juniors champs

[the hog]

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

English is a challenging language Ron, it keeps changing, and new abbreviations coming up that you may never have heard of...

http://www.learnthenet.com/ENGLISH/glossary/rotfl.htm

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?acronym=ROTFL

http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=ROTFL

http://www.userland.com/whatIsRotfl

....

Shouldn't this be addressed to Hannie and not to me?

 

 

QUOTE (The_Hog @ Sep 15 2007, 07:02 PM)

To Cherdano: I've commented on this before, but its pretty obvious your English skills are letting you down again.

 

QUOTE (The_Hog @ Sep 16 2007, 05:50 AM)

Hmm, what is the difference between imbecilic and idiotic?

 

Josh, and your point is? Idiotic and imbecillic are both adjectives; further the former was a quote made by another poster. (2hrs later). Ah now I get it - Josh, it was a rhetorical question based on the fact that another poster used the term imbecile and no comment was made, whereas "idiotic" was jumped upon.

[ArtK78]

Whether the first hand is too strong for a NAMYATS 4♦ opening may depend on your requirements for a NAMYATS opening. In my opinion, if a hand is too strong for a NAMYATS opening, then it is a 2♣ opening.

 

My requirements for a NAMYATS opening bid are:

 

A long solid major suit

8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks

No more than one quick loser in more than one suit (in other words, the hand cannot contain two small doubletons).

 

This hand meets all these requirements for a NAMYATS opening 4♦ bid.

 

Whether opening 4♦ will solve the bidding problem on the hand is another matter. But opening the bidding 4♦ on this hand is likely to be superior to opening 1♠. It gets a reasonably good description of the hand in partner's possession immediately, and makes it harder for the opponents to compete effectively.

[Guest Jlall]

My requirements for a NAMYATS opening bid are:

 

A long solid major suit

8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks

No more than one quick loser in more than one suit (in other words, the hand cannot contain two small doubletons).

 

This hand meets all these requirements for a NAMYATS opening 4♦ bid.

Come on man, AKQJxxxx KJTx x --- is 8.5-9 tricks???

[ArtK78]

I agree that the hand has more than 8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks. But for slam purposes, that is a better description of the hand than a 2♣ opening.

 

If you are unwilling to open NAMYATS on these cards, then I submit to you that you have no choice but to open 2♣, as 1♠ is inadequate.

 

Back on the dear departed e-bridge forums, one poster defined a 2♣ opening in this manner:

 

"If you open the bidding one of a suit and it goes all pass, do you say 'Oh, S**T!"

 

This hand definitely passes the "Oh, S**T!" test. So, if you don't want to open 4♦ NAMYATS, I submit to you that you must open 2♣, even though a 2♣ opening has been chastised by a number of posters in this thread.

 

And before anyone comments by saying that a 1♠ bid could never be passed out, let me remind you of the story (possibly a bridge urban legend) of Les Bart. Les held AKxxxxxxx of diamonds in first seat. He decided to pass to await developments. The developments were pass-pass-pass. When it came time to compare results with his teammates, one of them turned to him and asked incredulously "You really passed holding AK ninth of diamonds???" To which Les responded, "But they were AK EMPTY NINTH!"

[kenrexford]

I once had 11 rippers, nine solid spades, and a worthless doubleton diamond.

 

I opened, first seat, 1♦. It passed out. I went down one. It was an average board.

 

On the first hand, 2♣ makes a lot of sense. You expect a 2♦ GF waiting. You bid 3♠, setting trumps and forcing cues. How is that bad?

 

Of course, the TD gets called, but you are used to that.

[ArtK78]

The TD gets called only by ignorant persons who try to jump on any perceived infraction, real or imagined.

 

I suppose you might find a TD who would think that this is not a hand worthy of a 2♣ opening, but that judgment is best left to the player. It is certainly not a psyche.

[Walddk]

I suppose you might find a TD who would think that this is not a hand worthy of a 2♣ opening, but that judgment is best left to the player. It is certainly not a psyche.

A tournament director is not supposed to judge anything. If he/she is interested in judgement, he/she will confer with expert players around the room. The TD is supposed to determine whether a law has been violated. Certified directors are quite capable as far as the laws are concerned, but they are not necessarily good bridge players.

 

If I decide open 2♣ on

 

♠ x

♥ xx

♦ KQJ10xxxx

♣ AK

 

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

 

Roland

[jtfanclub]

If I decide open 2♣ on

 

♠ x

♥ xx

♦ KQJ10xxxx

♣ AK

 

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

 

Roland

How about the same hand, but two small clubs instead of the AK? Is it OK yet for the TD judge this?

[keylime]

1. 4♠ is, well, brash. I wouldn't open 2♣ per se but I would try to bid something like (SAYC):

 

1♠ - 2♦

2♥ - 2NT

4♠ - 5♦

6♠

 

2. I take a stab at game.

 

3. I try a club.

 

4. If 2C is a forcing call, I wouldn't hang pard for making a raise, If it's a NFB tho, I'm giving a bump.

 

5. I like 3NT.

[hrothgar]

A tournament director is not supposed to judge anything. If he/she is interested in judgement, he/she will confer with expert players around the room. The TD is supposed to determine whether a law has been violated. Certified directors are quite capable as far as the laws are concerned, but they are not necessarily good bridge players.

 

If I decide open 2♣ on

 

♠ x

♥ xx

♦ KQJ10xxxx

♣ AK

 

I would certainly not want any TD to tell me that this is not a 2♣ opening. Frankly speaking, it is none of his/her business.

 

 

You're quite right that a TD shouldn't let his personal opinions about what constitutes a 2♣ opening dictate their decision. However, I suspect that you'd run into trouble if you opened your example hand with a strong 2♣ bid in a number of different jurisdictions.

 

1. Many jurisdictions have regulations that specify the minimum strength (measured using HCP or "Rule of X" or whatever) for a 2♣ opening

 

For example, in the EBU, the minimum strength required for a "Strong Opening" is defined by the "Extended Rule of 25". (Rule of 25 means that you add together your HCP + the length or your longest suit + length or your second longest suit. Extended Rule of 25 also permits

 

(A) Hands with 16+ HCP

(B) (Subject to proper disclosure) Hands 8 clear cut tricks and at least enough High Card strength for a one level opening

 

2. Many jurisdictions have rules that explictly prohibit psyching a conventional opening

 

I'm (obviously) not an EBU director, but I suspect that you'd run into trouble in Britain. The only way this bid would appear to be legal is if you alert that your 2♣ openings could be made with a weaker hand than is normally expected for a 2♣ opening that also contains a long suit.

 

God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2♣ with it...

[ArtK78]

God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2♣ with it...

And what is wrong with that? If, in the player's judgment, a hand merits a 2♣ opening bid, the player should be permitted to bid 2♣.

 

This is bridge. It is not illegal under the Laws of Bridge to open 2♣ strong, forcing and artificial on a hand which you believe fits that description. And no TD or governing body should have the right to tell you otherwise.

[zasanya]

I think it is ROFL, not ROTFL.

Thank you, you are quite right of course, Hannie. I didn't want to embarrass him any more than he did to himself already.

Seems to me ROTFL cannot be faulted if one prefers to roll on THE same floor again and again and again?

[hrothgar]

God knows what would happen in ACBL land. Those idiots in Memphis recently stated that as long as you beleive that a bid is strong, you can open 2♣ with it...

And what is wrong with that? If, in the player's judgment, a hand merits a 2♣ opening bid, the player should be permitted to bid 2♣.

 

This is bridge. It is not illegal under the Laws of Bridge to open 2♣ strong, forcing and artificial on a hand which you believe fits that description. And no TD or governing body should have the right to tell you otherwise.

First of all, this decision is 180 degree reversal of earlier "official" rulings from Memphis. Please excuse me if believe that issuing multiple contradictory official rulings in random channels is a recipe for disaster. I really don't think that its too much to ask that the organization

 

1. Gets its ***** together

2. Publishes some kind of definitive document explaining what is/is not legal

3. Actually applies said document in a consistent manner

 

Its getting damn tempting to see if it would be possible to get EBU sanction for games here in North America. (Might be a grass is always greener phenomena, but the Brits seem to have their ***** together)

 

Second: In general, I believe that we are best served if the regulatory authorities publish fairly clear guidelines and then try to stick to these. Abdicating responsiblity by throwing ones hands up into the air and saying do whatever you damn well please strikes me as appalling. I think that it will lead to enormous amounts of rules lawyering and ugly director calls down the pike.

 

I understand that one size doesn't always fit all. I'd be perfectly happy to see that ACBL publish a set of examples hands and say "These are legit", "These are right out", and these are "Borderline"... We could go either way. However, the typical ACBL director doesn't have enough of a clue to be trusted with these sorts of rulings.

[Fluffy]

On the first hand, 2♣ makes a lot of sense. You expect a 2♦ GF waiting. You bid 3♠, setting trumps and forcing cues. How is that bad?

I think you expect too much from all players, chances of getting you back at 2♦ I think are less than 15%.

[ralph23]

I'd be perfectly happy to see that ACBL publish a set of examples hands and say "These are legit", "These are right out", and these are "Borderline"... We could go either way.

Seems like a great idea to me. There will always be "borderlines" no matter what the standards, so publish a set of illustrative hands for the hypothetical "reasonable" player (like the law's hypothetical "reasonable" man).

 

The problem is, the Laws (appear to me, anyhow) to dictate a subjective standard about the meaning of a "psychic call." In the Definitions section, that term is defined as one which ...."deliberately" and grossly mis-states the hand (strength or distribution or both).

 

I don't see how you can interpret "deliberate" except by inquiry into the specific intent of the actual bidder, whether or not he's a "reasonable" man.

 

Of course, some 2♣ openings won't pass the red-face-test. E.g. ...

 

♠xx

♥xx

♦KQJT987

♣xx

 

"Yea, I opened 2♣. What of it? I had a strong hand!!" Nahhhh.... no one will believe THAT one !!

 

But this could be easily fixed by simply re-writing the ACBL Rule on when 2♣ opening is disallowed. E.g. "It's either a psychic call OR one which reasonable players would almost univerally consider a psychic call."

[Edmunte1]

1. 1♠ for me, but at this vulnerability and form of scoring i don't consider 4♠ a killer, 1♠-1NT-4♣ (autospl) -4♦-4♥-5♥-6♥-6♠ is possible

2. I would have bid 4♠ if you play decent preempts. Missing 2 honours partner should have 7 cards, so on a non trump lead we are home. Even on a trump lead we have some chances, East's pass increases the probabily for partner to have an extra king

3. Diamond

4. I won't be too opthimistic about this hand: my trumps are not so good, the clubs are badly placed, partner has 5+♥ in my void and almost certainly only 3 trumps. If 2♣ was forcing i'll pass, if it wasn't i'll try 3♣ and sign off over 3♥

5. 3NT

[the hog]

What no one has commented on yet is the fact that if you open 2C and get pre empted to the 5 level in a minor, partner can and should double on one trump trick, expecting you to have your bid. What do you do then; pull to 5S and find that he had more, you are not making and they were going down?

[han]

Although I'm in the "never 2C" camp, just as I am in the "never 4S" camp, I don't think that the problems are larger after 2C - (5m) then after 1S - (5M). In both cases you will clearly bid 5S, at least in the 2C auction you have shown the powerhouse that you have and partner might raise when it is right (and sometimes when it is wrong).

[cherdano]

What noone has commented on yet is the fact that if you open 4S and they bid 5m over that and partner doubles, you don't know what to do. Partner may have a trump stack, but he may also have two aces and trump trick.

[han]

Of course nobody commented on that because 4S is idiotic.

[the hog]

Of course nobody commented on that because 4S is idiotic.

I am glad we are in agreement that 4S and 2C are both idiotic. Btw apart from the original posted auction which poster suggested opening 4S?

[ArtK78]

We are not in agreement that 2♣ is idiotic. The only thing that is idiotic is to suggest that 2♣ is idiotic.

 

At least one poster has stated that the hand is "too strong" for a Namyats opening. Then, by definition, it is a 2♣ opening.

 

If you do not agree that it is a 2♣ opening, then it is a Namyats opening.

 

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I have reconsidered my original position and have decided that it is very close between a Namyats opening and a 2♣ opening. I think it is a heavy Namyats opening rather than a 2♣ opening, but I would not criticize a 2♣ opening on these cards.

[the hog]

So I take it from your post that you only see 2 possible openings, 2C and Namyats. What about 1S?

 

Originally I said I have sympathy for 4S or Namyats, (NY), but would open 1S. If you open 4S or NY, next hand bids high pre emptively and pd doubles, you have a much more realistic option of passing. If you open 2C and next hand bids 5C or so and pd doubles, we already have the situation where one poster says he would bid 5S. By doing so you are taking the last guess on the hand not forcing the opps to do so. True, you may have a similar scenario when you open 1S, but at least pd will not take you for 2C strength.

 

One thing I should have said, this is certainly a 2C opening IF you are playing Benjamin 2s; but I doubt that is what any poster was thinking of.

 

Again you have not addressed the scenario where the bidding is

2C (5C) X (P)

?

Where pd has doubled on a trump trick and nothing else, or where pd thinks pass by him is forcing, a treatment many play after a 2C opening. Would it really surprise you that much if 5C made?

[cherdano]

Again you have not addressed the scenario where the bidding is

2C (5C) X (P)

?

Where pd has doubled on a trump trick and nothing else, or where pd thinks pass by him is forcing, a treatment many play after a 2C opening. Would it really surprise you that much if 5C made?

If this auction happens then you bid 5S. Of course this is not such a great auction, you might be going down instead of taking 300, but even suggesting to pass (or basing criticism of 2C opening on the assumption someone would pass here) is very strange indeed.

[jdonn]

Again you have not addressed the scenario where the bidding is

2C (5C) X (P)

?

Where pd has doubled on a trump trick and nothing else, or where pd thinks pass by him is forcing, a treatment many play after a 2C opening. Would it really surprise you that much if 5C made?

If this auction happens then you bid 5S. Of course this is not such a great auction, you might be going down instead of taking 300, but even suggesting to pass (or basing criticism of 2C opening on the assumption someone would pass here) is very strange indeed.

I second this. And I don't see how it makes you any worse off than 1♠ (5♣) P (P)