Try your play at 6NT

[HighLow21]

1. Given that Bergen was (is) known to be very aggressive, I'd be surprised if he passed. Aces are good cards, using modified LTC (a concept I don't really like FWIW) it comes out at 7.5-8 losers, not the 8.5 you stated earlier, 7.5-8 losers is about normal for a weak NT hand. This hand also satisfies Klinger's Extended Rule of 22.

 

This hand is balanced so the Extended Rule of 22 doesn't apply.

 

2. Put dummy's ♠Q in diamonds and 6NT is very good, needing little more than one of the clubs onside

 

But that's not the scenario, is it? And, you're just taking what is already a fairly favorable layout and making it extremely favorable.

 

3. Whatever, I'm not going to mince words, all I can say is I'll be opening the south any day and hope I will still be doing so when I'm 90 (if I live that long).

 

I don't really care whether you would open it. To me, an aggressive but not extremely aggressive player, this hand doesn't qualify as an opener. Not close, even. Give me another jack and I still would consider passing it (though I would open it, as would almost anyone else).

 

What I do care is that you attacked my criticism by calling it stupid. It's not stupid. There are 10-counts out there that are far better suited to a 1-level opening than this hand. What IS stupid is your calling my argument stupid.

 

4. Maybe you will have to list them, it seemed pretty clear that's what the main fear was.

 

(a) By the time you take the diamond finesse you will already have one club loser in the bag. You never duck a finesse when taking it gives you the setting trick.

(b) LHO could have QT♦.

© The primary reason to duck a first finesse is to cause declarer to chew up dummy entries. This dummy obviously has more than enough entries.

(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

 

I could give more, but that's enough for now.

 

5. Here's 2 off the top of my head, give East xx Jxx xxxx Qxxx, during the play, you double hook the clubs, finds it loses, West comes back a second spade say, hook the clubs again, cash a third round and find they break 2-4, you play 3 rounds of hearts and find they break 3-3, play the fourth round out of principle, then cash the spades and when they break 6-4, you will have a full count, he will have to come down to 2 diamonds, now you can drop the Q with confidence (showup or count squeeze). Give West instead xx Jxxx QTxx Qxx, you take 2 club finesses again and this time they break 3-3. You then cash all your major suit winners throwing 2 diamonds from hand, then cross over to the ace of diamonds to lead the final club squeezing West in the majors.

You mean the spades break 6-2, not 6-4. And yes, you are correct, you now have a show-up squeeze in that scenario.

In the other scenario, you mean that you squeeze West in the red suits. Fine. But in so doing you've ruined the finesse position in diamonds in order to shoot the squeeze. Also, you would have only 1 diamond discard, not 2.

 

By the way, squeezes aren't that rare, can't remember the figure I read once, but it was something like 1 in 6 hands you declare (though realising there is a squeeze is another matter)

OK, even if that's accurate (which is very unlikely in my mind), there will be substantial overlap between the squeeze cases and the 37% probability of success that I just described. So it won't bump the total up to 53% or 54%. Maybe it will bump it up to 45% on a good day. And that assumes you NEVER fail to take advantage of an available squeeze, which even Terence Reese couldn't do.

[HighLow21]

Geez, Justin gives us bridge gold 9 of 10 days, and your response is to complain about the attempt at humor on the 10th day? Its not like he's paid to provide these insights, or anything, just appreciate the good stuff and ignore anything you don't find helpful.

 

I suppose that makes sense, Chris. Perhaps you are right. I just don't agree with the 9 of 10 assessment based on what I've seen. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.

[HighLow21]

Someone definitely got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

 

If "girlfriend dying of ovarian cancer" is a reason to wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, then yes, maybe I have a reason. Still, my comments all stand as if I were on the "right side of the bed" today. I call 'em as I see 'em and I encourage anyone to try to change my mind. I'm opinionated, but nothing if not flexible in my opinions in the face of contradictory evidence.

[Phil]

(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

 

Huh? What I said was:

 

The most interesting continuation is when they cover the 1st club and duck the 2nd.

 

By covering with the K OR Q, and then ducking the 2nd (with the other honor), we deny declarer the chance to test clubs. We also stop the count from being rectified, although this may lead to other end positions.

[manudude03]

This hand is balanced so the Extended Rule of 22 doesn't apply.

 

ERof22 applies in the same circumstances as rule of 20, and you were the one who brought that up

 

(a) By the time you take the diamond finesse you will already have one club loser in the bag. You never duck a finesse when taking it gives you the setting trick.

(b) LHO could have QT♦.

© The primary reason to duck a first finesse is to cause declarer to chew up dummy entries. This dummy obviously has more than enough entries.

(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

 

I could give more, but that's enough for now.

 

I wasn't aware those cards with ♦s on them were called clubs.

You mean the spades break 6-2, not 6-4. And yes, you are correct, you now have a show-up squeeze in that scenario.

In the other scenario, you mean that you squeeze West in the red suits. Fine. But in so doing you've ruined the finesse position in diamonds in order to shoot the squeeze. Also, you would have only 1 diamond discard,t not 2.

 

Yes I meant 6-2, and yes I'll only have 1 diamond discard (that only makes that line more attractive, it's still not too late to finesse then!). You also might have observed that I can't run both squeezes concurrently, a lot of squeezes require you to read the position. Ever heard the saying "why make on a finesse when you can go down on a squeeze"?

 

OK, even if that's accurate (which is very unlikely in my mind), there will be substantial overlap between the squeeze cases and the 37% probability of success that I just described. So it won't bump the total up to 53% or 54%. Maybe it will bump it up to 45% on a good day. And that assumes you NEVER fail to take advantage of an available squeeze, which even Terence Reese couldn't do.

 

I never said it was a good slam, but we've all been there. In fact, I even said it was a very unlucky layout. We don't mope around and strop just because it's not a good slam, we just try and maximise the chances of making it, I am not going to lose sleep over figuring whether I took a 44% line or a 42% line.

[Phil]

If "girlfriend dying of ovarian cancer" is a reason to wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, then yes, maybe I have a reason. Still, my comments all stand as if I were on the "right side of the bed" today. I call 'em as I see 'em and I encourage anyone to try to change my mind. I'm opinionated, but nothing if not flexible in my opinions in the face of contradictory evidence.

 

Really sorry to hear that dude. About your girlfriend. I'm serious. In late 2008 ago my wife had a fight with cancer and I was really mad at the world. Come to think of it, that was the time that 'pclayton' left the forums. I was pretty pissed off at a particular post (not from Justin) and said, f**k it I don't need this s**t anymore. A happier Phil came back a few months later.

 

BBF is not unlike many social groups. I'm going through some job-related crap right now, and I have discovered some of my best friends are through BBF and BBO. BBF can be a effective coping mechanism.

 

Best of all, I have seen my own game progress and my real life results now have consistently improved. I credit this to my general experience, but also working on my game and seeking out opinions from peers and players better than me.

 

Of course, like any group, it takes a while to meld in and gain respect from others, and frankly, many never earn respect despite the thousands of posts. Steaming around is not the way to do that, but I will give you a hall pass today because of your personal issues. :)

[HighLow21]

ERof22 applies in the same circumstances as rule of 20, and you were the one who brought that up

I site: http://www.ronklingerbridge.com/blog/5673/summer-festival-bridge-2012-blog-11

 

Also, looking at Klinger's original article, yes it would be an opening bid under his original description list but his list fails to adjust for Jx, Qx, Qxx, and a host of other things. I think we can agree that the hand is borderline; I think I can also argue vehemently well that there are a series of reasons (call them "tiebreakers") why this particular borderline hand should be passed rather than opened. We can spend all day citing various guidelines for opening bid decisions and my position is simple: this is one of the worst borderline hands I've ever seen. Both 4-card suits are minors. Two isolated minor honors. Terrible spot cards in every single suit. Clear pass, to me.

 

I wasn't aware those cards with ♦s on them were called clubs.

This is a misunderstanding and I grant you that. In your original post, you first started talking about diamonds and then clubs briefly in the same sentence, and talked about holding up a finesse. It was ambiguously phrased but upon intense scrutiny, it seems you meant to be referring to clubs. Fine. But actually, the argument that they may duck the 2nd round of a finesse in clubs works against your arguments, not in favor of them.

 

 

Yes I meant 6-2, and yes I'll only have 1 diamond discard (that only makes that line more attractive, it's still not too late to finesse then!). You also might have observed that I can't run both squeezes concurrently, a lot of squeezes require you to read the position. Ever heard the saying "why make on a finesse when you can go down on a squeeze"?

Sounds like a good excuse for taking an inferior line of play to me. If the information gained thus far in the hand suggests the finesse is still 50/50 and the squeeze isn't that good (few squeezes are unless a big surprise occurs), why play for a squeeze when you can make 50/50 on a finesse?

 

 

I never said it was a good slam, but we've all been there. In fact, I even said it was a very unlucky layout. We don't mope around and strop just because it's not a good slam, we just try and maximise the chances of making it, I am not going to lose sleep over figuring whether I took a 44% line or a 42% line.

Given that you have a 4333 hand, a 4432 hand, and 32 HCP, the fact that you can even get to 40-ish percent success is a miracle. An absolute miracle. There is no unlucky layout here. There are a series of flaws in both hands obvious before the bidding ends and in spite of them, there is still a possible, and not incredibly unlikely, way to make the slam. That's miraculous to me.

[HighLow21]

Really sorry to hear that dude. About your girlfriend. I'm serious. In late 2008 ago my wife had a fight with cancer and I was really mad at the world. Come to think of it, that was the time that 'pclayton' left the forums. I was pretty pissed off at a particular post (not from Justin) and said, f**k it I don't need this s**t anymore. A happier Phil came back a few months later.

 

BBF is not unlike many social groups. I'm going through some job-related crap right now, and I have discovered some of my best friends are through BBF and BBO. BBF can be a effective coping mechanism.

 

Best of all, I have seen my own game progress and my real life results now have consistently improved. I credit this to my general experience, but also working on my game and seeking out opinions from peers and players better than me.

 

Of course, like any group, it takes a while to meld in and gain respect from others, and frankly, many never earn respect despite the thousands of posts. Steaming around is not the way to do that, but I will give you a hall pass today because of your personal issues. :)

 

Thanks Phil. The most important thing is that I am there for her as much as I can be, and if I piss a few people off in the process, so be it. And I am very sorry to hear what happened with your wife. Few people understand what this is like until they face it for the first time.

 

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect and/or based on a misunderstanding of something someone else said or missed or omitted or misquoted.

 

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

[wyman]

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect

 

We have different definitions of "factually," apparently.

[HighLow21]

We have different definitions of "factually," apparently.

 

Mine involves things known to be true. What's your definition?

[CSGibson]

Thanks Phil. The most important thing is that I am there for her as much as I can be, and if I piss a few people off in the process, so be it. And I am very sorry to hear what happened with your wife. Few people understand what this is like until they face it for the first time.

 

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect and/or based on a misunderstanding of something someone else said or missed or omitted or misquoted.

 

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

 

1) you are getting very defensive. Manudude said blaming someone was stupid. He wasn't replying to you, and didn't mention you. It's not an ad hominem attack on you - you just read into it because you blamed someone earlier. If that's going to send you into a rage, then don't post on the forums unless you feel like being angry a lot.

 

2) I want to suggest that it's not productive to care about who gets praise (by which I assume you mean upvotes) and who doesn't on this forum. Upvotes are personal, and people do so for different reasons, not always related to bridge content. But again, why should you care what A poster thinks of B poster when you are neither A nor B?

 

3) If you are worried about your own treatment, then I have additional suggestions which may improve your posting experience: Don't take things personally. Don't responding defensively to every post. State your opinions as what they are - your opinions, which may or may not be fundamentally flawed. Do not get offended or up in arms when others disagree.

[HighLow21]

1) you are getting very defensive. Manudude said blaming someone was stupid. He wasn't replying to you, and didn't mention you. It's not an ad hominem attack on you - you just read into it because you blamed someone earlier. If that's going to send you into a rage, then don't post on the forums unless you feel like being angry a lot.

You don't use the word 'stupid' without intending to incite. Period. Unless, of course, you don't know what yuo're doing, but that's a different issue.

 

2) I want to suggest that it's not productive to care about who gets praise (by which I assume you mean upvotes) and who doesn't on this forum. Upvotes are personal, and people do so for different reasons, not always related to bridge content. But again, why should you care what A poster thinks of B poster when you are neither A nor B?

I only care when (1) others attack me baselessly, or (2) one of the posts is dangerous. Both apply today.

 

3) If you are worried about your own treatment, then I have additional suggestions which may improve your posting experience: Don't take things personally. Don't responding defensively to every post. State your opinions as what they are - your opinions, which may or may not be fundamentally flawed. Do not get offended or up in arms when others disagree.

Chris, if only you know how bad it got today--> not just here, but in several other forum topics. I was blatantly attacked and called names by a regular poster here.

 

And I will say this, mandude: I am sorry that you bore the brunt of my frustrations. That happens and it's not OK. I was wrong for taking the word 'stupid' personally, even if I find the word 'stupid' offensive in general.

 

The reality is, something else that happened here on the forums today was far, far more offensive, and I felt like I was getting attacked for everything I said. I stand by my comments, except where they were in obvious error or misunderstanding. But that doesn't change the fact that, after reviewing a series of posts by JLOGIC, I find them often unhelpful at best and dangerous as fire at worst to someone who only partially understands where he is coming from.

[JLOGIC]

HighLow, I am sorry you do not like my posts and get jealous that I get upvoted. Personally I do not ever read your posts since they are very long and full of nonsense, and I do not like rising to troll bait anymore. I think this thread is a good illustration of the differences in our posting styles, and why you are so mystified in general. A lot of people think if they make very long posts with long "analysis" that is what makes a good poster, but imagine if everyone posted like you, the forum would just be a huge cluster*****.

 

For instance, this guy posts a play problem. I basically just said the same thing as bluecalm, obviously start by double hooking clubs and go from there. There are simply too many permutations to go through at this point, I don't see any reason to analyze all of them when the start is always to hook clubs. That said, OP probably didn't know that hooking clubs was best to begin with and that's why he posted it starting from trick 1. Fair enough, he got his answer. I made a joke about "rhm type stuff" perhaps that is why I got upvoted and not bluecalm, or perhaps it is a bias in my favor, who cares?

 

Meanwhile, in response to his play problem, you latch onto a semantics thing because OP said that partner got us there. Perhaps he just meant partner is the one who made the final bid, and thus literally got us there, who cares? You then post hundreds of words on why you should not open a 12 count with 2 aces despite the fact that almost everyone in the world would open it. Ok, maybe you wouldn't open it and think the world sucks for opening with 12 points, that's great, who cares, it's a play problem? You are not being insightful by doing this, you are being a troll who is hijacking a thread. I assume you are at least aware enough to know that almost everyone in the world opens this hand. I also assume you know some people open even lighter than that. Perhaps that is their opening bid style to open all 11 counts. It doesn't say because it's not a thread about bidding or where the bidding is relevant. If you have a non-standard opening bid style, that is great for you, make a new thread about it. Instead you make people waste their time reading stupid BS and no doubt hijacking the thread.

 

Then you move on to your play "analysis" starting with:

 

As far as the play, you have 9 on top. Terrible. But not surprising given all of the flaws I've already mentioned. In fact, to be honest, I'm surprised there is any play for 6NT whatsoever. The only reason there's a play for it is that you have all the aces.

 

I mean jeez, that's really insightful, you have 32 highs with 2 key tens and a key 9 and you're surprised 6N has any play. You are a great poster, that definitely deserves an upvote!

 

You simply MUST find a club honor with RHO. Find out how many club tricks you have first.

 

Nice, isn't that what I said? Oh no, it isn't because it is untrue that you MUST find a club honor with RHO as you could make outside of the club suit. Since you love semantics, this is factually untrue, it is hilarious that you add in the capital MUST when it is just WRONG.

 

Next, you move on to your patented PERCENTAGES. Maybe if you use lots of numbers you will seem smart and mask that you are clueless about bridge. HINT: There is a reason that you only see top bridge players/analysts/writers use percentages, they are almost always irrelevant in figuring out what the best line is, and especially on a hand like this they are a lot trickier to use if you want to be accurate.

 

(a) If clubs divide 3-3, you STILL need a red suit finesse to make. I'd cash 3 hearts and then take the diamond finesse, combining the J♥ dropping with the Q♦ onside. This is about a 21% chance: 27% of the time, clubs will be 3-3 with at least one club honor onside; the jack of hearts will fall 52% of the time, and when it doesn't, the Q♦ finesse will work half the time. So 27% x (1 - (1 - 52%) x (1 - 50%)) = 27% x 76%, or about 21%.

 

That's nice, how do you know if clubs are 3-3 when they cover one and duck one?

 

(b) If clubs do not divide, you have only 10 tricks. You should try for 4 diamond tricks, or 4 hearts and 3 diamond tricks. You now MUST get the diamond finesse to work. Try that first. If it works, cash AK♦. If they divide, you have 12. If they don't, play for 4 heart tricks. This is about a 16% chance: Clubs will be 4-2 or worse with at least one honor onside about 3/4 of 64%, or 48% of the time. Of this, you need (i) Qxx♦ onside (18%) OR (ii) Q♦ not tripleton (32%) AND 4 heart tricks (52%). This is: 48% x [18% + (32% x 52%)] = 48% x (16% + 18%) = 48% x 34% = 16%. (This is all rounded, btw.)

 

Thus, barring squeezes, I put this contract's chances at about 21% + 16% = 37%. With squeezes, maybe it's 40%. Please feel free to verify my math on this. My gut tells me 40% is too high.

 

That's great you clown, the squeezes are what make this hand interesting, and they also add a lot to your chances when clubs are 4-2 with a diamond honor on and they don't duck a club which is why your "percentages" are so silly. You just put up irrelevant numbers with BOLD and UNDERLINE and CAPS and ITALICS after spending the majority of your long post going on a tirade about how it's YOUR FAULT not PARTNERS FAULT you got to this awful 32 HCP "40 % slam" which you're surprised had any play at all and think you are being insightful.

 

What if I told you that when the play went:

 

Spade

Club hook losing to LHO

Spade

Club hook winning

Club LHO showing out

Diamond to the king

Diamond to the jack winning

 

That you are now 100 % to make? Yet in your "percentages" you have it as far lower:

 

OR (ii) Q♦ not tripleton (32%) AND 4 heart tricks (52%).

 

The AND 4 heart tricks part is false, you do not need that, as you will just cash the major suits and squeeze RHO.

If RHO has Qx of diamonds, you can claim on a double squeeze (cash DJ, heart to the ace, spade pitching a club, claim).

But wait, perhaps this exposes you to a brilliant falsecard from QTxx of diamonds playing the queen on the second round? Nah, you're actually ok cashing the diamond, crossing to the HA, and playing a spade. If RHO follows, then you can hook the heart later with a full count. If RHO has xx Jxx Qxxx Qxxx he will be squeezed in 3 suits, forced to pitch his heart, thereby giving you the position.

 

So, whenever RHO has Hxxx of clubs and the DQ you are cold, yet your "percentages" show that you will be cold only half the time in that case when diamonds are 4-2. Very insightful.

 

What about when LHO has 4 clubs and it goes:

 

Spade

Club around to LHO

Spade

Club

Club RHO showing out

Diamond to the jack holding

 

Would you be surprised to learn that we are cold unless LHO has 4 diamonds to go with his 4 clubs (then we need the heart jack to fall)? Just cash the diamonds, if 3-3 claim. If RHO has 4, cash the last spade pitching your diamond and claim on the double squeeze. Yet, again, your analysis shows that when clubs are 4-2 with 1 honor on, and diamonds are 4-2 with the queen on, we are 52 % to make from there, instead of nearly 100 % Why bother posting percentages when they are irrelevant (we are not comparing 2 lines to see which is higher percentage) and also glaringly wrong? How can you look at a hand like this and mention squeezes as an afterthought and not include them in your analysis?

 

It is funny, I imagine you sitting there posting your long ass gramatically correct posts, underlining, bracketing, bolding, numbering, italicizing up the wazoo, adding in percentages and math and numbers and thinking "man I really nailed this one, I am gonna get so many upvotes" and then being distraught to see succinct posts with a joke that you don't even get having a couple of upvotes and you getting none and thinking "wow this system is rigged, unbelievable!"

 

Then you go back to this

 

The morals of this story:

1. The south hand is an automatic 1st seat pass in my opinion.

2. The south hand is only worth an invitation to 6NT after partner opens 2NT, and that's only if I'm feeling extremely lucky.

3. The invitation to 6NT should probably be declined by north for the reasons I enumerated earlier.

4. A 4-3-3-3 opposite any 4-4-3-2 with usually not make 6NT with fewer than 34 HCP. That's right: 34. Not 33. These two hands have 32 and I'm amazed that it has as much of a chance as I calculated above. (BTW, with 2 4-3-3-3 hands, 35 HCP sometimes won't even do it!)

 

Again

 

1) Is about the bidding, and it's nice that you think that, maybe you should start a thread about it, but if your reaction to a somewhat interesting play problem is to criticize someone doing something that 95 % of experts and non experts alike do, and is at best a style thing, then GTFO if you want positive reactions to that!

 

2) An invite only if you're feeling lucky when you have 32-33 HCP? That is hyperbole and what does it even mean? Do you really bid based on how lucky you feel? Of course you know it is a highly contentious argument and is trollbait and will start the thread talking about the bidding rather than the play, classy.

 

4) Lol. I guess if I had no idea how to do a squeeze, I wouldn't want to play slam with 33 HCP.

 

I mean it is really just painful to read your posts, lol @ you being jealous that people might like my posting when I am "not insightful."

[JLOGIC]

long double post!

[JLOGIC]

(5) Good luck with the last part of your analysis there, chief. Squeezes, as a rule, are unlikely. And, in testing for the 3-3 splits you refer to, you will have only 1 entry back to the South hand. Feel free to explain what squeezes are available to us.

 

Lol I mean do you realize how funny you look to anyone with a clue? It is ok to not know anything about squeezes, but to post so authoritatively and then to post something like this is truly amazing.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that, after reviewing a series of posts by JLOGIC, I find them often unhelpful at best and dangerous as fire at worst to someone who only partially understands where he is coming from.

 

Another gem. My post that I would double finesse clubs and go from there is dangerous as fire. However, your post that with no 5 card suit 6N needs 34 HCP (lol), that squeezes are very rare (lol), that this slam is 40 %, and that you should pass with the south hand in first seat (despite that being very non mainstream) are not dangerous at all.

 

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

 

lol. OP was not sure how to begin the play of this hand obviously. I said he should double finesse clubs, as did bluecalm. Maybe that is not an earth shattering post, and I am guessing I got repped because of the rhm joke combined with being right that that is the way to start the hand, but it I do not see why you're so offended by that post lol. It is MUCH better than 1000 words of incorrect nonsense from a novice who speaks authoritatively and holds highly controversial views which he speaks as definitive truths. Not to mention going off topic multiple times in hijacking a thread. Get a clue, people don't rep you because your posts suck. Before this I literally did not even read your posts after your first week or so here because it was always more of the same. Maybe you think this is personal, but I don't know you, your posts are actually so bad that I cannot read them, and I know I am not alone in that. Try using less words and saying more things that are actually relevant to the topic.

[JLOGIC]

http://meowcheese.com/files/lolpics/2010/08/haters-gonna-hate.jpg

 

http://jetsrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/U-MAD-BRO.jpg

 

Oh, and flame warriors comes through again.

 

best site ever lol

[kenrexford]

Whenever I hear about a post where people are calling each other stupid, I have to join in.

 

The debate seems to be which idiot got us to 6NT, or whether everyone made perfect sense in their bidding. The first question seems to revolve around whether the south hand is an "opening hand." Of course, this is a dumb debate, to a degree, because the determination of whether a hand qualifies for an opening is not governed by some sort of cosmic justice. It is governed by agreements and understandings. As an absurd example, I have played where a 1♦ opening if balanced shows 18-19 HCP or 8-10 HCP (with 3+ diamonds). As this hand has 12 HCP, it is too strong for that opening. Change the range slightly, and it is perfect. Or, drop one or two Jacks, and this is perfect for a 1♦ opening.

 

Having (I hope) made the first point, the second question is whether this is a valid 1♦ opening within some mainstream views. The idea that some sort of losing trick count analysis is used is somewhat silly. Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx is an 8-loser hand and falls well below the expected 7-loser for an opening. So, is that passed? Of course, one will argue about adjustments and the like. But, the assumption is wrong for starters. Most do not expect a 7-loser hand for a balanced minimum opening. Most I know expect about 7.5 to 8 losers for that holding. If that means that a balanced minimum opening is made with a hand that has less playing potential than your average minimum unbalanced opening, then so what? I agree with that, but this does not change the fact that the normal, modern expectation is that a balanced minimum is in a sense a "sub-minimum" in historial terms.

 

The tendency toward lighter 1NT openings (15-17 but good 14's) means that the "balanced minimum" is in many circles getting weaker and weaker. Again, so what? if the expectation is for the balanced minimum to be sub-minimum, then expectations are met when a hand like this is opened.

 

Oh, and BTW, this also translate among many of us into interesting sequences to account for the sub-minimum expectation for balanced minimums, where unbalanced hands are often bid strangely by historical perspective. The 15-16 HCP hand with 1-4-5-3 shape, for instance, used to be opened 1♦ and then after 1♠ rebid 1NT. Today, many of us would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣, in part because of the extreme weakness expected for the balanced minimum.

 

The problem with this sequence, however, is that this Opener used that sort of "modern" trend, while Responder made a more archaic/traditional analysis of HCP combinations. When I saw this sequence, the 6NT call shocked me. I expected a combined pure strength of 31-33 HCP, not 32-34. With an average of 32, 6NT does not look good without a trick source. I would definitely want to explore 4-4 fits and the like, but 4NT seemed like enough. This, of course, is coupled with the fact that Opener would be expected to view a 13-14 HCP hand as a contextual maximum.

 

I see this all the time. The same thing happens with game tries. People open a minor with the range being a good 11 to a bad 14. Partner invites 3NT with hands that should sign off at 1NT. Or, partner bids 3NT out of fear that Opener will not see 13 as a maximum. Or, Opener in fact sees 13 as a minimum. All of which are "wrong" if your effective range for the balanced minimum is 11 to a bad 14.

 

By the way, the reduction of the expectation for a balanced minimum makes sense to be because it compliments the tendency for opening lighter unbalanced hands. If a 1♦ opening with 1-4-5-3 shape has a real chance of an 11-HCP minimum (because of the Rule-of-Twenty or some such analysis method), then it seems that the balanced minimum should be similarly ranged. When the unbalanced minimum catches no fit, the hand ends up analyzed for notrump contracts anyway. So, if the no-fit unbalanced minimum is in the 11 to 14 range, then the balanced minimum in the 11-14 range also makes sense, as consistent.

 

When 1NT showed 16 to 18 and 13 HCP was needed to open regardless of shape, all was well. But, if you reduce your HCP minimums for unbalanced hands, a corresponding reduction in range for balanced hands is complimentary and consistent and seems to me to work. But, then you have to grow along with this change as Responder and not view a 20-HCP hand "opposite an opening bid" as a slam force hand, as Opener does not have a 13-count "opening bid" that grandpa used to have. He has a limit raise or better.

 

Oh, and Justin is a kneebiter.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Whenever I hear about a post where people are calling each other stupid, I have to join in.

 

The debate seems to be which idiot got us to 6NT, or whether everyone made perfect sense in their bidding.

................................................................................................................

When 1NT showed 16 to 18 and 13 HCP was needed to open regardless of shape, all was well. But, if you reduce your HCP minimums for unbalanced hands, (then) a corresponding reduction in range for balanced hands is complimentary and consistent and seems to me to work. But, then you have to grow along with this change as Responder and not view a 20-HCP hand "opposite an opening bid" as a slam force hand, as Opener does not have a 13-count "opening bid" that grandpa used to have. He has a limit raise or better.

Sage observation.

I've had to make adjustments as Responder about what I think is a "game force" hand .

A good 12 hcp opposite "Aunt Gladys'" 13 w/2 quick tricks used to be enough.... Not any more.

[HighLow21]

HighLow...

<snip>

 

I'm going to keep this response simple by saying:

(1) I was attacked today on multiple fronts.

(2) I made the mistake of biting on some bait I shouldn't have; in the process, I created my own bait. I am sorry, but I was also provoked.

(3) I respect other people's opinions when they are opinions and not personal attacks.

 

Justin, if there's something else you'd like me to respond directly to, let me know.

[HighLow21]

<snip>

 

Oh, and Justin is a kneebiter.

I agree with everything you said, though I have no idea what a kneebiter is. I'm off to Urban dictionary to find out. LOL.

 

Agreed with this concept you elucidated: no one has a right to tell someone else what constitutes an opening bid or overcall. "Fert" bids on 0-7 points are standard in a couple of systems, for example. What I'm talking about is standard bidding: that which applies to, say, 90% of the players on this site. BBO Basic or its close cousin, SAYC.

 

And all I was arguing is that the OP blamed partner for putting me in the slam. I EXPECT to put my partner in slam holding 20 HCP most of the time, when he opens. This is assuming BBO Basic/SAYC.

 

And all I was trying to argue was that, as far as balanced 12's (a borderline or minimum opener in BBO Basic/SAYC) go, this hand is about as bad as it gets.

[bluecalm]

no one has a right to tell someone else what constitutes an opening bid or overcall

 

We can still try to observe which style is dominant in top level competition as it's likely it's dominant for a reason and not because of fashion or manliness of players involved etc.

As someone who is keen observer of high level bridge and who did a lot of work on various style differencies between say top American and Italian players I can tell you that you will struggle to find anybody ever passing such hand in top level competition. Aggressive or more solid - they all open it.

[HighLow21]

Lol I mean do you realize how funny you look to anyone with a clue? It is ok to not know anything about squeezes, but to post so authoritatively and then to post something like this is truly amazing.

You're right, clearly I don't have a clue. Nor do any of the people who supported many of the things I had to say. And I didn't say I don't have a clue about squeezes. I said that I explicitly was leaving squeezes out.

 

Another gem. My post that I would double finesse clubs and go from there is dangerous as fire. However, your post that with no 5 card suit 6N needs 34 HCP (lol), that squeezes are very rare (lol), that this slam is 40 %, and that you should pass with the south hand in first seat (despite that being very non mainstream) are not dangerous at all.

That isn't what I what I said, Justin.

 

I wasn't referring to your comment about how to play this hand. On this topic, you said nothing dangerous. I was referring to a slew of other half-thoughts you have flippantly posted recently. My comments in this thread were in response to the deference others were paying you when, in my mind, you said absolutely nothing meaningful in your original response to this topic. The thing about RHM was a joke? Fine, maybe it's actually a funny joke. And maybe that joke is worth the rep points. But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

 

 

lol. OP was not sure how to begin the play of this hand obviously. I said he should double finesse clubs, as did bluecalm. Maybe that is not an earth shattering post, and I am guessing I got repped because of the rhm joke combined with being right that that is the way to start the hand, but it I do not see why you're so offended by that post lol. It is MUCH better than 1000 words of incorrect nonsense from a novice who speaks authoritatively and holds highly controversial views which he speaks as definitive truths. Not to mention going off topic multiple times in hijacking a thread. Get a clue, <snip>

 

[/reading].

[HighLow21]

We can still try to observe which style is dominant in top level competition as it's likely it's dominant for a reason and not because of fashion or manliness of players involved etc.

As someone who is keen observer of high level bridge and who did a lot of work on various style differencies between say top American and Italian players I can tell you that you will struggle to find anybody ever passing such hand in top level competition. Aggressive or more solid - they all open it.

Fine. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have made the comment if the post were in the A/E forum, but it wasn't.

[Statto]

Bridge is a dangerous game :o

 

I've not been here long but had no trouble understanding JL's 1st post. RHM is another poster who I gather is a very good card player B-)

[JLOGIC]

I wasn't referring to your comment about how to play this hand. On this topic, you said nothing dangerous. I was referring to a slew of other half-thoughts you have flippantly posted recently. My comments in this thread were in response to the deference others were paying you when, in my mind, you said absolutely nothing meaningful in your original response to this topic. The thing about RHM was a joke? Fine, maybe it's actually a funny joke. And maybe that joke is worth the rep points. But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

 

How did my comment hurt? I said you should start by double hooking clubs. There are too many possible combinations from there. You did not seem to realize that specifically because you did not understand how the squeezes affected the play. I mean look how long my reply was to you explaining the possible squeezes, and that was only for the set of hands where:

 

1) the club was ducked and won on left.

2) the diamond hook was on.

 

We had to discuss LHO having 4 clubs, RHO having 4 clubs, LHO having 4 diamonds, RHO having 4 diamonds, possible falsecards with QTxx of diamonds, etc etc.

 

We did not even get to what happens when they cover the club, then duck a club, etc. It is a hand with a lot of possibilities and it would be silly in my mind to write a book about it when in real life my line would be to lead teh CJ, and then if it held lead the CT, and then go from there, or if the club got covered, think about what to do and go from there. It cuts down on the tree of what we can do dramatically, and it will ALWAYS start with trying for a double club finesse.

 

Ergo, my comment of "double finesse clubs and then do some rhm stuff" was exactly what I meant to say. Perhaps others appreciated it. I do not know why this bothers you so much. I would still prefer my post to yours which was just wrong on so many levels, despite what it was trying to do, and that was just the part about the play (aka the relevant part).

 

Speaking of which, back to this quote:

 

But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

 

How on earth was your tangent about the bidding and opening 12 point hands and 6N with 33 HCP and blah blah helpful to people trying to understand the best way to play the hand? My comment was on point directly: You should start by double finessing clubs. That is the first decision of the hand as you could go for some other lines (4 diamonds 4 hearts 3 spades 1 club). Your points about the bidding were not only off point, but they were obviously going to get a rise out of everyone.