RedSpawn

:o :blink: I don't even want to know what you are alleging she should "suck". Sounds to me like a potentially misogynistic comment. I think the collective will ignore this as it seems to comply with BBO Forum standards.

Let us not forget the e-mail signature following this statement, "Obviously we have a recall bias in favour of the @$$h)le$." -helene_t. To remain compliant with the BBO forum policy I have censored the curse word. And let us not forget his email signature after saying this, "Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless" You are absolutely right, a reasonably prudent lady would not be offended at all by any of these comments taken as a whole, especially with the attached e-mail signatures. I don't want to read too much into her statements here, but it seems to me she feels that she has received rebukes and she has been ridiculed. Also, when she said that PASS is the best bid and 4♥ is the worst bid, all bets were off. That statement alone did not reconcile with the collective's bridge sensibilities and statements started pouring using vernacular like "insane" and others said she needs to consider dropping her bridge teacher since he is not teaching preemptive techniques that world-class players use. The e-mail signatures with these statements did not help matters as they appear to have a condescending tone to them. Now, if you believe I have misread this posting from MsJennifer, especially with respect to her feeling that she has received rebukes and been ridiculed, please show me where. Have we done our due diligence here and talked to the offended lady or have we dismissed her statements as not worthy of further clarification? Why don't the gentlemen who allegedly attacked her find out why a lady would feel this way? Why don't the gentleman who suggested the thought of those who passed the 109765432♥ is insane to him ask msjennifer? Did she misinterpret the e-mail signature, perhaps? Why do you want me to do that dirty work when the alleged attackers are right here in the forum? :unsure: You have concluded that Jennifer was not attacked. Have you confirmed that with the source, Jennifer? Or have we determined that her feelings and statements have no intellectual merit?

Mr Ace, we were talking about a 4 hearts All in bid versus pass. If these were the two choices, I would say the person holding 1098765432♥ should sit down, be quiet, pass and not bid 4 hearts. In fact, MsJennifer chimed in and said show her some authoritative text that recommends opening T98765432♥ as a 4♥bid. See the posted quote below. Please show me anywhere in the string where I said that 2hearts or 3hearts is absurd or insane or ridiculous. In fact, I believe it was your "insane" comment about passing as well as a few comments from others (along with some condescending sounding e-mail signatures) that made Msjennifer feel attacked. That would be my guess, but you would need to talk to the source to be sure. By the way, have you talked to MsJennifer yet or have you decided that she was probably mistaken about her interpretation as to how she was treated by you and others? I will edit this post and provide the quotes that show we were discussing all-in 4♥ versus pass. I didn't subscribe to bridge winners so I don't have a listing of the votes, but there is no mistake about where your loyalties were on the poll. I said johnu the statistical guru voted 4♥. By the way, I said the 4 hearts voting group reconciled with your bridge sensibilities. Therefore, it is not surprise that their marketing treatment was more favorable and didn't include glaring omissions like the 22 individual subgroup who voted PASS. And please remember that you are officially on record for saying that the thought of Passing sounds insane to you. While we are here, please explain the quality of the remaining 22 players. 2 are good players and the remaining 22 players are. . . ___________________". What are you suggesting about the quality of the remaining 22 players who voted pass? Are they good players? Are they neutral players? Are they randoms? Are they brilliant? Are they woefully inadequate? Are they "insufficient information to determine"? Are they potentially insane? This will help remove incorrect inferences or conclusions. Thanks.

Very provocative and thought-provoking. I agree with the analysis especially about the evolution of the 2♣ amongst the various dialects. This makes it very difficult for any group to put very tight handcuffs on a 2♣ bid. No one has a monopoly on this bid. Like all other bids we have recommended guidelines which make it tough for tournament directors to rule on the misuse of this bid.

First off, the argument WE HAD was never bid versus pass. The argument was pass versus an all-in of 4 hearts from 2nd seat while vulnerable. I wholeheartedly said that I believed a 4 hearts bid was wow....absurd. I will go back and check but I don't think I had an issue with 2 hearts or 3 hearts because those were bids that saved bidding space for the guy called partner across the table who hasn't even bid yet. But still, with all of the buckets available 34 passers is statistically significant. Mr. Ace, your use of innuendo and celebrity endorsement is phenomenal. You said at the time that 24 voted for pass and 2 of them are good players. The 2 good players were juxtapose to the remaining 22. Now, product placement matters when you are marketing an unspoken idea. So, what are you suggesting about the quality of the remaining 22 players who voted pass? Are they good players? Are they neutral players? Are they randoms? Are they brilliant? Are they woefully inadequate? Are they "insufficient information to determine"? You don't exactly say but you appear to have a convenient ellipses on this matter. You don't bother to fill in the blanks on this subgroup. Hmmmm. About the 27 who voted 4♥, you said they were mostly good players. Well, nothing to see here since all appears to be in order with that bucket. The ones who voted 4 hearts can't be " someone" because their votes reconcile with your bridge sensibilities and most have been affixed with your personal good player assessment. You took the time to fill in the blanks on this category of voters by adding celebrity endorsements and personally affixing good player ratings to most in this group. The huge disparity in your marketing treatment of both voting groups speaks volumes about your personal opinion. You didn't have to expressly say the other 22 players were fools or questionable or dubious or bad players or "someone's". You let the juxtaposition of 2 good players versus this subgroup and glaring omissions do that ugly, dirty work for you. We won't analyze or make a direct statement about the remaining 22 passers. We will remain silent and let the audience make their own inferences or conclusions about those 22 after a carefully timed product placement. And you are free from any liability of expressly saying anything because you let your marketing treatment of this voting group do the work for you.

You're welcome and I don't mean you as in the 2nd person, I mean you as in the collective plural. I am referring to the techniques that the collective has employed to delegitimize certain individuals who don't conform to their bridge sensibilities. For example, has anyone even talked to Msjennifer about how she said she felt attacked after voting for pass on the 4♥ winner hand or was that too just delusional posturing by another random?

.

Please note that whenever someone disagrees with you on the forum the word random enter the lexicon. First the hand was no where near a 2 club open and then it was transitioned to being called a random 22 point hand to demote its value. Now, the 2 club discussion itself has been called a random tangent with no intellectual merit. Actually, the shame is when someone conducts a poll of roughly 60 people and cavalierly dismisses 22 of them as fools for not ascribing to his notions. But the 27 who voted the way he did....good people. How did he account for the sampling error if upwards of 22 people are bad players and how did he know that the 27 who voted 4♥ were mostly good people? The voting group of 24 and 27 are both statistically significant, so he can't just dismiss one group and co-sign the other in a lump-sum fashion. He just waved a magic wand called professional opinion and slapped good and bad labels on 51 of the voters to add an air of legitimacy. How convenient. And anyone who voted pass was immediately relegated to the gutter. I'm shaking my head as I type this because this is basically what was presented to the forum and not one soul questioned the self-serving arbitrary determinations of good versus bad. Why should anyone do that when they like the 4♥ win? Johnu who is the statistical guru didn't even highlight any of the concerns about the poll. Why should he? Because 4♥ was his vote and is the only legitimate answer. It doesnt serve his interests to be intellectually honest and disclose any of the polling method flaws or reveal how crude the invalidation of the statistically significant group who voted pass was. 4♥ won the race so who cares how it got over the finish line? Good day all. Humpty Dumpty was right....a bid means just what he says it means-neither more nor less. And if the bid doesn't generate the outcome he likes, then just change its meaning. Well played, sir, well played.

Uh oh, this one really hurts as I was sincerely looking for your approval and validation. If you honestly think your whole "good player/bad player" determination is certified and verifiable, then I have news...it's just like bridge. . . all relative. You have done this before with the 4♥ bid to then suggest the large amount of people who voted pass were "meh, bad players" not worthy of any intellectual merit. Only two of the players were actually good players by your assessment. How quaint how you can dismiss a huge count of players who don't ascribe to your bridge sensibilities. The dart hit the dartboard, try again. "So far 1 vote for 2h, 10 votes for 3h (3 very good players among them) 24 votes for pass (2 good players among them) 27 votes for 4h and many good players among them including Meckstroth and Diamond." Oh yeah, and 24 of those people who voted Pass that I don't agree with, 22 of them are just "someone" and the other 2 are good players. Okay, yeah, right. 24 votes for Pass and 27 votes for 4♥. Well the Pass people are essentially fools, right? Dismiss them, they don't fit the profile. Next!

You know you present a plausible point, I seem to have the same issues when a partner reaches for rule of 18 or rule of 19 to justify opening a marginal hand in 1st or 2nd seat, and we have those horrible issues play out in the auction. It usually results in my playing my partner for a real hand and our receiving a penalty double for that incorrect assumption. My partner usually alleges that I should have known the opening wasn't a plain vanilla open and that it was marginal -- even though it was from 1st or 2nd seat. Or the questionable opening is conveniently dismissed as the unavoidable collateral damage of opening light in the modern bridge era.

Johnu, I don't care how the auction ends at this point or how accurate or silly my suggestion is. How the auction progresses is contingent on the partnership agreement of how partner responds and the suit quality he needs to respond to strong 2♣. I know, I know. I am a fool for even suggesting that 2♣ could be on the radar with a maximum LTC=4. That's not winning bridge. Should we go the 1♦ route and reveal all of our controls in the auction or could we tidy up with a valid 2♣ open and keep some information hidden before the opposition decides to pre-empt. These are all fair questions.

Eagles123, thanks for the input. Can you tell me the LTC on this hand? And please see attached. Lincoln Hills Suggested 2 Club Approach Thanks. This is straight cut and paste from the PDF: THE SUGGESTED APPROACH 1. An opening bid of 2C shows 22+ HCP OR a hand containing a LTC of 4 or less. ACBL REQUIRES THAT THE BID BE ALERTED BECAUSE THE HAND COULD CONTAIN SEVERAL POINTS LESS THAN 22+ By the way, I have no problems with the alert requirement, but we still haven't gotten past the "that's patently absurd" viewpoint.

[hv=pc=n&s=s543hqjt843dkcj96&w=sqt862h2d8caqt754&n=sk97h765dj963ck83&e=sajhak9daqt7542c2]399|300|South deals[/hv] QUALIFICATION: I am departing from the original poster's parameters about the auction and trying to understand a rationale here. This is not to pick on Felicity, but this is what is making me scratch my head.... Why would West want to open his hand? He has 1.5 quick tricks and all of the working values are in clubs. The working values in Spades are . . .ummm. . . okay. Rule of 19 says "If the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 19, the bid is acceptable within the English bridge tournaments." 8+11 = 19 so based on the rules, West can open this hand, even though we know it is a very marginal hand and is one point away from a highly unusual method ruling per English standards. We reached and scraped and found a way to open this hand at the one level when it doesn't conform to the traditional opening requirements (2 quick tricks and 13 points). So when the original requirement doesn't work for a 1 level opening bid, let's try some others. . . DECISION TREE for West's hand: Does the hand have 13 points and 2 quick tricks; we can't open -- Ignore. Rule of 22, too stringent for West's hand; we can't open --- Ignore. Rule of 20, too stringent for West's hand; we can't open --- Ignore. Rule of 19, ahhh just right. It's acceptable and not highly unusual and as Felicity noted it will inadvertently set up East to have the wrong expectation about the placement of the final contract. Rule of 18, ahhh just right. It's acceptable and not highly unusual and as Felicity noted it will inadvertently set up East to have the wrong expectation about the placement of the final contract. Felicity never said that West will open, but the possibility exists that he could have, and if he did, I bet no one would have even batted an eye. My point being is that bridge is very relative. It's very easy to go opinion shopping for the answer we want. We bypassed three different guidelines that said do not open, to get to the rule of 19 or the rule of 18 as a guideline that says we can open. We can find a rule to justify an opening bid if we look hard enough, but the better question is should we? This applies to both 1 of a suit bids and 2♣opening bids. We have really loosened our belts on the 1 of a suit bids and don't bat an eyelash because being the 1st to open allegedly pays handsome dividends in bridge. We have decided to accept all of the risk associated with the attendant overbids this process generates and have concluded that the collateral damage is simply unavoidable. However, we have placed the 2♣bid on a holy grail of disciplined bidding, but this too shall eventually pass.

This is a straight cut and paste from the link in my previous post: Losing Trick Evaluation: The parameters for a strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening bid include the understanding that the holding contains a minimum of 4 or fewer losing tricks. If the player is not familiar with this particular evaluation method, then it would behoove the player to acquaint himself with this supplementary method for evaluating the holding. Note: Some partnerships have inverted this definition to the understanding that the holding contain at least 9 winning tricks or more. Some agreements also include a reduced total of 8.5 winning tricks. In contrast to the balanced to semi-balanced holding containing a definite number of high card points, whereby the rebid is No Trump, the non-balanced holding can consist of a one-suiter or two-suiter. Some partnerships have included also a three-suited holding, which is quite rare. Thus, the amount of high card points becomes irrelevant if the holding consists of four or fewer losing tricks (9 winning tricks). It is the shape and quality of the holding which decides whether a holding should be opened with a strong, artificial 2 Clubs. Please click the link below: http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/2_clubs_opening_bid.html I do not agree with an 8 playing trick hand analysis; however, I will accept 8.5 and I think "spotlight7" referred to East's hand as an 8.5 winning trick hand, which I can agree with. This hand is receiving a lot of downgrades. Can more people on BBO downgrade hands containing dubious honors trapped in doubletons and singletons when performing their initial hand counts or is that a bit "over the top"?

As stated, the adjusted value of the hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is for me. Per BridgeGuy.com Losing Trick Evaluation Section Please click this link and review Losing Trick Evaluation section that shows some partnerships play 2 clubs for 9 or 8.5+ winning tricks. I play 8.5+ tricks which I admit has additional risk, but I am comfortable with such an approach. If, however, you feel 1♦ is the best descriptive bid for East's hand....have at it. That's why I love the game. I have asked several people about East's hand and some answered two clubs and others said 1♦. For those that answered 1♦, I asked about 2 clubs, they said, that's not their style but they have definitely seen some partnerships play an 8.5+ winning trick approach. Enjoy!

You do not need 4 of 5 ♦ honors to pad a decently established 7 card suit....to be 2 clubs eligible. I agree having 4 of 5 honors is nice, but that is a bit of overkill. I think we are putting a 2 clubs open on too high a pedastal especially with the modern shift of "less HCP is more" bidding of 1 of a suit bids we are trending towards even from first and second seat.

Couldn't agree more. AQTX♦ AQTXX♦ AQTXXX♦ AQTXXXX♦ can't all be worth just 6 points per Milton's evaluation. Whether NT or suit contract, the hands with longer diamond suits are more valuable from a trick taking potential perspective. That is why East's hand is not just a random 18 point hand. Some type of adjustment is needed to reflect the asset value of a long honor-rich suit. If you think having three extra cards beyond the basic four in diamond suit is not equivalent to having perhaps, an extra king in hand....so be it. What value do you assign to the extra 3 cards in the decently established ♦ suit, 0? I will not suggest that absolutely no adjustment is needed as that is patently understating my hand's asset value.

Are you going to even acknowledge that you were out of order for accusing me of not recognizing South's 2♥ preemptive bid when you failed to read the qualification from the original poster that clearly states to assume all players pass to East? NOPE! You won't do that because there is a bigger principle at play here. Your ego won't even allow you to make such a concession. If you are going to get snarky and suggest I am a bridge fool or shortsighted, you should first make sure you have read the entire string and have your facts right about the auction conditions. You hastily threw a poisoned dart and got busted for failing to read the original poster's underlying assumptions. There is no 2♥ bid from South if everyone passes to East.

There is a fallacy of comparison here. A hand with Zero quick tricks does not qualify for a One of anything open. So it doesn't qualify for a 1 heart open. Based on quality of the heart suit, it should not be opened 4♥ either as such a tactic effectively places a gag order on your partner. Now, if you want to go for a 2hearts or 3 hearts open, go ahead. Not my style but I can see a valid case being made for 2♥ or 3 ♥ if you are itching to report your heart suit. Now with respect to K&R, the tool is assigning 5 length points to a 9 card suit, which is more than reasonable. It is also giving full value to the queen of diamond trapped in the doubleton. I don't agree with the 2 point queen. That puts us at 7 points, so I am not seeing the problem with K&R adding length points for a 9 card suit here. There is a minimum opening requirement that hands must first meet before we apply an LTC formula to it. They typically have at least 13 points or at least 1.5 - 2.0 quick tricks to them. The hand with 18 HCP and at most 4 losers satisfies both the quick trick and minimum HCP requirement. 1098765432♥ has absolutely no quick tricks and is no where near 13 total points, so you don't use the LTC tool since this hand does not even meet the minimum opening requirements.

The reason I am assuming other people pass to East is because, in the middle of the post chain, the original poster said for the sake of discussion, assume all parties pass to East. That is why South would not open 2 ♥. So the hole you are looking for in my absurd analysis does not reside with the fact that South could open 2♥. Of course, you would have to read the entire string to see that before you went into the dismissive "2 ♣ ....that's nonsense" mode. . . lol. The 2♣ open is not nonsense. South might preempt but the person asking says South passes. You can disagree, but East's hand qualifies for a majestic 2 clubs open despite the fact that it goes against every fiber of your bridge sensibilities.

Honestly, the laughable issue is how some have tried to tell me East's hand simply can not be 2 ♣ period and I showed you three different ways it could be, including K&R statistics and LTC analysis. No one denied the 4 loser count because that doesn't fit their profile or the answer they're looking for. Some begged to differ on the adjusted 22 HCP which was backed up with an arithmetic based hand evaluation. The hand's rated value was also further substantiated by K&R which is not gospel, but it is a decent hand evaluator. So now we have transitioned from East's hand being "no where near 2 clubs" to a "random 22 point hand" to a hand having "a broken 7 card suit" containing 2 of the top 3 honors and 3 of 5 total honors. Nice switch out, johnu, but errrr no. The slip sliding and back pedaling I saw about East's hand is not in my string. Please send a note to K&R and tell them their hand evaluator is jacked up and broken and highly mistaken since there is no way East's hand could ever be anywhere near a 22 points hand. So, we must open 1♦ only for a hand rated at 22 points? Seriously? There is no right answer, but a 2 club open by East is valid IF it is allowed to be made before other preemptive bids are made. IF other bids are made, we can use other tools in the toolkit for that.

You have tried every way to run around this hand which is the functional equivalent of a 22 HCP hand. I have showed you three different ways to justify the 2 ♣ open and none of them, including the K&R calculator, is over the top. You haven't argued against the hand having at most 4 losers per LTC. I showed you some partnerships play 8.5+ tricks as 2 ♣ open, so the whole "this hand is nowhere near 2 clubs"... That would be true if you downgrade 7 card suits containing 3 of 5 honors. This hand is the functional equivalent of a 22 HCP hand and it has at most 4 losers per LTC. Its intrinsic value is hidden in the honors-rich 7 card ♦ suit that folks are dismissing in their initial hand evaluation. You are entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my 2♣ open because I know the masses have very entrenched beliefs about the type of uniform a 2♣ hand must wear. But I don't ascribe to those notions when the arithmetic says 22 HCP adjusted and the LTC analysis says a trick short of game. Also, if I open 2♣, West should bid a new suit ONLY IF it is headed by KJXXX or better. Well, in my book, Q10xxx♠ is not better than KJXXX♠ so he should not bid 3♠ over my 2♣. The spade suit quality doesn't justify consuming more than a whole level of bidding space from the auction. West needs to mention the suit he holds that meets these parameters. AQ10xxx♣ is his 6 card suit that meets the KJXXX or better requirement. He should bid 3 clubs to let me know he has 10 or more adjusted points and a well defined club suit containing 2 of the top 3 honors. Finally, if the opposition wants to preempt on a board where we run upwards of 30-32 points, let them. We welcome all altar-sacrificing bids but we can't guarantee that our opponents will be spared from a bloodbath.

One thing I learned is that I don't count singleton or doubletons distribution when I do my initial hand evaluation count but initial length points and suit quality points are more than fair game for evaluating a hand's trick taking potential. AQTXXXX♦ is NOT the same 7 card suited hand as: AQTXXX♦, or AQTXX♦, or AQTX♦ All of these different ♦ suits have different "trick taking potential" values and to suggest Milton's raw hcp of 6 points captures all four the exact same way... . .errrrm, no. We must add length points when we do our initial hand evaluation. I'm not backing down on this one since I was called an April fool's affair by a different user. As stated, the adjusted value of my hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is. Also, K&R statistics also shows 22 points. Click link below. The Misfit Hand So let's see: The LTC is equal to 4 losers = 2♣ ===> okay per BridgeGuy.com Losing Trick Evaluation Section We have a full hand evaluation that shows 18+3+1=22 hcp = 2 ♣ open We have K&R showing 22.15 points (click "TheMisFitHand" link please). That is 3 sources that confirm a 2♣ open is valid. Would you like 4 sources?

.

Nope...2 club open....has no more than 4 losers per LTC! or do you see 5 or 6 losers per LTC. Hello? See explanation in the post above for a full hand evaluation that justifies the 2 club opening. I came up with an adjusted HCP count of 22.