bluecalm

1♦ (11-15) - 1♥ 2♠ (natural reverse, 6+-4+) 4♥ pass wtp ?:P

How is this minimum ? We have 14hcp and AQ behind their suit. I would say we have significant extras. 2♠ for me. From what I understand Italians don't play support doubles at all so I guess it's playable ?

Your partner was clearly out of his mind. You are passed hand. You have extreme maximum for defense. What did he expect ? As to reopening double I feel pretty good about it. Not reopening could lead to many disasters (like missing cold game or 9card partial). I would prefer to open this hand in the first place though.

?? At least when 1♣ - pass - something above 1♦ - 3♠ comes up I have forcing pass/dbl here to deal with which I don't have after non game forcing response. I am not saying classical approach is better, I am saying it's not clear at all which is better. I don't know how to respond to you because you didn't even address anything I wrote. You just made up some assumptions (like me saying classical is better than Moscito) and then you flamed me. I can however say why I commented on quoted text. There was many tries to improve bridge bidding systems. I am from Poland so I am familiar with all forcing pass movement which brought many new ideas to bidding theory (particularly alternative meanings of various bids and many relay/slam bidding schemes). It was common for the authors of those system to give arguments like: a)Hands from 8-12 range comes up most often b)You have to open as much as possible a + b -->> Most of your openings should be reserved for hands from 8-12 range. This of course is shitty logic because it's not clear at all if: -opening as much as possible is indeed profitable -opening as much as possible with hands from 8-12 range is equally important as opening with descriptive bids with hands from 13+range, so even if you indeed open more often, you may not compensate for not opening with desriptive bids with stonger hands (even if they are less frequent). Back to quote text about Moscito. Author used very similar arguments: Some hands come up more often -->> more responses should be assigned to them. This "makes sense" for layman (ie. someone not good at thinking about math/bridge theory). This is however very bad argument because: a)It may be that it's very important to establish game force as soon as possible (in case of opponents bidding) b)argument about frequencies is completely pointless as it may be true that game forcing hands are less frequent than 0-7ones but there isn't much more bidding space in all reponses above 1♦ than in 1♦ itself (it depends how you define bidding space but it's either about equal or quite close anyway)' c)it may be the case that it's important that strong hand can make descriptive bid at possible low level opposite weak hand in uncontested bidding. (maybe because it's important that weak hand should know asap which information is important to strong hand). d)it may be the case that making descriptive bid with 8+hcp hands is much more profitable than losing descriptive bids with hands from 5-7hcp range (and there is no way these days to prove it one way or the other). My point is it's not clear. Writing stuff like quoted text is just gibberish which is aimed at convincing people who aren't good at thinking about those things. I don't like when someone is doing this in any area of life. That's why I commented on this.

nvm, right; playing small to the jack is right; I have a lot to learn :) I wonder how bad they need to be at randomizing to make playing the K more profitable than picking Q - xxxx

Interesting. When needing 3 tricks I can see that playing A and low to the 9 is 100% line, but I don't see why playing a king when 4 tricks are needed is a blunder.

I think BBO/Lawrence software (counting at bridge/defence) along with "how to read your opponent's cards" are the best things out there. I recommend the software as it's easy to click through and you are asked a lot of questions in the meantime which teaches you good habits.

Interesting variation of this is playing against "tricky experts" who always try to fool you (especially if they don't know you or think you are weak or just can't restrain themselves). For example if you have : AJ32 to K954 if you play the king and and 4 and N played say a 7 and S 6 and 8 you now play for the drop. That's because "tricky expert" would always play the T if he had one sitting on N so if T didn't appear it is with S.

No. I was commenting on quoted text. Author came to the conclusion in bold using arguments which are very weak. I hope it's obvious why they are weak. Even more so it's supposed to be "clear" which again is not. I don't like it when people try to convince other to their ideas using such gibberish, hence my comment.

They lead 2/4 (polish 2/4, not english 2/4) so 9 is either stiff 9 or J9x; given the auction I would say it's 90%+ stiff 9. Auction (opponents silent) pass 1NT (15-17) 2♣ 2♥ 4♥ pass Well, as lead is probably from shortness I think finessing J♥ in leader's hand is natural. This is why I started with the queen. Am I missing something here ? This is why I made reference to BBO calculator in the topic. I am getting different answer so either I am using it wrong or I don't understand this too well. Help ? I gave the auction above. 5-1-1-6 etc. in either hand is not likely because they probably wouldn't pass. He played a high club when giving a ruff.

(Or teach me to use BBO calculator) Here is a hand I played recently: [hv=d=w&v=n&w=saj6hqt87dqj73cat&e=st75hk943dk4ckq83]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I played in 4♥. N led 9♣ I took in the hand with T♣. I now played Q♥. S won with the ace and gave his partner a club ruff. Opponents then opened spades (assume distribution of spades between them is not readable now). I won spade honor with the ace and now I need to decide if I should play for a drop or for finesse. This exact situation occurred at several other tables (most other players much better than me). I played for finesse. Most played for a drop. You ?

Wow, this reasoning really seems to be correct. I am amazed :) Thanks !

My intuition tells me to play for a drop. I would be very happy if there is a way to analyze this kind of problem as I encountered similar problem several times and I came to the conclusion that without computer simulations it's probably not doable (but I am not very good at math). I think you should compare all possible distributions though (for which we need to know number of cards we have in all other suits). Not only compare some with 1-1 to some with 2-1. Is there any tables with a priori probability of various distributions ?

Isn't 2NT invitational and natural without special conventional agreement ?

This is superficial analysis. If that's what theoreticians have to offer these days we have indeed long way to go.

1NT. Partner can bid 2NT with some 5-4-2-2 or 3-4-5-1 (club stiff) 15pc hand. I recently saw that Meckwell were bidding 2NT on some awful 11counts though (and they open EVERY 11) but that was imps and like 10 years ago.

I don't think Norwegians play 4 card majors. They just sometimes open 1♥ with 4♥ but their style is basically standard 5M and most hands are bid the way standard 5M bidders do.

What kind of work is that that you have Hamman to talk to ? :lol: I am jealous...

There are 2 other possibilities: a)The game of bridge will continue to be like today, ie. nobody will get serious training (at least compared to other sports/intellectual sports) and everybody will continue to suck. Those who suck the least will win (like today). b)People will improve big time and the edge will be that small that the game will not be worth playing anymore as it will be reduced to almost purely variance (I believe variance in bridge is quite a factor if teams are at similar level) I hope it will be a) if anything :lol:

I am unable to google it anywhere. There is vugraph coverage from the event (on vugraph project page) but I would like too see standings. Anyone has those or at least names of the winners ?

Fred, OP said that his treatment of support double didn't deny 3♥. This is why me and some others are tempted to double. Partner can have very probable 3-3-3-4 or 4-3-3-3 - exactly the shape he wouldn't double with playing non-mandatory support doubles. From what I see in the answers people (me included) choose 3♣ assuming pass denied 3♥. Does this consideration changes your mind or is it still obvious 3♣ for you ?

Pass is not an option in my opinion. I like dbl and 3♣ after 2♠ but I don't like playing non-mandatory support doubles. Playing mandatory ones I bid 3♣ here because the worst case is partner being 4-2-3-4 and I want to be in clubs opposite this hand. I also want to show club support in case he is 4-1-3-5 so he could compete to 4level with nice hand.

Experts also know that even if there is no need to show 2suiter it's still better to have dbl as t/o because partner can leave it in which you want if you don't have crazy shape. Passing 4NT is not that profitable if he happens to have AQTx of spades...

Any way to view it online somewhere in the future ?

We play it as t/o. I appreciate you care to share your treatment but please don't state is as fact. I doubt playing is as penalty is majority expert treatment anyway. In any case it would be inconsistent with general rules we have. I accept double may be bad. I like experimenting a lot and I had an impression letting such hands go loses me a lot of imps I guess I haven't seen enough 800's yet. Is this that clear pass for all of you at other vuls ? If so, can you give minimum hand you would double with at at least one vulnerability ? Thanks for answers :)