foo

Hmmm I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score. As I recall, the scoring tables were changed. I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Mechwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan. Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story... We're very likely talking about the same board, but with who was on what side confused. Edgar Kaplan was at the time a =very= powerful force in bridge officialdom on these matters and was indeed approached about the issue exemplified by the board in question and the person who drove the scoring changes through. (Regardless of who approached him, I object to characterizing such an action as "whining". Most would say that the scoring change improved Bridge.) I'll see if I can find a publicly available objective written source as a reference. It may take awhile. It's the holidays and I have other obligations. Including some correspondence to other people on this site. For those who want to look on their own in the meantime, I suggest as likely starting places for searching Jeff's autobiographical bridge book and _The Bridge World's_ book on EK. Lest we get too distracted by a tangent, let me remind everyone that THE point of that little story is that we have historical precedent for changing the scoring tables of Bridge in a successful attempt to deal with methods or styles that generate ludicrous ATT results. Another poster's suggestion of using this mechanism as a clean and fair way of dealing with many of the present problems in this area is therefore very worthy of serious consideration.

Actually its not as clear as you make it out to be. For example, the Hacketts are tougher to prep for than Jianming-Lixin's Precision. You're right. I should've prefixed that point with the phrase "in general".

IIRC, Eric Rodwell once wrote an article where he suggested a radical way to handle minimum opening strength 4441's in 1st or 2nd. Pass. If one can't bring ones self to adopt that approach, then your partnership has to figure out how they will handle this issue. I've seen just about every imaginable way of dealing with this issue. I have not seen a way that experts overwhelming liked over the others. So, pick one a= pass b= open 1D and raise 1M or pass 1N (my favorite with this strength =4441) c= open a major and rebid 2D or pass 1N d= do something like what Frances does e= play a 3 suited opening At least this hand type is easier to deal with than minimum opening strength =1444's.

It's easier to prep for natural systems like those above than it is to prep for FC systems; and it's =much= easier to prep for FC systems than for Dominant systems like those that contain Strong Passes and Ferts. Remember, this is the highest levels of Bridge competition we are talking about. As JanM has repeatedly said, proper systems prep is considerably more detailed and thorough at this level than for your local club game or regional! The issue this brings up is, "just how much should unfamiliarity with the opponents methods be allowed as a factor in deciding who wins at Bridge?" Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand. The pair in question got a Top. Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan. The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge". If we can figure out how to change the scoring table to further punish silly contracts, it may be the best approach to convention regulation. After all, precedent for the approach exists and it's been shown to be effective. OTOH, if we take this approach, we have to be careful to not change the scoring table so much that people will stop balancing with their 22 HCP hand because they know they will score better by passing the auction out at the one level! It's not clear to me how much we can do to ameleorate the one without making the other unacceptably worse. Of course, striking the appropriate balance on issues like this is the sort of thing groups like the C&C =should= be good at.

I tried this in Jack. Heart lead and you return ♠8 in trick 2 and East plays small (♠2). Then ctrl-A for analysis: Jack prefers now small ♠ over A or K. But if you do analysis from the start then Jack seems to prefer to cash ♦K and ♣A before playing the ♠8 and taking it with the ♠A when East follows low. ...I wonder how this can be explained. This not the behavior I got. "Analyze Position" at the start if T2 rates CQ or CA as best play. Let Jack choose what to do and it plays the S8 *huh?* After E inserts the S2, Analyze Position rates the S5 as best ...and if I let Jack choose what to do... ...it plays the S5 Which makes me wonder what this thread is really about. I'm running Jack 4.01 with playing strength settings of time 15, auction 2, cardplay 3, lead 3, declarer play 4, memory 10, and Finish calculations checked.

♠T8643♥A♦K982♣AQT + ♠AK5♥KQ♦AJ5♣K9543 6S by N, ♥x led My 1st thought is that Jack wants to get as many trumps off the table as possible before letting Them in to protect against a possible bad minor suit break and potential ruff. When Jack plays the ♠8 and 2nd hand plays the ♠2, the possible layouts where We can take 4+ tricks on the single suit line are: 7+QJ92 97+QJ2 J7+Q92 J9+Q72 Q7+J92 Q9+J72 QJ+972 J97+Q2 Q97+J2 QJ7+92 QJ9+72 On all the 3-2 layouts, We are cold for only 1 ♠ loser. Unless They can get a ruff. IMHO Jack decided at that point in the play that the odds of a 4-1 ♠ break that can be handled by following the original line are less than the apriori odds of a bad minor suit break that could set the contract if They got in too soon and got a ruff. Therefore Jack changed from the single suit optimum line to the line that its calculations said optimized the chances to make the contract. EDIT: different copies of Jack seem to be doing different things on this board. Some play the single suit optimum line. Maybe this thread is more about a SW setting / bug than about bridge?

1= Or a shape with which we can not double? 2= How do you reach that conclusion? Do you take your supposed 0-7 (or 0-8? which is it?) and add the average of that to what partner would need for us to have half the deck, which you then declare to give us safety? And anyway, why are you implying a bid should only be made if it's safe? On the actual hand the opponents were in a 9 card fit with less than half the deck, is letting them play there winning mps? 3= I agree, passing is quite reasonable and this thread has swayed me more in that direction. Maybe I was wrong and it's 'correct' at mps. I certainly don't mean to pretend this is an obvious problem. 4= You believe this is a maximum, claim you will bid it as though it were minimum, give no reason why, and conclude by saying you are endplayed into that choice? What if partner opened 2NT, would you pass because you have a 10 loser 4333? 1= ...and what shape would that be? Most 8-9 HCP hands can take action: a= 5+ card suit, makes a Neg X and then passes or corrects. b= the obvious 4cM hand makes a Neg X c= 8-9 HCP w/o a 4cM but with 4+D can raise 1D: 1D-(2C)-2D... All that's left of your hypothetical set is 8-9 HCP =3334. On some of those, one might =still= raise ♦'s. 2= We are in a misfit auction and Opener is considering taking action at the 3 level all by himself. Clearly, opener needs extra values to make a forward going call. Unless you like bad scores. If They have the balance of power, We might even get X'd and get a =really= bad score. Particularly at IMPs. b= As you well know, HCP are an approximation of playing strength. Particularly in contested auctions. c= Do I really need to start quoting Robson & Segal, Cohen, or Lawrence on the contested auction in the 18-22 HCP per side range? Yes, sometimes our best odds (MPs) or expectation (IMPs) to get a good score, or at least to avoid a bad score, is to defend. 3= Glad we agree on something here. My initial reaction matched Han's. Yuck! I'm reminded of some of the better examples Mike Lawrence has in his books. 4= This hand is a minimum response. 7 HCP. It's HCP values are maximum =for the auction=. It is a flat 10 loser hand. 4333 is the worst trick taking shape, and the most defensive shape, in Bridge. If Opener passes, I'm fairly sure We'd all pass (a unanimous action on the BBO forums! Sacrilege!) with this hand. But Opener did not pass. They X'd. And our hand does not offer much in the way of tricks. Offensive or defensive. Therefore IMHO you are endplayed into treating this hand as a minimum no matter what you do with it. b= That last is silly since We know when pard opens 2N= 20-21 that they have enough power tricks to rate to have 7+ tricks opposite our likely 2. That situation and this situation are not analogous. We know pard does not have 20-21 flat. They do not rate to have 7+ tricks based on power in this auction. 4-5 is more like it. Maybe 6 if we are very lucky. ...And we do not have any length tricks or ruffing values to offer him to bolster Our combined tricks to 9+.

jdonn I did not realize the quoted was typo and actually about ♠'s rather than ♦'s

Responder's hand here is K7x_87xx_87x_A7x , So I'm not sure why the example of ♦Kxx+AJTx on defense is being brought up? Another thing. 1D-(2C)-X would show a minimum of ~8-9 HCP. So when we as responder passed instead, we strongly implied that we had 0-7 or 0-8 HCP. Therefore, 1D-(2C)-pa-(3C);X should usually show more than 15 HCP. For Us to rate to be safe at the 3-level, it needs to show ~17+. Upon more reflection, I have more sympathy with us passing at MPs (not IMPs) if They are Red. Take Our likely +200 or better and go home. At IMPs, I do not think you can ever afford to pass, but given my 10 loser 4333, I'm not willing to GF w/ 4C even if I do have maximum values for the auction. At IMPs, IMHO you are endplayed into bidding 3H

1= Your 1st statement is not true. In any particular. a= Discussion, even debate, and examples germane to the topic under discussion are not "hi-jacking". Such discussion is what these forums are for. I wish those discussions did not get as heated as they do occasionally, but debates sometimes do that. b= While I am often in the minority opinion, I am rarely the only person to hold an opinion I post. c= I have shown more flexibility in changing my mind when presented with convincing enough argument or evidence, as seen even in this very thread, than most on this site. 2= This is a site for discussing bridge. Not personal vendettas. a= Discussions of bridge issues are supposed to be based strictly on bridge merits. Not on Argument From Authority, Ad Hominem attacks, or any other logical fallacy. b= last I checked, you were not one of the people whose job it is to police these forums. It is inappropriate for you or anyone else who is not in that group to act as if they are part of that group. You've got a problem, you PM me privately if you think you can discuss it like an adult. If you don't think you can manage that, then please talk to one of the people whose job it is to police the site and have them speak to me. But please refrain from public personal attacks or calls for such or other such inappropriate behavior.

These rate not to make much opposite the 9 count that this thread is about. Opposite an Opening bid with 5+♥ in it, they both look like decent hands for declaring 3N on this board. Now, how good are you at being able to tell, via some method legal within bridge, which kind of hand it is that Balancer has? If you can't Advance 3H to 3N with these, you are going to miss a lot of games.

Are you seriously suggesting that on this auction xxxx Ax KQx Kxxx is a "crappy" 12 count? Any 12-count that has 4 small spades should probably be elevated from "crappy" status given the auction. Don't you think? Please remember that the exact issue I was responding to was So I provided hands with average or less than average controls that fit the required definition.

Fred, I think Claus' negative PoV was based on "you and Frances are the only responsible persons from bridge organizations" participating in this thread. Since JanM is in her own right one of those "responsible persons from a bridge organization", and in addition is married to one who has actually served on the ACBL commitee in question, WHO JAN HAS EXPLICITLY SAID SHE"S CONSULTED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD, it seems more than a bit illogical to make the claim Claus did. Poring through the thread I noticed the logins of other folks who most would consider "responsible persons" in the bridge world as well. ...and it is axiomatic that the vast majority of the time there are more people reading a thread than participating in it. All, Just because someone does not agree with your PoV does not mean that they care any less than you about what is best for Bridge.

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care. That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus JanM isn't exactly "chopped liver", and she has participated heavily in this (very long) thread. There are others besides Jan. Some of them may be posting anonymously, some are not, but there definitely are "heavy hitters" from multiple niches within the bridge world posting to this thread. I'll bet there are even more lurking.

Correct? Having seen partner's hand it's clear that 4H or 4S are both better contracts than 3NT. I did not say 3N was perfect. I said it was acceptable. *shrug* it is. The best contract looks to be 4S. But IMHO the only realistic way to get there is for Opener to mastermind and bid 4S over 3N. ...and how's that going to play compared to 3N if Responder has the ♠x instead pf ♠J? I'm reminded of the AJ Simon quote about the best result possible vs the best possible result.

+1 WiTW are you complaining about? You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision. I gave both. They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic. Someone else asked about using a different meaning for the sequence given and I tried to answer that logically. Even included examples. So what's your beef? Please PM it since I do not want to derail this thread any further or air private dirty laundry in public.

So when you said that this auction was "nigh unto impossible" because "We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N", you actually meant that 2N followed by 3N is a perfectly normal action, showing a 1534 or 1543 shape with a poor second suit? It's both "perfectly normal" and not. With the hand type given, it's "perfectly normal" What's relatively rare is having a hand of that type that is good enough to 2/1 GF. J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx ...is a control rich 5431 minimum opening with almost perfect value placement. Only something like J_AKxxx_(AJxx_xxx) or x_AKJxx_(AJxx_xxx) would be better. But relatively rare or not, these are important hand types that we must have a way to bid. So 1S-2H;2S-2N;foo-3N is likely to be better as natural rather than Serious 3N unless "foo" was 3S and irrevocably set trumps.

A 3♥ invitational bid? Who said 3♥ was invitational? It is a balancing call. Sure, it shows some values, but partner knows that the 3♥ call is a balance, so it could be based on very minimal values - certainly far less than a 3♥ call in direct seat. If partner raises to 4♥ on a flat, boring 12 count with 4 ♠'s and 2 ♥'s, partner is not a bridge player. Wow, not a bridge player, really? Yes, evidently no "real" bridge player would raise (2S)-pa-pa-3H;pa-?? to 4H with any of the following: xxxx_Ax_(KQx_Kxxx) xxxx_Ax_(Kxx_KQxx) Jxxx_Kx_(KQx_Kxxx) Jxxx_Kx_(Kxx_KQxx) Jxxx_Qx_(KJx_KQxx) Jxxx_Qx_(KQx_KJxx) Here are 12 =crappy= 12 counts that have play for 4H opposite even the given 9 HCP hand. I have admittedly cheated by putting cards exactly where they will do the most good or the least harm. Most 12 counts will not have their values so perfectly placed. But Advancer does not know that you've balanced on a low ODR 9 count with a bad suit. With the average 12 count, Advancer should be even more willing to raise 3H to 4H than they are with any of the above. I know I will be raising 3H to 4H with any 12+ hand with 2+♥ that I can envision having 50+ % chances (34+ % Red @ IMPs) of making 4H but less odds on making 3N. I like bidding my games and slams. ...but then, according to ArtK78, my actions are not those of a bridge player. :)

I'm surprised that you can't think of a better meaning for this 3N bid. If 2N showed a doubleton spade, and (as you've previously told us) 3♣ showed 6-4, wouldn't 3NT be some sort of slam try for spades? Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction. As they were here in fact. (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N , with J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx or the like?) Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N. Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

yep. A 1-♠ minimum 2/1 with ♦'s that could not be bid or that was too weak to raise 3C. J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx + AKT9xx_Qx_x_KQxx 3N by N looks acceptable to me. 12 tricks may there DD, but being in slam looks greedy. Not SD odds on.

So with 2542/1543 opposite 1552, Foo playing with Foo plays in 3N without even mentioning the diamond suit? Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N So 1S-2H;2S-2N starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT Not a shapely 5431 or 5521. But when the auction continues ...;3C-3N Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N. Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point. Where are the ♦'s? The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

Fine. I'll change my vote to X. This is a less deep position than 3H IMHO and a less deep position than pass in other people's opinion. And FTR, while having a stiff in Their suit and a 6 card suit is nice, it's the nasty of having 8/9 of my points be A's in my short suits that drives the ODR of the given hand into the floor. At least according to my understanding of what Robson and Segal had to say on the subject.

My sentiments exactly. ♠K74♥8732♦875♣A74 1♦* (2♣) Pass (3♣);Dbl Pass ?? I have a 9 loser minimum and partner has held a gun to my head. If pard's X shows short ♣'s, me passing with only 1 trump trick looks like a Bad Idea. Pard asked for a major. I have a minimum with a 4cM. I'll bid it that way. 3H

...and how will you bid AKT9xx_Qx_x_AKxx ?

These have only 9 working HCP. Not everyone will open them. Neither of these hands is a example of a sound minimum opening bid. They are examples of aggressive openings being made at least in part on the basis of their shape and not their values. If we count every HCP and use long suit adjustments, either hand is still only worth 13 points. If we discount the potentially wasted Q, that value goes down to 11 points. The original hand is a hand everyone would open regardless of style. It is therefore a good example of an opening bid. But by the same logic, a minimum opening. In addition, this auction has devalued opener's hand to some degree. Whatever extras you may think you started with apriori, they do not rate to exist given the context of this auction.