double or 1nt?

[mikeh]

If you swear to me, that you will never have a partner that will take 2D over 1N as a transfer to hearts, I will tell you that you are lying.

 

If you swear to me, that you will never have a partner that will take 2C over 1N as stayman, I will tell you that you are lying.

 

I swear to you that NONE of the partners I play with would intend 2♣ as stayman if I reopened 1N... nor would any of them take 2♦ as a transfer.

 

I feel sorry for you if your partners would... they are, in bridge terms, weak. And correct bidding should not, usually, be based on the fear that partner will get a basic sequence wrong.

 

BTW, unless you know me and my partners, don't tell me I'm lying ;)

 

I would reopen with double...but, as with Frances, I don't feel too strongly about this issue.

[bid_em_up]

If you swear to me, that you will never have a partner that will take 2D over 1N as a transfer to hearts, I will tell you that you are lying.

 

If you swear to me, that you will never have a partner that will take 2C over 1N as stayman, I will tell you that you are lying.

 

I swear to you that NONE of the partners I play with would intend 2♣ as stayman if I reopened 1N... nor would any of them take 2♦ as a transfer.

 

I feel sorry for you if your partners would... they are, in bridge terms, weak. And correct bidding should not, usually, be based on the fear that partner will get a basic sequence wrong.

 

BTW, unless you know me and my partners, don't tell me I'm lying ;)

 

I would reopen with double...but, as with Frances, I don't feel too strongly about this issue.

So, you never play with any clients mike?

 

Never play with any intermediates? Beginners?

 

Like I said....its all well and dandy for each and everyone of you to make statements like

 

"My partners would never do this".

 

I still say you are lying if you mean ALL of your partners.

 

All of your personal/regular pro partners may be a different story.

 

And btw, not everone is as privileged or lucky as you, Phil, et al. to be able to always play with W/C partners who never make a mistake, even simple ones. :)

[bid_em_up]

Quote Bid em Up:

 

"If you tell me it isn't possible that partner has a hand such as:

 

J10xxx Kx xx Kxxx

 

I will tell you that you are lying. (He probably doesn't, and I may be dreaming, but....if you don't allow for it, you will never defend this hand when he does.)"

 

Anyone who passes a 1 level takeout X here with your posted hand deserves to be relegated to the 4th division. Fwiw I would 1NT with this hand over the 1S bid. If I was called to the telephone during the auction and the wine waiter bid my hand, I would now bid 2C.

In 20 years, you might understand why it would be correct to defend with this hand.

 

Check back with me then.

[helene_t]

There's quite a difference between making a normal bid without worrying about that p might make a brain fart when responding to that particular bid, and saying that p would never make a mistake. We all make mistakes now and then, but I would never say "p is going to make a mistake now so I have to do something to prevent it".

[mikeh]

So, you never play with any clients mike?

 

Never play with any intermediates? Beginners?

 

Like I said....its all well and dandy for each and everyone of you to make statements like

 

"My partners would never do this".

 

I still say you are lying if you mean ALL of your partners.

 

All of your personal/regular pro partners may be a different story.

 

And btw, not everone is as privileged or lucky as you, Phil, et al. to be able to always play with W/C partners who never make a mistake, even simple ones. :)

I am sure you do not really mean to call me a liar :)

 

1. I do NOT play with clients. The few times I have played for pay, I have either partnered a friend (and good player) or I played with the pro in the second half of k.o. matches, as the 5th on the team.

 

2. I no longer play with beginners and intermediates, and haven't for a long time. I don't get to play a lot, and when I do, I like to enjoy the game... call it a character flaw if you will, but I don't enjoy playing with B/I players. In the last 10 years, I have probably partnered no more than 20 partners.. all of whom can be called advanced or better, in most cases much better. Call me privileged if you like, but don't call me a liar :)

 

3. With the exception of Grant Baze, whom I had the privilege of partnering in a couple of events at one Regional, every partner I have ever played with has made at least one mistake.. I don't know any good player who makes no mistakes..(not counting playing with me :) ). But not knowing what one's bids mean over a reopening 1N is not a mistake... it is ignorance... there is an important difference.. a mistake is forgetting knowledge or committing an error in analysis.. ignorance is simply a lack of experience. My partners do not lack this experience, hence would not get this wrong.

[bid_em_up]

I am sure you do not really mean to call me a liar :)

 

1. I do NOT play with clients. The few times I have played for pay, I have either partnered a friend (and good player) or I played with the pro in the second half of k.o. matches, as the 5th on the team.

 

2. I no longer play with beginners and intermediates, and haven't for a long time. I don't get to play a lot, and when I do, I like to enjoy the game... call it a character flaw if you will, but I don't enjoy playing with B/I players. In the last 10 years, I have probably partnered no more than 20 partners.. all of whom can be called advanced or better, in most cases much better. Call me privileged if you like, but don't call me a liar :)

 

3. With the exception of Grant Baze, whom I had the privilege of partnering in a couple of events at one Regional, every partner I have ever played with has made at least one mistake.. I don't know any good player who makes no mistakes..(not counting playing with me :) ). But not knowing what one's bids mean over a reopening 1N is not a mistake... it is ignorance... there is an important difference.. a mistake is forgetting knowledge or committing an error in analysis.. ignorance is simply a lack of experience. My partners do not lack this experience, hence would not get this wrong.

How about I just say you are mistaken in your beliefs then?

 

LOL :)

 

Really, I have seen many WC players make simpler errors than this. As a lawyer, I would infer that you probably already know the saying "Never say never".

 

Stranger things have happened at the bridge table, and I don't like giving partners opportunities to make a mistake/error/ignorance when I don't have to.

 

X yields practically a zero percent chance for partner to make a mistake. 1N, while there should be zero percent (in theory), that is not always going to be the case.

 

1) ok, fine. I made an assumption that you would. My bad. If it is of any significance to you, I think you would make a better "pro" than many of the ones out there already.

 

2) Although the sentiment is understandable (I often feel the same way), the actual "refusal" to do so by you somewhat surprises me. Especially given your willingness to help here. But then again, time is often a limited quantity, and I can understand only wanting to spend it enjoyably.

 

So can I say, you are a "flawed character" and get away with it? :)

 

3) Somewhere in the midst of all of this, it got inferred that I meant that partners would make an error/mistake of this sort. I may have unintentionally even implied it myself. Then it got derailed from there.

 

My original intent was only that X is somewhat more flexible than 1N. 1N here will tend to deny 4 hearts. So if you have a 4-4 heart fit, you will not be able to find it (partner cannot bid 2S as stayman without compensating extras which he is unlikely to have, cannot transfer to hearts as 2D would be natural, and he should not bid 2h with only 4). So 1N gives up any chance of finding a heart fit, along with any chance of penalizing 1S if it happens to be right.

 

So, imo, you lose at least two options with 1N, that are still available with double which tilts the bid in favor of double for me. I prefer to keep all my options available whenever possible.

 

But again, this is jmoo.

[Finch]

2. I no longer play with beginners and intermediates, and haven't for a long time. I don't get to play a lot, and when I do, I like to enjoy the game... call it a character flaw if you will, but I don't enjoy playing with B/I players. In the last 10 years, I have probably partnered no more than 20 partners.. all of whom can be called advanced or better, in most cases much better. Call me privileged if you like, but don't call me a liar :)

 

 

2) Although the sentiment is understandable (I often feel the same way), the actual "refusal" to do so by you somewhat surprises me. Especially given your willingness to help here. So can I say, you are a "flawed character" and get away with it? :)

I don't get this.

 

I also don't play with BI players, and I don't see that as a character flaw. I play perhaps 90% of my bridge with two people, and the remainder with a small number of other friends.

 

I don't consciously 'refuse' to do so, because I'm never asked. But if I were I probably would refuse on the grounds I have plenty of other things I would rather do with my time. I don't see why that makes me a flawed character. As it happens I give a fair amount of my spare time to helping run/develop the game, but even if I didn't I don't think I would feel guilty.

 

And anyway, if I were playing with someone who was trying to learn the game (most likely would be a currently non-playing friend) then I would still bid 1NT here (if I thought it the right call), and if they bid 2C and thought it Stayman, they would learn. The things I remember learning most vividly are the ones that led to disaster when I got them wrong.

[SoTired]

2) Although the sentiment is understandable (I often feel the same way), the actual "refusal" to do so by you somewhat surprises me. Especially given your willingness to help here. But then again, time is often a limited quantity, and I can understand only wanting to spend it enjoyably.

 

So can I say, you are a "flawed character" and get away with it? :)

This is unfairly critical of mikeh on several levels. First, just because a good (and mikeh is more than "good") player does not play with beginners is not a "character flaw." It is a choice. Maybe he doing them a favor.

 

Second, even if mikeh wanted to volunteer to play with a lesser player for teaching purposes, what a waste of time for him play with a B/I player. He should play with a near-expert to bring them up a notch. What a waste of talent to hear him lecture his partner, "3rd hand you play bottom of a sequence. You only play top a sequence when leading the suit."

[bid_em_up]

2) Although the sentiment is understandable (I often feel the same way), the actual "refusal" to do so by you somewhat surprises me.  Especially given your willingness to help here.  But then again, time is often a limited quantity, and I can understand only wanting to spend it enjoyably.

 

So can I say, you are a "flawed character" and get away with it?  :)

This is unfairly critical of mikeh on several levels.

No, it is not.

 

Why the hell do you people insist on reading something into a post that isnt there?

 

Mike himself said:

 

I don't get to play a lot, and when I do, I like to enjoy the game... call it a character flaw if you will, but I don't enjoy playing with B/I players.....

Call me privileged if you like, but don't call me a liar :)

 

Since mike was insisting that I don't call him a 'liar', I was simply making a joke regarding can I call him a "flawed character" instead. I would be fairly certain that mike is neither a liar, nor is he actually a flawed character. It is something said in jest.

 

Please try buying a sense of humor and then reading this stuff in context, next time please.

 

Geez.

 

EDIT: Note, I do not consider the refusal to play with B/I players to be a "character flaw". Each person may choose to play or not to play with whomever they wish for whatever reason(s) they may have. Mike said, "call it a character flaw if you will", I don't think either of us believes that it actually is one. It is simply a form of expression. I can fully understand and appreciate not desiring to "waste" time when you only have a limited amount of time for personal "enjoyment" playing and thought I stated that clearly.

[mikeh]

2) Although the sentiment is understandable (I often feel the same way), the actual "refusal" to do so by you somewhat surprises me.  Especially given your willingness to help here.  But then again, time is often a limited quantity, and I can understand only wanting to spend it enjoyably.

 

So can I say, you are a "flawed character" and get away with it?  :)

This is unfairly critical of mikeh on several levels. First, just because a good (and mikeh is more than "good") player does not play with beginners is not a "character flaw." It is a choice. Maybe he doing them a favor.

 

Second, even if mikeh wanted to volunteer to play with a lesser player for teaching purposes, what a waste of time for him play with a B/I player. He should play with a near-expert to bring them up a notch. What a waste of talent to hear him lecture his partner, "3rd hand you play bottom of a sequence. You only play top a sequence when leading the suit."

No, it is not.

 

Why the hell do you people insist on reading something into a post that isnt there?

 

Mike himself said:

 

I don't get to play a lot, and when I do, I like to enjoy the game... call it a character flaw if you will, but I don't enjoy playing with B/I players.

 

Since mike was insisting that I don't call him a 'liar', I was simply making a joke regarding can I call him a "flawed character" instead. I would be fairly certain that mike is neither a liar, nor is he actually a flawed character. It is something said in jest.

 

Please try buying a sense of humor and then reading this stuff in context, next time please.

 

Geez.

I took it as intended: a humourous taking me on about my statement that I don't enjoy playing with B/I players :)

 

I have had my own attempts at humour backfire, so I try not to take offence (not always successfully)

[foo]

Like Frances and mikeh, I mildly prefer X with the OP hand.

 

Unlike Frances and mikeh, I play with a lot of students. So perhaps I have a useful perspective to offer here.

 

I as a general rule do not like suppressing length in the unbid majors. It seems to simplify many things.

[Fluffy]

Quote Bid em Up:

 

"If you tell me it isn't possible that partner has a hand such as:

 

J10xxx Kx xx Kxxx

 

I will tell you that you are lying. (He probably doesn't, and I may be dreaming, but....if you don't allow for it, you will never defend this hand when he does.)"

 

Anyone who passes a 1 level takeout X here with your posted hand deserves to be relegated to the 4th division. Fwiw I would 1NT with this hand over the 1S bid. If I was called to the telephone during the auction and the wine waiter bid my hand, I would now bid 2C.

In 20 years, you might understand why it would be correct to defend with this hand.

 

Check back with me then.

This sounds too confident for a guy that first:

 

EDITED: Bla, bla, bla, the above quote sounds a lot more harsh to me than what I wrote, but nevermind, I don't like being harsh, so deleted.

[bid_em_up]

Quote Bid em Up:

 

"If you tell me it isn't possible that partner has a hand such as:

 

J10xxx Kx xx Kxxx

 

I will tell you that you are lying. (He probably doesn't, and I may be dreaming, but....if you don't allow for it, you will never defend this hand when he does.)"

 

Anyone who passes a 1 level takeout X here with your posted hand deserves to be relegated to the 4th division. Fwiw I would 1NT with this hand over the 1S bid. If I was called to the telephone during the auction and the wine waiter bid my hand, I would now bid 2C.

 

In 20 years, you might understand why it would be correct to defend with this hand.

 

Check back with me then.

This sounds too confident for a guy that first:

 

....bullshit edited.....so I didn't originally express what I was attempting to say properly, big deal.....

 

But anyway, what's the point for waiting 20 years?, you will probably have changed your mind (to the right side) after that.

I have not "changed" my mind, evidently I just didnt express it well enough to begin with for certain people to take it on face value, and instead, and start taking issue with what "exactly" what was said.

 

I have already admitted that I did not express the reasons clearly enough. There is no need to continue to berate it or attempt to ridicule it.

 

Could this be cause I am usually hurriedly posting from work? Could it be cause I had 3 hours sleep that nite? Sure.

 

Is it because I am a fool like you seem to think? You're entitled to your opinion. Next time you make a mistake, I will be equally happy to ridicule you as well.

 

X is still better in my opinion. I will not change my mind on this. Not next week, not next year and not 20 years from now.

 

As far as defending with the given hand goes, I already am certain of the "right" side. Again, check back with me in 20 years.

 

Maybe you will understand it then as well.

[the hog]

Quote Bid em Up:

 

"If you tell me it isn't possible that partner has a hand such as:

 

J10xxx Kx xx Kxxx

 

I will tell you that you are lying. (He probably doesn't, and I may be dreaming, but....if you don't allow for it, you will never defend this hand when he does.)"

 

Anyone who passes a 1 level takeout X here with your posted hand deserves to be relegated to the 4th division. Fwiw I would 1NT with this hand over the 1S bid. If I was called to the telephone during the auction and the wine waiter bid my hand, I would now bid 2C.

In 20 years, you might understand why it would be correct to defend with this hand.

 

Check back with me then.

In 20 years I probably will defend with this hand, if I am still around. I will have lost so many brain cells by then that I will think defending is correct. :)

[Fluffy]

I have not "changed" my mind, evidently I just didnt express it well enough to begin with for certain people to take it on face value, and instead, and start taking issue with what "exactly" what was said.

 

I have already admitted that I did not express the reasons clearly enough. There is no need to continue to berate it or attempt to ridicule it.

Ok, ok, edditing it, that was out of topic.

 

Is it because I am a fool like you seem to think?  You're entitled to your opinion.  Next time you make a mistake, I will be equally happy to ridicule you as well. 

I make mistakes, but I don't tell people they need 20 years of experience to match me, specially I don't tell them while I make mistakes :P, that was out of topic as well.

 

 

X is still better in my opinion.  I will not change my mind on this. Not next week, not next year and not 20 years from now.

 

Back to the old topic, X is better for me as well, because I wanna be able to play 1♠ doubled, but nothing to do with the hand you posted.

[cnszsun]

Your partner's hand is:

[hv=s=sj10xxhxxxxdqj109xc]133|100|[/hv]

Because ♥ King is onside, you can make 4♥, but i'm not sure if it's reasonable to bid it.

[foo]

Responder's hand is:

♠  JTxx  ♥  xxxx  ♦  QJT9x  ♣ 

 

Because ♥ King is onside, you can make 4♥, but i'm not sure if it's reasonable to bid it.

our hand:

♠ Kx ♥ AQJx ♦ Axx ♣ AT8x

1C-(1S)-pa-pa;

??

 

Given the bidding, of course the ♥K rates to be on side. This is not a 50% situation!

 

In addition, Responder's 1st pass showed ~0-5 HCP.

If you X, pd now has to =evaluate their hand in the context of the previous bidding=.

Responder's hand is a maximum in light of the previous bidding and should either bid 3♥ or 4♥.

I prefer 4♥ because 3♥ shows a maximum with better values. Not quacks as in here.

[A similar instance occurs opposite a direct overcall T/O X of (1H). Advancer would bid 4S with Kxxxxx.xxxx.xx.x or the like and 3S with a powerful GF hand.]

 

 

Those that rebid 2N instead of X'ing are unlikely to get to Game.

[TimG]

Responder's hand is:

♠  JTxx  ♥  xxxx  ♦  QJT9x  ♣ 

 

Because ♥ King is onside, you can make 4♥, but i'm not sure if it's reasonable to bid it.

our hand:

♠ Kx ♥ AQJx ♦ Axx ♣ A108x

1C-(1S)-pa-pa;

??

 

Given the bidding, of course the ♥K rates to be on side. This is not a 50% situation!

LHO overcalled (and RHO did not advance), so the HCP would tend to be on the left. I'm not sure the extra vacant spaces on the right make this a better than 50% finesse.

[foo]

Actually, I should have said "Opener rates to have the missing important H cards or they rate to be where We can control them." SD, Responder doesn't know what H honors we are missing after all.

 

TimG brings up a good point. How does one evaluate these situations to place the likely location of a missing critical A or K?

 

We have 4+C, 5+D (it's 7 but responder doesn't know that), 8 H's, and probably 6 S's (The 1S overcall usually shows 5+S and Advancer did not raise them even preemptively.)

 

In addition, Opener's 2nd X shows a 5- loser hand or 18+ HCP since responder has shown themself to be very weak.

 

So what does that imply as to Overcaller's hand?

1= he most likely has 5-6 ♠'s

2= he has between 1-3 ♥'s (with 4+H, the auction would very likely be different).

3= the most likely distributions of 6 ♦'s is 42 or 33.

4= the most likely distributions of 9 ♣'s is 54 or 63.

 

So, =5233, =5323, 51(43), etc

I ?think? if you go through the list, the odds of Overcaller having 2-H is greater than the odds of Overcaller having 3+H.

[TimG]

Actually, I should have said "Opener rates to have the missing important H cards or they rate to be where We can control them."

We are the opener.

[foo]

Actually, I should have said "Opener rates to have the missing important H cards or they rate to be where We can control them."

We are the opener.

Sorry, You missed it. I probably was not clear enough. I was talking about how Responder should Advance Opener's balancing X:

 

In addition, Responder's 1st pass showed ~0-5 HCP.

If you X, pd now has to =evaluate their hand in the context of the previous bidding=.

Responder's hand is a maximum in light of the previous bidding and should either bid 3♥ or 4♥.

I prefer 4♥ because 3♥ shows a maximum with better values. Not quacks as in here.

[A similar instance occurs opposite a direct overcall T/O X of (1H). Advancer would bid 4S with Kxxxxx.xxxx.xx.x or the like and 3S with a powerful GF hand.]