RedSpawn

I still can't see the public comments. No, I think I have heard enough. No comment from Jeff needed. I will take you at face value that it was done in a completely objective manner. Did everyone vote 4♥? Or did some people (no names needed) vote 2♥ or 3♥ which, to me, is a very different animal? 63 people voted is all I can see without having signed up. 2 passed and 61 said? Can someone please supply the vote breakdown for the bids without compromising the privacy of voters who didn't vote publicly? I am curious. Thanks.

We talked specifically about opening 4♥ from 2nd seat both teams vulnerable (not 2♥ or 3♥ so do not include those in your population). "The majority of experts did not pass." Does that mean they all voted 4♥, or did some experts curb back to 2♥ or 3♥? I said PASS and am OK with my answer but let's be intellectually honest. Opening this hand weak 2♥, weak 3♥, and weak 4♥ are not essentially the same answers and should not be lumped together as "DID NOT PASS". Risk tolerance may have caused a downgrade to safer pastures and lower bids like 2♥ or 3♥ which I could see. Most all of the poisoned dart throwers were adamantly bidding 4♥ and I could not sign onto 4♥. Can you get Meckstroth to provide a comment because all I see is the poll question itself. I see no comments and no results. Thanks.

I only see the poll with the question asked by MrAce and no comments. Can you ask Meckstroth to provide a very short comment with this user ID so I can see it from my computer. Thanks.

Please see post #73 and #75 where I clearly explain the 4♥ overcall versus 4♥ opening. You are skim reading and I am not about to respond to folks who misquote me through abuse of ellipses. I am also not gonna respond to folks who misquote Benito and leave out so much compelling information (through ellipsis) that even my own jaw dropped when I went to Google for the entire quote. One should not use ellipsis to take out important information and markedly change context. Also, I am not going to respond to folks who make an interpretation error of another user's comment (not mine) and then try to slickly blame me for their own interpretation error. That level of maturity needs to be questioned. Sheesh!

This is coming from the same troll that intially threw around his and my BBO MyHand Stats as a poisoned dart and exited to the nearest door. How old are you? . . . . . Wait a minute, never mind. I see the photo on BBO. I completely understand now. The commentary, oneupsmanship, and low-blows all make sense for your age range.

Please see table in post #89 regarding the question I asked Vampyr about the probability of receiving the 9-2-1-1 hand in question. I see now that a better phrasing should have been expected frequency. As can be seen in the table above the expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand pattern is .001% of total hand patterns available. Just for fun, the expected frequency of getting a 12-1-0-0 hand pattern is .00000003%. The expected frequency of getting a 13-0-0-0 is 0.0000000002% of total hand patterns. Also the total expected frequency of getting any 9 card suited hand is at a remote .037% which is clearly less frequent than shorter hand patterns. For example, the expected frequency of getting any 4 card suit pattern is 35.08% or any 5 card suit is 44.34%. So obviously the expected frequency of getting any a 9 card suit is exponentially smaller than the "normal" hands we expect to see and that is what I was trying to proffer. Each hand shape will not have the same expected frequency since the # of available hands to fit said pattern is not the same. And one last note for the "clueless readers" about sarcasm (throwing poisoned dart back at you JonnyQuest). . . . . . So now we are reduced to arguing over the term probability versus expected frequency, how quaint. Next thing you know we will have a choreographed dance regarding permutations and combinations. They are different but this hair splitting is just. . . wow :unsure:

Should I have used the term expected frequency? The following mathematical tables may/can/are used to determine the percentages of various distribution patterns, both for hand patterns and suit patterns. The numbers are expressed in percentage of hands. The percentage expectation of a particular pattern with the suits identified is expressed in the last column Probable Percentage Frequency of Distribution Patterns Pattern Total Specific 4-4-3-2 21.5512 1.796 4-3-3-3 10.5361 2.634 4-4-4-1 2.9932 0.748 5-3-3-2 15.5168 1.293 5-4-3-2 12.9307 0.539 5-4-2-2 10.5797 0.882 5-5-2-1 3.1739 0.264 5-4-4-0 1.2433 0.104 5-5-3-0 0.8952 0.075 6-3-2-2 5.6425 0.470 6-4-2-1 4.7021 0.196 6-3-3-1 3.4482 0.287 6-4-3-0 1.3262 0.055 6-5-1-1 0.7053 0.059 6-5-2-0 0.6511 0.027 6-6-1-0 0.0723 0.006 7-3-2-1 1.8808 0.078 7-2-2-2 0.5129 0.128 7-4-1-1 0.3918 0.033 7-4-2-0 0.3617 0.015 7-3-3-0 0.2652 0.022 7-5-1-0 0.1085 0.005 7-6-0-0 0.0056 0.0005 8-2-2-1 0.1924 0.016 8-3-1-1 0.1176 0.010 8-3-2-0 0.1085 0.005 8-4-1-0 0.052 0.002 8-5-0-0 0.0031 0.0003 9-2-1-1 0.0178 0.001 9-3-1-0 0.0100 0.0004 9-2-2-0 0.0082 0.0007 9-4-0-0 0.0010 0.00008 10-2-1-0 0.0011 0.00004 10-1-1-1 0.0004 0.0001 10-3-0-0 0.00015 0.00001 11-1-1-0 0.00002 0.000002 11-2-0-0 0.00001 0.000001 12-1-0-0 0.0000003 0.00000003 13-0-0-0 0.0000000006 0.0000000002 RedSpawn asked what is the probability of getting the following hand. Vampyr said and I quote, "Well, this hand [9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣] is no more or less improbable than any other hand." I see ....each hand is its own unique occurrence out of the total bridge population. The total number of possible Bridge hands is 635,013,559,600 so that hand is 1/635,013,559,600 combinations. . . .that is slick because that is not what I really meant. I should have said, "What is the expected frequency for a 9-2-1-1 shape hand". That is a more pointed and exacting question which still involves math but stops the unnecessary choreography we are performing over semantics. As can be seen in the table above the expected frequency of getting a 9-2-1-1 hand pattern is .001% of total hand patterns available. Just for fun, the expected frequency of getting a 13-0-0-0 is 0.0000000002% of total hand patterns available. Also, the table supports the understanding that 4-3-3-3 and 4-4-3-2 are the most frequently occurring hand patterns in the total # of bridge hands available. Therefore, each hand pattern has different expected frequencies because the # of hand patterns available to fit the requested hand pattern criteria decreases as the suit in question gets longer. Math! Go figure. We have distilled this discussion to semantics -- "expected frequency" versus "probability" For your reading pleasure, I have also included a similar table discussing mathematical expected frequencies of hand patterns. Hand Patterns Frequencies ;)

And I said North would never make a cold 3NT because East would not allow that contract to be played; East would overcall 4 ♠ since he had both good HCP and distributional values. Stop picking up part of my sentences with ellipses and changing the context and intended meaning please. Thanks.

.

And that shows me you don't know how to read Nabooba's or my postings completely and accurately. It's that simple. You missed her double dummy reference about a cold 3NT contract and you missed my "entering the bridge matrix" and "hardball" reference when describing my board. That is two different interpretation errors you have committed so far. In the auction description of my board, I was describing guerrilla, take-no-prisoner players who don't follow rules since that is an affront to their renegade sensibilities. They don't care about rules like "don't preempt with a preempt" nor do they care about hand evaluation guidelines that address how to handle dubious honors trapped in doubletons or poor suit quality concerns. And they really don't care about passé concepts like quick tricks requirements for a 1 level opening bid. They have bigger fish to fry and bolder moves to make in the modern bridge era. I am not a renegade bidder so I wouldn't bid like they do...sigh.

Sfi, you misread Nabooba's very short posting. You and you alone did not see the words dd or double dummy and you rushed to judgment. I explained to her where I got the "cold 3NT" phrasing from. This happened in the real world and you respond "fair enough" and snidely imply my fantasyland views and postings influenced you to commit this interpretation error. How classy of you. Own the error while deflecting the blame to me. I almost fell for your professional hit job, but I am not a new jack, so I am not new to the various cocktails of poisoned darts people use. Do you blamestorm like this at the bridge table? Based on my board, East had enough values to overcall 3NT with 4 ♠ since he had a decent 8 card suit with 3 of 5 honors and outside suit controls. So if East is a sane, lucid and competent player, he would never ever allow North to play a cheap 3NT contract on his watch.

The pass by South is not proof positive that the distribution is normal for the remaining players. South could have an ugly distributional hand that he felt wasn't worthwhile to report from 1st seat. Blasphemous, right? So as it stands we have insufficient information to rely on a decent trump split as a basis for 4 ♥ with a whopping 2 HCP.

Please see posts #37, #69 and #73 above where I said this is an example of my entering another person's bridge matrix and playing hardball guerrilla bridge and or highlander bidding. "This hand takes 7 tricks end of story" was posted by another user #37 in this long post string so I tagged that line in my auction description. The "cold 3NT" was quoted by the Poster sfi on post #68. Please see post #68. I didn't say 3NT was cold. He did, my dear and I was quoting him. Bidding 3♦ with 1 HCP and 7 card suit with the bottom 2 of 5 honors, why not, right? I have distribution and 2 honors. Distribution matters, worry about suit controls later. I was describing guerrilla bridge players who don't follow the rules so the "don't preempt with a preempt" rule is offensive to them. For them fundamental bridge rules don't apply to them. The way I play, I don't open from South or West seat. West overcalling 4♥ with this hand is guerrilla bridge. I don't play this way. West opening 4♥ with this hand, I don't play this way. Personally, I don't have a problem with the PASS button when I have 2 points in my hand nor do I have a problem trusting my partner to make good decisions from 4th seat. I am beginning to wonder if others can say the same. . .

I think you are missing the point, sir. When I said "auction description" for that board, I was describing what mafia bidding, guerrilla bridge, or highlander bidding would be like. I said South would open 3♦ with 1 HCP and West would overcall 4♥. That is not how I play bridge, nor do I want to. I wouldn't have opened 3♦ from South nor would have I ever bid 4♥ from West position in 2nd seat -- not as an overcall or as a pre-emptive open. Let me state this clearly: I am not in the business of opening/overcalling 4♥ with that hot mess of a hand and then using the law of averages on this freakish board to justify the bid. I trust my partner's ability to make sound decisions in 4th seat that I don't need to rush to judgment or play his position while holding a whopping 2 HCP in my hand. I personally think 4♥ is a presumptuous dreadful bid from 2nd seat whether South bids or not. You don't have a crystal ball and neither do I. However, to put the partnership assets on the line for a distributional hand missing 4 of 5 honors, wow! The law of averages didn't stop you from getting a 1-9-2-1 hand, why do you believe it will help you avoid getting a 4-0-0 trump split. The most anyone knows about the board characteristics from 2nd seat is what is in their hand and the pass from South. In bridge, one player's garbage hand is another player's treasure island . .and that is what makes the game so interesting and fascinating. Until . . . folks throw poisoned darts, mud-sling, or start quoting summary MyHand statistics. Oh by the way, thanks but no thanks. I don't need beginner books. You should give those out to the folks on BBO who run away from the tables after making world class preemptive bids with low class HCP values and anemic honor holdings.

Nope, not at all all. I am human and make plenty of mistakes just like anyone else. As Jeff Meckstroth said, bridge is a game of errors and we all make them, so leave your ego at the door. On this board North and South would never lock in a cold 3NT as East could and should bid a very bankable 4♠ sacrifice even though his partner has what appears to be a "bust" hand. East has both HCP values and distribution but West is doing all of the executive decision making with distribution and 2 HCP. Go figure!

AKxxxxx♥ and 1098765432♥ have a very different declarer tempo depending on the placement of the missing honors and who has them and in what combination. Also the # of playing tricks 4♥ can generate is significantly impacted by honor placement and possession as well. Please answer the following question: If you open this hand 4♥ in 2nd seat, where do you leave room in the auction for your partner across the table to describe his hand as per the quote you supplied me from Benito? Benito said distribution 1st and worry about controls after your partner describes his hand. Thanks. <_<

Oh! You're good. . .real good! But let's dig deeper and get the entire quote you happen to have locked away behind your ellipsis. Here is the entire quote (italics, bold, & underline mine): "The Blue Club system we played years ago is not good enough for top level play. Lea Du Pont and I have improved on it a lot and now it's ten times better than the old one. The old [blue Club] system was based on controls & it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first. When we played C. C. Wei and the Precision team, we developed Super Precision. That was a fairly good system at the time but focused too much on controls and not enough on the shape of the hand. First it should be distribution and then only when you know enough about partner's hand should you worry about controls. In pairs competition, you can effectively forget about slam bidding. You need to concentrate on declarer play and defense -- that is where most of the points are lost. At teams you need to have more system, particularly for competitive bidding. More than 70% of the auction nowadays are competitive and you have to know what you are doing." Click the link below to read the entire quote from Google Books: Blue Club System and Precision So it seems he was referring to the Precision system and not SAYC. But I will indulge you with a very fair and valid question. "First it should be distribution and then only when you know enough about partner's hand should you worry about controls." If both teams are vulnerable, and you open the bidding in 2nd seat with 4♥ (because distribution matters 1st and suit controls later, even with 2 HCP hands). . . exactly where in the auction will you hear about your partner's hand to determine suit controls? It seems to me that Garozzo was saying yes, distribution 1st but leave some bidding space in the auction for your partner to describe his hand so you can use Precision to subsequently evaluate suit controls. Help me out here. ;)

Distribution matters... I never proclaimed it didn't. But to suggest distribution allows you to conveniently ignore having decent controls within the suit you want to be trump...that's where the theory is becoming paper-thin. You are missing 4 top honors in this delicious ♥ suit and now that you have this outrageous hand, you want to go a step further. You want to apply the law of averages for the trump split to this freakish board to further justify making the bid without honestly knowing honor placement. Where is the jack, queen, king, or ace of heart? Have you seen them lately? Should we file a missing persons report for all four of them? Who has them and in what combination? To cavalierly dismiss the importance of these honor placement questions which significantly impact the playing trick calculation for 4 ♥....now THAT is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Oh really? Let's play hardball and live in your BRIDGE MATRIX...Same Exact Board. [hv=pc=n&s=s42hdjt98764c6432&w=s9ht98765432dq3c9&n=saqhakqjd5caqjt85&e=skjt87653hdak2ck7]399|300[/hv] AUCTION DESCRIPTION: South plays hardball and modern bridge and none of that "1950's" mess RedSpawn was spouting and opens 3♦ with 1 HCP. West sees the 3♦ preemptive bid and raises the auction even higher to 4♥ close out because after all, West knows best. His shapely, 9 card ♥ suit hand with 2 HCP is useless if he can't declare ♥ as trump. Also, West believes ON AVERAGE, ♥ trump will split 2-1-1 so 4♥ should take at least 7 tricks end of story and is thus a worthwhile pursuit. Now, North being of sound mind and body is sitting pretty in 3rd seat. He wipes his monitor to make sure he is seeing right and then doubles 4♥ mercilessly. 😈 Since South faithfully trusts his partner 😇, he will NOT pull his partner's double. Why? Because a double after a 3♦ preemptive bid is NOT a request for a different suit -- it is a punishing BATTLE AX penalty. So, East has to wonder. Does East commit a primordial bridge sin and override his partner's 4♥ bid with a 4♠ or does he trust his partner's judgment? 👍 or 👎? East is void of ♥ so it is quite possible that his partner is sitting pretty on a very long high quality ♥ suit and only needs a few quick tricks on outside suits from his partner. How does East respond to 4♥X by North when he can't see his partner's cards? This really gets to the ♥ of the question Jennifer was asking about suit quality of 4 level bids (no pun intended). :unsure: MORAL OF THE STORY: The problem with poor suit quality preemptive bids is not what West may bid per se, but what his partner decides to bid in response. Usually partner is best to "PASS", even if they have 15-16 HCP. This is because the Pre-emptor is already counting on his partner for two or three tricks depending on vulnerability so one should only support partner if they have value above and beyond these tricks.

Come on! What is the likelihood of your receiving 9♠, T98765432♥, Q3♦, 9♣ in the 1st place? This is freakishly "MONSTER MASH" ugly. Now that you have this freakishly ugly improbable hand, let's hold ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD. . . in terms of probability curves and distribution. Ummm NO! When you see a black cat walking and mewing in the bridge parlor, recognize the harbinger for what it is. Welcome the cat, scratch its neck, and understand what his presence is telling you about the Bridge Matrix. :ph34r: Neo, the cat is telling you the bridge programming code has been altered. Therefore, using past experience and results as a future predictor of distribution is misplaced since there is "a glitch in the Bridge Matrix". Normal rules do NOT apply to this board as distribution parameters have changed. Why? Because the 9 card ♥ suit evidence in your own hand already tells you that distribution on this board is wacky and wayward! Therefore, using terms like "ON AVERAGE" and "ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL" on THIS board is dismissive of the anomaly itself. It would be imprudent to apply your experience base with NORMAL boards to what is clearly an abnormal and freakishly different scenario. Proceed with extreme caution on this goulash-like board before you brazenly put the partnership assets at risk.

Are you reading or skim-reading the postings? Meckstroth says, "Openings need to be sounder in Standard because it just gets too wide a range. Opening the bidding has a built in advantage, all your bidding tools are now working for you." Kaitlyn S' questions about junk hands were geared for players who bid SAYC 15-17 = 1NT. So....why do you think that a hand with 0.0 to 0.5 quick trick qualifies as a 1-level "sounder opening in Standard"? Walk me through this BBO voodoo logic -- especially when the hand in question, (QJX, QJX, QJX, QJXX), is the functional equivalent of a 8-9 HCP hand. <_< http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=QJX+QJX+QJX+QJXX

COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH REFERENCE TO REAL EXPERTS AND OPENING LIGHT ON HCP OR SUIT QUALITY: PLEASE SEE BELOW Wait a minute, did a World Champion just say that he passes a lot more now when he has crap hands for 1-of-a-suit bids --- even when bridge is CLEARLY a bidder's game? I think it's fair to say that if he presses PASS a lot more now when they have crap for 1-of-a-suit bid, I think the same rule would apply for a very poor suit quality weak 4 pre-emptive bid too. Also, if he suggests the 1-of-a-suit bids in Standard needs to be sounder, what reasoning would he have to suggest that a preemptive bid needs to be less sounder than a normal preemptive bid (of the 1950's per se)? Walk-me through the logic of why 1 level needs to be sounder but ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING goes for a 4♥ opening bid in 2nd seat with both teams vulnerable. It seems to me he 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. So opening bids of "whatever I feel like bidding" doesn't seem to be on the menu for Standard. Sounds truly truly outrageous, right?

.

Jennifer that is an UNFAIR question. Once you are in the Advanced and Expert level, the range for bids increases exponentially. That means that 1-of-a-suit opening bids and preemptive bids can mean WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE. In second seat with both teams vulnerable, 4♥ could range from a textbook classic of x♠,AKxxxxxx♥,xx♦,xx♣ to gourmet goulash garbage 9♠ 10987645432♥ Q3♦ 9♣ . It is YOUR responsibility to be amazingly clairvoyant about your partner's suit quality and to know from looking at your hand if your partner is bidding the former or the latter (even if you are void of ♥). :unsure: Of course I am kidding, but sadly, I think this is the unwritten "rider clause" in most partnership agreements on BBO.

Interesting you asked, I play a LOT, and I mean, A LOT of GOULASH bridge . . . with the freakish distribution featured in this PREEMPTIVE BID question. Also, I make a bad habit of playing with with A LOT pick up partners who open 4♥ with 1098765432♥ and then leave after they make a very hot and messy situation. Sound familiar? But I will request that you dig a bit deeper and look at individual tourneys the last two weeks as a litmus test to see my mettle. Just like I am asking you to dig deeper than being wooed by a 9 card ♥ suit headed by a 10, please look at the detail level of the Tourneys below between 03/20/17 - 04 /03/17: (feel free to verify through MyHands) #926 PAIRS MIDNIGHT FUN RANKED 3RD OUT OF 88 TEAMS (top 3%, I know, horrible, right?) #3188 Pairs Seniors Moment RANKED 47 OUT OF 222 TEAMS (I played with pick-up partner but top 21% ) #3725 HORNETS FUN RANKED 41 OUT OF 142 TEAMS (top 30% with pick up partner) #7922 Pairs Club WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP RANKED 70 OUT OF 218 TEAMS (ranked top 33% again) #9151 Pairs Blond Magic RANKED 14 OUT OF 92 TEAMS (I know, horrible right, top 15%) #6338 Pairs (_)o COFFEE CLUB (_)o RANKED 19 OUT OF 44 TEAMS (I had another pick up partner but I take my lumps as given.) #1417 EARLY BIRD RANKED 29 OUT OF 144 TEAMS (HORRENDOUS, top 20%) #213 PAIRS BRIDGE BAKLAVA RANKED 2 OUT OF 132 TEAMS (TRAIN WRECK!) #2166 PAIRS BAKLAVA RANKED 3 OUT OF 116 TEAMS (AWFUL!) #7572 PAIRS YUMMY GOULASH RANKED 25 OUT OF 214 TEAMS (top 12%, horrible right?). #9201 Pairs Happy Bridge Group Goulash RANKED 14 OUT OF 102 TEAMS (top 14%). #6336 Pairs (_)o COFFEE CLUB (_)o RANKED 15 OUT OF 50 TEAMS (top 30%). #***BSC*** Survivor Series RANKED 14 OUT OF 42 TEAMS (top 30%) #573 Pairs Hornets Early Game RANKED 10 OUT 74 TEAMS (top 10%) This is my last discussing this topic about my statistics. There is no way I can be a beginner, novice, and the like and have these kind of rankings in the last few days (03/20/17 through 04/03/17 especially when playing against HUNDREDS of teams on BBO some of whom may be using a 2nd IPhone or Samsung device as an "aid" to better bidding). I will not even look at your statistics on MyHands because for you to stoop to this all-time low proves you are out of ammunition. When out of fuel, you don't attack principles, you attack people. You will not discuss the merits of the topic but you will throw poisoned darts at me for your comeuppance. Nice try. Better luck next time. B-)