Prove me wrong

[pclayton]

Wow.

 

Phil you seem to always find the worst time to apply this. LHO is bidding as a save.

 

RHO is saving here.

 

He is likely just weak and shapely. There's no reason to think he will not go down 2.

 

Generalizations, generalizations, generalizations. Give me a hand! Show me why 5♣ is going -2, especially when 5♠ isn't making, since this is the best argument for doubling. Construct some logical hands for RHO and I will show you why I think 5♠ is right.

 

Red/red opponents can bid as a save with 5 clubs and a stiff and not much else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....You really think that in this auction your LHO could not have bid 5C with a 5-5 near-yarborough and a spade void knowing you have 10+ spades and they have 11+ clubs?

 

Too many exclamation points to count. Are you making an advance save on a 1=4=3=5 bust? That really looks rich to me, especially when the opponents haven't bid game yet. I think RHO is 5-5 here and LHO is a lock to hold 6 clubs. So, lets count:

 

Pard has two clubs. Pard has three to five hearts (and when he has 5, LHO isn't getting a ruff). That leaves six to eight cards in the pointed's. When pard holds 4 spades, we are an overwhelming favorite to make 5♠. +500 against 5♣? No way.

 

When pard holds 3 spades, 5 diamonds and a yarb (OK I need a diamond better than the 9), we are still cold, as long as spades aren't 4-0. 5♣ looks to be a likely -1 or -2 here, with us getting 1♠, 1♥ and 1 or 2's ♦. I'd say -1 / -2 is equally likely here.

 

I'm really discounting pard to hold 2♠ / 6♦'s. As long as pard has some useful card, this hand takes a 2♦ call over 2♣.

 

In short, the EV for bidding is looking really good over doubling.

 

Please do not use this rule anymore to justify decisions to go to the 5 level because every time I have seen you use it on the forums it has been in a very silly context (snip) Even if he EXPECTS to go down 3 a fair amount of time it is a good bid (especially against you).

 

I think I'll throw the ad hominem flag on this one. I don't really care if you disagree, but don't refer to call someone else silly, or imply that I am making bad calls.

 

Give me another hand where I advocated this. The one Roger doubled 5♦ and traded 800 for 1430 or 2210? Yeah, guilty.

 

I probably bid too much at the five level. I'll agree with that, and I'm sure you could dredge up some examples over the past three years where I have on here. I'd like to think my high level judgment has improved over the past several years, but I don't think this hand or Roger's is a good example of a hand not to bid on.

 

By the way, I gave this hand to Chris Larsen. Some of you might respect his opinions and some of you might not but no one is going to disagree that he is a damn good player. He thought it was close between 5♠ and 6♠. I thought 6 was really, really excessive, since you will frequently be facing a yarb, and he ended up agreeing, but he thought double was something that never crossed his mind. But if someone like Chris is thinking six is the right bid, then how far off the mark is five? And to totally discount a double? I told him to poll some of his friends, and I'll report back.

 

By the way, he chuckled when he gave him pard's hand. He said "+1430, right again" :rolleyes:

[pclayton]

-200 instead of +200 is a 9 IMP loss. -200 instead of -600 is a 9 IMP gain, and +650 instead of -200 is a 10 IMP gain, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Arend what I am saying is that we are losing nine IMPs in one specific scenario. In two others the loss is about the same.

[Guest Jlall]

Lol, Phil you are beyond hope and I'm not referring to your bridge. Good luck.

[jdonn]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

[Echognome]

From my reading, Phil is arguing the bridge merits and not just refusing to listen to anybody. Note that he said he was going to explain why he felt bidding 5♠ was right. I don't really want to get involved with the bridge argument. I obviously respect the game of most of the posters involved. But I think some of you are being unduly harsh on him.

[Echognome]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong. Sure it could be obvious to you, but it might not be obvious to everyone. I don't see the harm in making a case. Sure it might be torn apart, but I certainly learn from it when I make an argument and a better player tells me why I am wrong. It's certainly more constructive than "the majority says you're wrong, isn't that enough?"

[jchiu]

Flame war!

[pclayton]

Lol, Phil you are beyond hope and I'm not referring to your bridge. Good luck.

Thanks. If my bridge was beyond hope, I'd be feeling pretty crappy right now.

[han]

Ch00 you bid like my grandmother.

[jchiu]

Ch00 you bid like my grandmother.

Oh yeah??? You play cards like the rueful rabbit!

[Guest Jlall]

From my reading, Phil is arguing the bridge merits and not just refusing to listen to anybody. Note that he said he was going to explain why he felt bidding 5♠ was right. I don't really want to get involved with the bridge argument. I obviously respect the game of most of the posters involved. But I think some of you are being unduly harsh on him.

Saying "don't imply that I am making bad calls" on a bridge forum is very LOL. I know he is your partner but come on.

 

Saying "trust your vulnerable opponents" (a saying which he got from this forum, and has since constantly misused) when they are saving at red/red is LOL. I am sorry that I felt the need to point this out. Do you also trust your white/white opponents when they are saving? There is almost not difference in a red/red save and a white/white save.

 

Trust your vulnerable opponents means when they are red and you are white and you've shown great strength (and thus partner is marked with weakness) and they STILL bid at say, the 5 level, they probably have the goods. This does not apply to someone who opens 4S red/white, or any other nonsense.

 

Phil does not seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. I gave a reason why his usage of this is wrong, and the context he used it in is silly. That is not an ad hominem attack. In no place at that time did I imply that Phil was wrong because he was Phil. That would be an ad hominem attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Phil has no problem using Appeals to authority (Chris Larsen). Ok fine. We can do that to. Phil, as an authority on bridge I can tell you that you will beat them 2 a lot on this auction. Ok? Probably not with him, but when it suits him (ie when an authority agrees with him) it seems to be fine.

 

Phil never replied to the main point of my post, which is that he does not understand the concept of "trust your vulnerable opponents" which was my only point. He instead tried things such as "RHO saved" when I said LHO saved. That is a very relevant point, thank you for fixing my typo Phil.

 

As far as bridge goes, he didnt really offer up anything new. He thinks that we will make a lot of the time, and they will go down 1 a lot of the time. I think we will make most but not all of the time, and they will go down 2 a lot of the time. Nothing much was added to this.

 

His assertation that partner having 4 spades makes them less likely to go down 2 is silly; it just means we are cashing more diamonds. Phil, because I say your point is silly, that is not an ad hominem attack.

[Guest Jlall]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong. Sure it could be obvious to you, but it might not be obvious to everyone. I don't see the harm in making a case. Sure it might be torn apart, but I certainly learn from it when I make an argument and a better player tells me why I am wrong. It's certainly more constructive than "the majority says you're wrong, isn't that enough?"

You don't seem to get it.

 

Phil has made it clear that he does not want to learn anything, he would rather teach us what the correct bid is here. He asks us (ok me) not to imply he is making an incorrect bid. How can we even debate a point if thats what he wants? This is not an uncommon occurance.

 

As far as the debate it once again just comes down to what your expectation of RHO's hand is. I think it's very likely he is 5-5 in which case you will usually cash 3 pointed suit tricks (unless LHO is stiff in RHO's doubleton). You will probably also get a heart trick. I think it's also quite likely that RHO is 6-4 in which case it's unclear how many they will make. It's possible partners 3 trumps will give them problems. This is all assuming partner has no other defense. He could easily have a heart card and/or club card. I think 544 is another possible and likely shape for RHO to just blast. I think 5431 is not that likely. I think 4441 is not that likely. These hands are certainly possible though with a stiff spade and it would be a good bid since they know their LHO has a hand too strong to overcall 1S and can easily exploit that. How likely those hands are depends on the quality of opps. I think 6-5 is also possible, and not good for us.

 

That is the crux of it, you just have to judge how often which of the above is occurring. That is bridge. I just think that the argument "trust the vul opps" is stupid in this instance (for reasons I've mentioned 100 times already) and a misuse of that expression. That should not be the basis of our judgement on the frequency of hand type RHO has.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Jlall

[jdonn]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong.

Who was debating? He posted, when almost no one agreed he was teaching, he was obviously never going to be convinced he was wrong. I've got nothing against Phil, but he became everything I hate in this thread.

[Guest Jlall]

One last thing:

 

Say your partner opened a precision 2C showing 6/7 clubs and a minimumish opener and denying a 4 card major. Say your RHO hemmed and hawed and tanked and counted their points and took off their shoes to count their points some more. They then X. You have a stiff spade. You know they had a double and spade hand. You are red/red. How light would you be bidding 5C with? Would it be exclusively a 6-5 type of hand, or would you really want to with x Axxx xxxx KJxx?

 

Remember you know one of the big flaws of bidding is that when you X with a X and bid again hand you are almost committed to bid your suit next.

 

I really think you underestimate the amount of hands they can bid 5C on you with.

 

And yes that is an analagous situation since in the actual auction you know thats what your LHO has given your RHO's pass.

[pclayton]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong.

Who was debating? He posted, when almost no one agreed he was teaching, he was obviously never going to be convinced he was wrong. I've got nothing against Phil, but he became everything I hate in this thread.

That's funny Josh.

 

Because up until a few minutes ago, this thread was turning into everything I hate. Which is, "provide all the examples you want, but I am a better player than you, and no matter how much logic you throw at me, you are wrong. I don't need to give you any reasons, just go away".

 

As far as "I'll never be convinced I am wrong", that is incorrect and I can give you many instances on here where I have reversed my opinion". I'm just not that kind of individual.

 

Up until this point, no one has presented any compelling reasons to the contrary. I'm reviewing Justin's latest and I'll try to respond to it tonight.

[matmat]

the urinals are in the water cooler forum, gentelmen.

[awm]

An interesting side observation:

 

It's much more tempting to blast 5♣ with a hand short in spades, than a hand short in diamonds. This is because opener's 2♣ bid pretty much denies four spades, whereas it could easily contain four diamonds. Also, 5♣X going down may be a good sacrifice against 4♠ but it's a silly sacrifice against 4♦. For example, I think 0544 is a much better 5♣ bid than 4504, and bidding 5♣ with 3514 seems totally ridiculous whereas 1534 I could sort of see (although it's pushy).

 

Anyways, if we suppose that RHO has 0-1♠, what do we think is going on? There are 6-7 spades between partner and LHO. Isn't partner a favorite to have four of those, especially considering that LHO has a large number of clubs whereas partner has probably two or three of them?

[Codo]

I am no partner of Phil, but he made some points why he thought that 5 Spade is the winning call. I liked that, it opened my mind, no matterwhether I agree or disagree.

 

Justin made some good bridge statements why 5 Spade is not good. Fine, I liked that too and may agree or disagree.

 

But he and Josh made some remarks which are insulting and contended no bridge reasons. I hated that part and see no reason for anybody to write such statements. In my view it just shows bad manners and the disability to discuss.

[pclayton]

Justin:

 

Please don't think for a second that you are educating me on what an Appeal to Authority or an Ad Hominem attack is. Up until an hour ago, you had provided very little evidence why you think double is superior. Like it or not, you made AH comments. You said that bidding 5♣ is more appealing if "I" was on your left. Sorry but you attacked the character of the person presenting the argument. I doubt I will convince you otherwise but it is a fact.

 

As far as an appeal to authority (Chris) is concerned, he is the only bridge authority I have asked outside this forum about this hand. I intend to ask others. Just because he says bidding is right. doesn't mean that it is. Just because you say doubling is right doesn't mean that it is. All we can do is present logical arguments and make an informed decision. His comments, however, are relevant in a bridge forum, since he is a recognized authority.

 

Back to bridge.

 

If you believe that RHO can really be 5-4 or even 4-4 in the round suits for this bidding then by all means double. Hell, a 4-4 brings 800 into play for both 5♣ and 5♠. I don't debate this for one second. My argument hinges on RHO being 5-5, because in my experience (more limited than yours, especially at the higher levels I admit) this is what he'll have at equal (I know I said vul earlier, and I recognize your point about the irrelevancy of r/r vs w/w) a great majority of the time. This was my read at the table, and FWIW, it was right.

 

If someone wants to run a sim with these parameters, I sure would be interested. LHO is 11-15 with 6-7 clubs. RHO has at least 4 points and has exactly 5-5 in hearts and clubs. If by chance 5♠ works out worse than a double in these conditions, then I will be the first to admit I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

In your earlier post, you made no mention of less than a 5-5, as a matter of fact you said 5-5 yourself. If you now believe that RHO will quite often be less, I'll grant you this. I am of the opinion that some 5-4 or 4-4 for that matter might not jam it into game. Perhaps a 4♣ call that invites pard to save over the anticipated 4♠ is a better plan. I really don't know. It's an interesting problem to say the least, and the validity of bid versus double might well come down to the frequency of different holdings.

[pclayton]

By the way, I went back and looked at the movie. Pard actually held a 4=3=4=2. They did have 11 clubs as it turned out.

 

5S Hand

[whereagles]

what's going on here..? a flamewar? well, I didn't read any of it, but, as a matter of principle. I'll be for Phil and against Justin. Nothing personal. As I said, just a matter of principle :) :) :) :P

[rogerclee]

By the way, I went back and looked at the movie. Pard actually held a 4=3=4=2. They did have 11 clubs as it turned out.

 

5S Hand

That reminds me, I need to ask my partner what the hell he was thinking when he doubled.

[rbforster]

That reminds me, I need to ask my partner what the hell he was thinking when he doubled.

A clear stripe-tailed ape X, and a successful one!

[rbforster]

Did anyone consider Unusual 2NT followed by 4♠, rather than an initial 4♠ or X?

 

(1♣)-P-(1♥)-?

 

If you put all the hands too good to overcall into double (besides maybe the ones bidding an unusual 2NT and bidding again), you can run into problems when you've got the strong hands with one long suit instead of the usual takeout double.

 

Do you really need all of 2♣, 3♣, and 4♣ as natural (or stopper asking?) here? Would 1NT have been conventional (sandwich, i.e. weak takeout), and if so, can you use it to show big hands too by bidding again in the same way as with an unusual 2NT? Maybe 1NT and bidding again would show a good 4♠-6♦ shape?

 

Just some thoughts. Now back to your regularly scheduled arguing...

[the hog]

From my reading, Phil is arguing the bridge merits and not just refusing to listen to anybody.  Note that he said he was going to explain why he felt bidding 5♠ was right.  I don't really want to get involved with the bridge argument.  I obviously respect the game of most of the posters involved.  But I think some of you are being unduly harsh on him.

Saying "don't imply that I am making bad calls" on a bridge forum is very LOL. I know he is your partner but come on.

 

Saying "trust your vulnerable opponents" (a saying which he got from this forum, and has since constantly misused) when they are saving at red/red is LOL. I am sorry that I felt the need to point this out. Do you also trust your white/white opponents when they are saving? There is almost not difference in a red/red save and a white/white save.

 

Trust your vulnerable opponents means when they are red and you are white and you've shown great strength (and thus partner is marked with weakness) and they STILL bid at say, the 5 level, they probably have the goods. This does not apply to someone who opens 4S red/white, or any other nonsense.

 

Phil does not seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. I gave a reason why his usage of this is wrong, and the context he used it in is silly. That is not an ad hominem attack. In no place at that time did I imply that Phil was wrong because he was Phil. That would be an ad hominem attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Phil has no problem using Appeals to authority (Chris Larsen). Ok fine. We can do that to. Phil, as an authority on bridge I can tell you that you will beat them 2 a lot on this auction. Ok? Probably not with him, but when it suits him (ie when an authority agrees with him) it seems to be fine.

 

Phil never replied to the main point of my post, which is that he does not understand the concept of "trust your vulnerable opponents" which was my only point. He instead tried things such as "RHO saved" when I said LHO saved. That is a very relevant point, thank you for fixing my typo Phil.

 

As far as bridge goes, he didnt really offer up anything new. He thinks that we will make a lot of the time, and they will go down 1 a lot of the time. I think we will make most but not all of the time, and they will go down 2 a lot of the time. Nothing much was added to this.

 

His assertation that partner having 4 spades makes them less likely to go down 2 is silly; it just means we are cashing more diamonds. Phil, because I say your point is silly, that is not an ad hominem attack.

Justin I seriously think this is a little unfair. I don't always agree with Phil, but I often do. To say that he is not prepared to listen is not true. I have read posts where he has changed his mind.

 

This whole crap about as hominem attacks is precisley that - crap. This term has been misused frequently by posters on this forum wishing to attack the posts of others WITHOUT reading what it is that they really say.

 

As it turns out Phil's decision proved to win the marbles ON THIS BOARD. Whether it would do so consistently, I don't know. ! probably wouldn't bid 5S.

 

Fwiw I will submit this hand to Brad Coles on the Oz bridge bidding forum.