Prove me wrong

[han]

I posted the hand on a Dutch forum, will report later.

[jdonn]

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.

I agree from what I know of you, I meant specifically in this thread based on how you had posted.

[Finch]

It's interesting to read some of the arguments, which if I have understood them correctly are somewhat along the lines of:

 

- Opponents are not usually being silly when they bid 5C in this auction, if you trust them then it's right for you to bid

- But if I know you are always going to bid on this type of hand, I'm going to bid 5C on all sorts of rubbish just to laugh when you go off instead of taking your 500

- But if I know you are going to bid on rubbish here, I'm going to double you in 5C more often

- OK, in that case I'm only going to bid 5C when I mean it

 

I have a friend, team-mate and occasional partner whom I know likes to defend doubled partials. He will pass out a take-out double in auctions such as 1H x 3H x, or 1S 3C P P x, or 3H x, a lot more often than I usually would. That does not just slightly changes the way I play with him (I am more likely to bid than double in some auctions) but it changes much more the way I bid against him. Against some people you can make fairly unsound pre-emptive raises as long as you have good trumps, because you know they don't like to defend to without a trump stack. Against him I am more conservative in competition because I know he tends to defend more often - but I don't think he knows that yet, as we hardly ever play against each other.

 

Similarly I know people who wouldn't bid 5C here unless they were (close to) expecting to make it; and I know people who could have absolutely anything - and both sets of people are similar standard and have had international success, it's not about ability but more about style. This is just another advantage of knowing your opponents well.

 

As for the actual hand: I hate double-then-bid auctions and I sometimes overcall on absurdly strong hands just so as not to have the problem. But I can't really claim I wouldn't have doubled. Yes, you have a club void... but given you have a zillion count, it's still a surprise when the auction's at 5C next round when oppo are not yet obviously in a fit auction. I don't know what I would have done over 5C at the table; I was still thinking about it and thought it was a long way from obvious what the right call was when the actual hand got posted. The main thing I thought was that anyone who claims double is 'flexible' is in cloud-cuckoo land: after all, wouldn't you double 5C looking at AKxx Kxx AKxx Ax ?

 

I doubt anyone uses 1C P 1H 3C to mean anything much useful... maybe we should invent the meaning 'good hand with spades'

[Guest Jlall]

Up until an hour ago, you had provided very little evidence why you think double is superior.

That is true. I did however make a good point as to why your statement: Trust your vulnerable opponents, do you really think they are going down more than 1? is nonsense.

 

You see the way it works is I wil make some relevant point, and then back it up with reasoning. I never did anything other than that. You still have not even mentioned that your statement was nonsense and that I was correct, you have simply moved on to other subjects. Fine. But I offered plenty of arguments that supported my initial point as to why the context you used that argument in is silly.

 

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.

 

That is not an ad hominem attack. You still do not understand what an Ad Hominem attack is. You even admitted you bid at the 5 level too much. I didn't make this point explicitly, but you seemed to get it. Against someone who is more likely to bid at the 5 level one is more likely to try to push them around at the 5 level, especially when they have a X and bid again hand.

 

I did not say "Phil is stupid, thus his argument is worng" (not implying you're stupid, just an example). I said that especially against you they should be willing to bid 5C when they think it might go down 3. This is certainly relevant to my argument. I don't know about you, but I know at the table exactly how I am perceived by my opponents and try to use that information when trying to figure out what they might be doing to me etc. That is good bridge.

 

I do not know how you can think that your tendencies at the bridge table in this situation could be irrelevant to the argument at hand, or how that is part of "your character."

 

And if you want to accept Chris Larsen's one liners for a bidding problem (which I think you should), then you should probably accept the one liners of good players who don't agree with you as well. I will not always analyze every problem thoroughly, but I will often post what I think about a hand. You can take that FWIW. I do think you are being very stubborn, and have approached this subject from an already stubborn point of view, and that this is no longer constructive. I have made about all my points that I can on this hand.

 

I do not regret how this all started though; me saying that you did and have consistently misused the statement "trust your vulnerable opponents." This is not an ad hominem attack either, I understand you are not going to admit to this and will just ignore it but hopefully in the future you will understand the meaning of this rule because it is a very good one.

[pclayton]

By the way, I've checked in with Steve Robinson, Sergey Kustarov, and two ex-national champs (who specifically asked to remain anonymous) on this.

 

Steve: 5♠. Pard will pass a double with most hands.

 

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠. 5♥ also brings diamonds more into focus instead of a strong single suited hand.

 

ENC1: If I were playing with myself (heaven forbid) who would never leave a double with a 6 card suit, I would double, because partner might have 6 diamonds. Of the opponents are any good, I tend to trust them wehn they are vul. Rho has a freako something like AQxxx of hearts And Kxxxx of club.

 

ENC2: Double again, no doubt expecting partner to leap to 6D holding the likes of 3 small (or Qx); 3 or 4 small; 4 or 5 small; and a stiff or doubleton club. No highcards but the right shape and 6D is a breeze. LOL. Yes, i still double. I think it's a stand-out

[pclayton]

Up until an hour ago, you had provided very little evidence why you think double is superior.

That is true. I did however make a good point as to why your statement: Trust your vulnerable opponents, do you really think they are going down more than 1? is nonsense.

 

You see the way it works is I wil make some relevant point, and then back it up with reasoning. I never did anything other than that. You still have not even mentioned that your statement was nonsense and that I was correct, you have simply moved on to other subjects. Fine. But I offered plenty of arguments that supported my initial point as to why the context you used that argument in is silly.

 

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.

 

That is not an ad hominem attack. You still do not understand what an Ad Hominem attack is. You even admitted you bid at the 5 level too much. I didn't make this point explicitly, but you seemed to get it. Against someone who is more likely to bid at the 5 level one is more likely to try to push them around at the 5 level, especially when they have a X and bid again hand.

 

I did not say "Phil is stupid, thus his argument is worng" (not implying you're stupid, just an example). I said that especially against you they should be willing to bid 5C when they think it might go down 3. This is certainly relevant to my argument. I don't know about you, but I know at the table exactly how I am perceived by my opponents and try to use that information when trying to figure out what they might be doing to me etc. That is good bridge.

 

I do not know how you can think that your tendencies at the bridge table in this situation could be irrelevant to the argument at hand, or how that is part of "your character."

 

And if you want to accept Chris Larsen's one liners for a bidding problem (which I think you should), then you should probably accept the one liners of good players who don't agree with you as well. I will not always analyze every problem thoroughly, but I will often post what I think about a hand. You can take that FWIW. I do think you are being very stubborn, and have approached this subject from an already stubborn point of view, and that this is no longer constructive. I have made about all my points that I can on this hand.

 

I do not regret how this all started though; me saying that you did and have consistently misused the statement "trust your vulnerable opponents." This is not an ad hominem attack either, I understand you are not going to admit to this and will just ignore it but hopefully in the future you will understand the meaning of this rule because it is a very good one.

I've moved past this dude.

 

Have a nice day ;)

[Guest Jlall]

By the way, I've checked in with Steve Robinson and Sergey Kustarov on this.

 

Steve: 5♠. Pard will pass a double with most hands.

 

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

If you have so many great people to ask and give no weight to the forum then why do you post this hand on the forums? Is it to inspire us with your great wisdom and then bombard us with great players like....sergey...who agree with you? I mean lol, I can post 10 people who will X if you like within a day and they will be much better than the people who you have offered up. This excersize is completely pointless.

 

First you say you want people to argue based on the merits of their argument then you go off forum to ask some people and get some one liners.

[pclayton]

By the way, I've checked in with Steve Robinson and Sergey Kustarov on this.

 

Steve: 5♠. Pard will pass a double with most hands.

 

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

If you have so many great people to ask and give no weight to the forum then why do you post this hand on the forums? Is it to inspire us with your great wisdom and then bombard us with great players like....sergey...who agree with you? I mean lol, I can post 10 people who will X if you like within a day and they will be much better than the people who you have offered up. This excersize is completely pointless.

 

First you say you want people to argue based on the merits of their argument then you go off forum to ask some people and get some one liners.

LOL do you have a problem with me asking others?

 

Please ask others. I'd like to hear their opinions.

[jdonn]

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

While we're at this, can you ask him what a 5♠ bid that doesn't qualify for this special strong treatment looks like?

[pclayton]

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

While we're at this, can you ask him what a 5♠ bid that doesn't qualify for this special strong treatment looks like?

He just told me AKJxxxx KJx AKQ v. Consistent with my (edited) comment above that 5♥ shows some willingness for diamonds.

[Echognome]

I polled the following people:

 

Mary Lou Barker (Wichita, KS) - "Pass. I really never know what to do in these situations. I pay my partner to make these decisions."

 

Billy Joe Staghorn (Waco, TX) - "6♣. I won't let these varmints scare me off my slam. They'll soon be running for the hills."

 

Anonymous Pro (Chicago, IL) - "Double. The opponents always drop an extra trick where I play. Why take a chance?"

 

Steve Sion (Location unknown) - "7♠. Partner has the ♥A and four-card support. WTP?"

 

John C. Reilly, Esq. (Detroit, MI) - "Clear 25 second pause then double. Partner usually gets the drift by then on what to do."

 

 

I consider these results will settle the matter.

[han]

Steve Sion? Never heard of.

[jdonn]

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

While we're at this, can you ask him what a 5♠ bid that doesn't qualify for this special strong treatment looks like?

He just told me AKJxxxx KJx AKQ v. Consistent with my (edited) comment above that 5♥ shows some willingness for diamonds.

What the, this hand is stronger than the one under discussion! Does 5♥ show a STRONG 5♠ bid as he said, or willingness for diamonds, or both at once, or he's making this up as he goes along, or he doesn't know what the word "strong" means, or......my head is spinning. This is your backup source?

 

There is only one possible reason to bid 5♥. You want to win the post mortem.

[pclayton]

What the, this hand is stronger than the one under discussion! Does 5♥ show a STRONG 5♠ bid as he said, or willingness for diamonds, or both at once...,

Yes.

[TimG]

What the, this hand is stronger than the one under discussion! Does 5♥ show a STRONG 5♠ bid as he said, or willingness for diamonds, or both at once...,

Yes.

Wouldn't 5♦ show a willingness for diamonds?

[rogerclee]

What the, this hand is stronger than the one under discussion! Does 5♥ show a STRONG 5♠ bid as he said, or willingness for diamonds, or both at once...,

Yes.

Wouldn't 5♦ show a willingness for diamonds?

Yeah, but it wouldn't say a whole lot about spades.

[TimG]

What the, this hand is stronger than the one under discussion! Does 5♥ show a STRONG 5♠ bid as he said, or willingness for diamonds, or both at once...,

Yes.

Wouldn't 5♦ show a willingness for diamonds?

Yeah, but it wouldn't say a whole lot about spades.

Ahh, right. Was confused...forgot we didn't show spades on the last round!

[Finch]

If you have so many great people to ask and give no weight to the forum then why do you post this hand on the forums?

because forum readers might be interested to see it?

I think it's an interesting hand.

 

I gave this to my husband (another good expert to refer to!) and he bid 5S, saying that partner was likely to be (434)2 and it should be making. But he said he would double if Malinowski were on his right.

[han]

I put this hand on a Dutch forum. Only one player doubles. Four others bid 6C, noting that they would like to bid 5H as a slam try in spades but think that could lead to a misunderstanding. They think it is a difficult choice between 5S and 6C

 

They also think that 5NT and 6C both show the unbid suits but 5NT stresses diamonds while 6C stresses spades.

[pclayton]

This problem found its way to Bob Hamman.

 

He hates double and feels like 5♠ will make often enough for it to be right. He thinks that pard will have spade or diamond length.

 

I consider this matter closed.

[jdonn]

This problem found its way to Bob Hamman.

 

He hates double and feels like 5♠ will make often enough for it to be right. He thinks that pard will have spade or diamond length.

 

I consider this matter closed.

LOL you came bac weeks later to announce hamman agrees with you so the matter is closed. What is with you in this thread!

 

Edit: Just mentioning I did post this before seeing you/jlall in other thread. Entertainment is on tap for tonight!

[whereagles]

hamman pwnz joo!!