irdoz

I think in 'major standoff' auctions like this you should define 4♣ as 'gerb-alls' to determine whose major is the biggest. Seriously :blink: :unsure:

I dont think this argument about standards necessarily reflects an evolving language which divides people along generational lines. Im in my early 30s and know when I was 21 I regarded censorship of language as something stupid older people do, sometimes political correctness and an impingment on my freedom to express myself the way I wanted to. As I got older and spent much more time with people mainly older than me I came to view the sort of language I used to use all the time as not always appropriate depending on context. In the last 10 years I dont think language has evolved that much or standards changed - and my brother who is 10 years younger than me is having exactly the same arguments I did - but not because standards have changed dramatically in 10 years. I don't think 'non-offensive' intent is the yardstick either. For example if the young man referred to before said to the women he was with 'I was a stupid f-word c-word' then a significant number of people would regard that as both sexist and vulgar - independent of intent. 'You've got balls' is certainly not something I'd say to any woman I worked with because in that context there are so many other ways to say the same thing. Somehow I think arguments about standards and where the line is and how the line got to be there are ongoing - and the way you decide where the line is at any moment is by having discussions like this.

I belong to A.W.A.R.E (acronym without a reasonable excuse) and we are aware of this thread.

The link below is from Ulf Nilsson's blog. He argues for considering overcalling more often with weak suits. http://viewsfromthebridgetable.blogspot.co...x-and-more.html

Playing 2c over 1M as balanced or clubs is a common method. I also include in 2c hands with 5 bad diamonds - that way you can guarantee 1M-2d is a good 5+ suit. There's various schemes around from natural to full relay. I try to use one as natural as possible to ease memory (I think it's mainly/loosely based on Strefa a polish 2/1 like system). So for example after 1s-2c 2d = natural min or max 2h = natural min or max 2s = other minimums 2nt = slammish - only side suit will be clubs if any 3c = 16+, 4+c 3d = 5/5 16+ 3h = 5/5 18+ 3s = 6+ spades semi-solid good controls After 2d/2h responder can relay for shape - so for example after 1s-2c-2h then 2nt relays and :- 3c = 5413 (bid the 3 card frag) 3d = 5431 3h = 5/5 15-17 3s = 5422 max 3nt = 5422 min 4c = 5404 4d = 5440 4h = 5/5 min 4s = 6/4 good spades 1s-2c-2s then 2n relays and: 3c = 4+ cl min 3d/3h = good 3 card frag 3s = 6 spades Theres a lot more but I tried to always make it for memory that as far as possible you were bidding a 'real' suit (even if it was only 3 cards).

I think thats right - but I dont think the play order when lho has 4 trumps is easy... I think after 4 tricks the position is... [hv=n=sakxxhqxdcxxx&s=sqxhak10xxdcxx]133|200|[/hv] and you're in the north hand. You have to play qh then ah next. If rho has long hearts the play order is then cash spades, ruff 4th spade and exit a club, but if lho has long hearts and is 3451 for the squeeze to work I think the play order has to be cash top hearts and throw lho in on a heart discarding clubs in dummy - if lho exits a spade win in hand and east gets squeezed on last trump, if lho exits a diamond then east is simarly squeezed. (which is what effervesence said above i just noticed....i only read the immediate post above when i posted this sorry)

Besides deceptive play or where the club suit naturally blocks or where the spade spots behave in odd ways the only distribution I can see where you can still win with lho having 4 trumps to the j, is where the opening leader is 3-4-5-1... in which case rho can be squeezed in the black suits (and the opening lead shouldnt have been a diamond...) - but I cant see how you both play for this and 4 to the j in rho - so Ill have to wait for the answer.

Prob best to give link... http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20othe...he%20winner.pdf The article gives no. of hands analysed. It doesnt do frequency that different ranges occur (lots of other places do) but it does give a frequency table comparing 1992 to 2002 of the different ranges pairs are actually playing.

I came across this data (published in an isreali bridge magazine) based on an analysis of hands at european/world championship level between 1992 and 2002. Average imp score when you open 1nt Overall +0.52 imps average 16-18 -0.21 15-17 0.57 14-16 0.24 13-15 0.43 12-14 0.53 10-12 0.69 (I think to make a real comparison of the effectiveness of different ranges youd have to include 2nt data for hands opened 1minor etc.) Heres the average if you 'stretch' and open a 1nt 1+ points below yr stated range... Overall -0.31 15-17 -0.28 14-16 -0.76 13-15 -0.44 12-14 -0.56 10-12 +0.74 Hmm... seems at this level on average stretching doesn't work out well (with 10-12 being a big outlier)

[hv=d=e&s=sjh5dakqxxxxxxcak]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1c-??[/hv] This 11 trick hand occurred while kibitzing - and lho opened 1c before it got to you. (I only put this up because it caused a kibitzer debate about 3nt or 5d or how to look for 1 ace after lho opens)...

I think if lho has 4 trumps to the j it can't make unless they also have some spade holding like j10x and you have the 9 of spades in dummy (but given no spot cards are shown this is probably irrelevant) If rho has 4 trumps to the j then provided they also have 3 spades and diamonds making is not difficult (take ad, cash ah, qh, take kd, ruff last d cash 3 spades discarding a club, ruff last spade, take ace clubs and lead a club - doesnt matter who wins club youll get the last 2 trump tricks). However if rho has 4 hearts and only 2 spades then if you touch trumps at all youll go off - but you can still win by playing on spades or diamonds first to hopefully get more information about the distribution before deciding how to play trumps. (Havent looked at rho having 5 trumps or other distributions - too hard for my small brain)

Thanks for sharing your work. One thing I found useful in Nightmare is that their sequences give you the ability to distinguish between balanced hands with 2 or 3 clubs on the presumption that responder will often have real clubs and knowledge of the 8 club fit will be useful. So for example 1s-2c-2h-2s(ask) then 3h could be 17-19 balanced with 3cl, and 3nt 17-19 balanced without 3cl.

This is a perspective from someone whose regular partnership levels could be described as ranging from garbage to close to advanced+. From the bbo random persepective the most common method is simply to play 2M rebids as minmum 6+ and higher level reverses as just showing shape and not promising extras. Of course, played at this level, this method is inferior when both hands are in the 15-17 range as you languish in 3nt while precision bidders bid their 6nt. However, for BBO random standards it works fine for finding the right strain and often makes responders rebids easier so it isnt all bad. Next is the semi-regular partner/friend who you've actually discussed a few things with - so you decide to play what's recommended in BBO standard advanced 2/1 where a rebid of 2M is just a holding bid with a 5M+ (if 6 not good enough suit for 3M). Good idea - but you suddenly discover that most basic 2/1 descriptions lack further system description over this 2M catch-all holding bid - and without having 2nt being a responder relay where opener clarifies his hand then Im not sure how you play this method satisfactorily -and you wish 2/1 had better documented commonly agreed sequences after this 2M holding catch all, which exist in the expert community but are not as easily accessed at this level. Then in your most regular partnership which has graduated from the garbage youve looked at a whole lot of methods and find threads like this illuminating. So you look at Nightmare, Ambra and even Bocchi-Duboin for examples of different 2/1 structures and there they also use catch-all bids for openers first rebid - but after 1M-2m it is usually the next step - and in Ambra and Nightmare 2nt is 15 or 16+ showing a variety of hands (this seems potentially a lot better than wasting space with 2M and 2nt both min/max bids). And in all of these systems theres responder initiated relay sequences (complex in Bocchi-Duboins case, simple in Nightmare and a lot of them in Ambra although they have the same structure). But all of them have space problems with 1s-2h (although ambra does a fiddle swapping the meanings of 1s-2d and 1s-2h auctions)... but it does seem incorporating some other methods into 2/1 would improve clarifying openers min/non-min at the lowest level and giving responder the ability to take control would be a big improvement to the way my partnerships 2/1 system currently stands.

[hv=n=sxhaq109xxdajxcakx&s=sajxxxhxdq10xxxxcx]133|200|1h-1s-3c-3d 3h-4h-ap[/hv] This is a hand from the Vugraph tonight I have a couple of questions about. I always have troubles with this hand not playing a strong club system. I have played around with putting 18-19 nt hands in a multi so you can free up 2nt for other purposes and even putting these hands in 2c and amending the usual 2c structure - but in usual 2/1 I manufacture a jump shift on a 3-card suit which has often ended up badly. So my questions are: 1. Is there any common system for responder enquiring about hand type after 1M-1s/nt-3m? 2. After the 3d bid (4th suit) should opener bid 3nt or their 6 card heart suit? If they bid 3nt n/s might find 6d.

The moral of the first one is that 'kings should cover lonely queens'

oops

If you cover and drive out the remaining honor with a 10 to guarantee 3 club tricks, isnt the club suit blocked whatever hand you end up in? Wont you have K clubs in one hand and 9x in the other and no transport to cash both? If this is correct (but I may not be able to see it), it sounds like playing clubs K A 10 is the way to go keeping the heart honor in the hand with long clubs.

If you are starting clubs low to the nine I dont think it matters whether you kept the ♥K or ♥A. In one case you cross back to the hand via the ♣K to repeat the finesse. In the other case, when you are already in the hand because you kept the ♥A, you cash the ♣K then refinesse. In isolation - say playing this suit in matchpoints - starting with the king wins an extra trick when there is a stiff Q or J offside - but here where you only need 3 club tricks it doesnt lose the contract. I thought the only combination you'd lose out to starting low was stiff QJ offside but as you always have to cash the ♣K before refinessing you will still get 3 club tricks with QJ stiff offside. So now Im not sure which hand we win the trick in at the first trick matters at all.

I'm so not better than you... but Ill hide my answer anyway...

Im trying to follow this...so this is more in the way of questions... 1. What are the exact odds in the club suit in isolation? Looking at the club suit in isolaton assuming no transport problems arent the odds... I calculate:- 3 or more tricks about 78% (whenever honors split (50%), QJ onside (25%) and QJ doubleton offside (3%)) I calculate the odds of 4 tricks as less than 25% though (QJxx.. onside doesnt always yield 4 when you start with the kc, because presumably you cover any honor with the ace and then lead the 10.) 2. Isnt there a transport problem sometimes getting the 3rd club trick when playing for only one extra club trick For example lets say theres QJxx onside and x offside - you start with the Kc then low for finesse and lho rises with a club honor - you have to cover with ace then lead 10cl. If you kept Ah theres no transport to get the winning 9c...

(deleted post - I misread the diagram) My answer below :-->

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saqxhaqjxxdaxcaqx&s=sxxh109xxdkxxxcj10x]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This is a hand I witnessed while kibbing some star players. (I might have the dealer, seat directions and vul wrong) North has a monster - but before they get to bid west opens 1 spade (so north knows all the finesses are working). Our stars bid to 6h making 7. The hand was played by n/s in a number of contracts - 2s (making 4) (after a cue bid was passed), different levels of hearts, diff levels of nt and even in diamonds making 5 (Im not sure if 5c makes). That's what I found unusual - that after the opponents legitimately open 1s your side can make game in most suits including spades... (and grand slam in hearts).

A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer were each given the following problem to solve. A school dance floor included a straight line down the middle dividing the floor in two equal halves. Boys were lined up against one wall and girls against the opposite wall, each facing the centre line. They were instructed to advance in stages towards the centre line every ten seconds, where the distance from the person to the centre line at each stage is equal to one-half the distance at the past stage. i.e.: If the starting distance from the wall to centre line was D, the progressive series of distances at t = 0, 10 seconds, 20 seconds...10n seconds to the centre line is (D, D/2, D/4, D/8, .....D/2n) The question is, when will they meet at the middle? The mathematician said that they would never meet. The physicist said they would meet when time equals infinity. The engineer said that in one minute they would be close enough for all practical purposes.

I didn't 'admit' anything. And i think you may be misrepresenting what I tried to say. To say a paper questions the strength of the rleationship is different from questioning whether the relationship exists at all. And when the word 'consensus' is used in science it does not mean '100% agreement' - but its not a word Ive used anyway - because I dont think its useful. As an example of how things get distorted, a recent paper in Science ( see http://www.physorg.com/news110121579.html ) shows that atmospheric levels of CO2 probably did not drive the end of the last age. This paper was (mis)used by a number of sceptics to say that 'CO2 does not cause global warming') - despite the author saying “I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate. It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” I guess this paragraph best aligns with my opinion "Some people are under the false impression that global warming is a theory that still has to be confirmed. They do not realize that scientists are in agreement that a continual rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will inevitably lead to global warming and global climate changes. The disagreements are about the timing and amplitude of the expected warming. It is as if we are in a raft, gliding smoothly down a river, towards dangerous rapids and possibly a waterfall, and are uncertain of the distance to the waterfall. To avoid a disaster we need to address two question: how far is the waterfall? and when should we get out of the water? The first is a scientific question, the second is not. The first question, in principle, has a definite unambiguous answer. The second is a difficult political question that probably will require comporomises. The distinction between science and politics becomes blurred should the scientific results have uncertainties." From ; Xavier Rodo and Francisco Comin. Global Climate: Current Research and Uncertainties in the Climate System, Springer, 2002, 3540438203 p25

DrTodd13 - do you actually have any evidence to support your claims in the last post is just 'something you read somewhere?' or 'saw on TV'? Ive seen a few peer reviewed articles adding knowledge to the relationship between CO2 and global warming that question the strength of that relationsahip where the research was funded through government research grants.