JonnyQuest . . . responded to post #110 before #106 or #108.” That is a lie (this is easy to corroborate). So, you go ahead and pass, safe in the knowledge that it is “not partnership bidding, it's guerrilla, "Highlander" bidding.” I would be more inclined to agree with, or contemplate the opinion of, someone who shed the know-it-all attitude.

That's a lot of "supposin'" and "wait a minutes" and "doesn't seem to be" and "he is saying" considering Meckstroth opens the [ab]"normal preemptive bid" 4♥. I guess we can just chalk it up to different strokes for different folks, huh?

Oh my!!! Meckstroth has weighed in: Meckstroth votes for 4H But what does he know?!

Now stop that. You can't bring math into the conversation. That's just unfair! Next you'll trot out logic. :P [For clueless readers, the above is called sarcasm]

Without discussion, assuming an advanced partner, I would think as you did.

So, no numbers . . . no percentages . . . just "actual data" that you have collected with the stiff King offside---but you prefer to keep the data to yourself? Presumably significantly higher than 50% (or thereabouts) to have convinced you to eschew the finesse in favor of the drop. This is groundbreaking stuff. I'm convinced.

Am I understanding properly? You are saying that playing for the drop is superior? What sort of percentages would you calculate? Also, since finessing is the other option, as opposed to playing for the drop, does it not "feature" in the equation by default?

The "onside" drop is immaterial. It's the stiff King "offside" that is the concern. Which is 13%. Short of a complete brain-fart by mistakenly playing the Ace, I'm always finessing.

Agree that North should bid differently. However, 4♠ is . . . villanous, would result in glorious shame, and has few merits.

I would be concerned that the 4-level ♣ call could be misconstrued as an auto-splinter. You're in a GF, what's the rush? 3♣.

[hv=pc=n&n=s8632hj986dk4cq72&e=sqjhk742dt763caj5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1cp1hp1nppp]266|200|[/hv] Partner leads the ♠4. Do you play the ♠J or ♠Q?

At a recent bridge class I attended, the teacher stated that 2-Way NMF and 2-Way Checkback were different. But he did not elaborate. Eliminating XYZ (since that was not part of the discussion) please explain the difference. Is one superior? Thanks! :)

That all depends on where you found it! :D

I lead . . . drum roll . . . the JACK!

A friend and I were discussing Keri (we've not yet decided it's efficacy) and wondered the following. Can it work after a 1NT rebid? For example, 1m - 1M - 1NT? Thanks!

[hv=pc=n&s=sj5hkjt86da8653c5&n=saqt83haq43dj7caq&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1sp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Should slam be found? If yes, who needs to make the move? Suggested auction?

Precisely. The OP was about 4NT.

So you're visualizing a NON-FORCING 1♠ rebid with 22 HCP? How strong do you suggest before you make a forcing bid? would seem to be a gross misdescription of the "visualized" hand you provide. And the meaning of the 4♦ bid (Splinter), as Tramticket explains, is obvious. However, if you are unsure of a bids meaning, you can click on the highlighted yellow over the bid. A concise explanation will be provided to you. Finally, if you require a definition of "Splinter bid," I'm sure others will be happy to provide one for you. But since you are "too long in the tooth" to be "educated," that may be a waste of time.

I did not claim to be an “expert.” But your snide way of referring to me as a BBO “expert,” in an impotent attempt to belittle me, falls flat. My remarks were a commentary on your methods. But if you wish for me to redirect, I shall. Also, where I play is entirely immaterial. And you know it. As to what further bidding space I require? Plenty, if our best strain is something other than ♦, or quite possibly 3NT. Partner might have ♠AQxx ♥Kxxx ♦x ♣ATxx as one of many examples. Now, back to the jump bid, to show, what was it . . . “10 tricks”? I am still waiting for the count. Leave your socks on, you only need fingers for this calculation. Additionally, if this were a preferred method (opening this hand 2!C intending a jump to 4!D) then experts would presumably use it, yes? Why don’t we post it to find out?

I had forgotten about the "Bluhmer," which would seem a nice use of that call here. The 4♦ jump is bizarre. Even more so with this hand. A 2♣ open already takes up plenty of space (and I am not sold on opening this 2♣.) Slam exploration must be painful a wild ass guess using these methods! It's a 1♦ open for all but those who only use LTC as a measuring stick (not ideal). Also, the alert for 4♦ seems wildly optimistic. "10 tricks"?? Where? Count them for me. Wank calls it "gross." Obscene is more like it. Do you wonder why the experts opened 1♦?

Kim Kardashian would disagree. ;)

Yes!