blame game

[wank]

steveng, the forum isn't for discussing which is the bid that has the best chance of working with a bad partner. if you bother to post on a forum you obviously want to improve so we try to find the correct bid.

 

and cherdano, in my experience bidding in england (acol land) is considerably worse than in other countries for players of a similar standard of card play.

[eagles123]

thanks all very helpfull

[helene_t]

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

What is it exactly that is not "very basic"?

 

That undiscussed doubles in certain situations are t/o and other situations are penalty or optinal and yet others really need to be discussed may not be very basic.

 

But here we have a South who had already shown five hearts and denied four cards in opps' suit. And a North who could have only two hearts and has not suggested any defensive values at all. I think it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general strength. The actual South hand has three aces and the longest minor is even opps' suit. I think it is very basic that this is a double. Make it a small singleton diamond and/or replace one of the aces by a KJ and it is not so basic.

[nekthen]

Agree with all of South's bids.

Hate all of North's bids except the initial pass :D

[the_clown]

I think that 2♥ is fine, a direct 3♥ shows a better hand for me.

 

Of course having bid 2♥ North should make a forward going move when South shows extra values.

[cherdano]

I do not agree that it is 'very basic'.

 

I suspect that part of the problem with experts doing so much of the posting on the I/A and B/N forums is that it can be difficult to remember when we, the experts, were B/N or even I/A.

 

Maybe I am taking a different viewpoint about what "basic" means. I do agree that many intermediate players would not know this. But it is much more basic than many other things about bidding that they do know.

 

Doubles showing extra values is more basic than 4N = RKCB or Smolen or inverted minors: both in the sense that is a simpler, less artificial concept, and that it is more important (it occurs more often, and it solves a problem that cannot otherwise be solved).

 

Having said all this, I do think an "advanced" player should be familiar with the concept of a double showing extra values.

[mikeh]

What is it exactly that is not "very basic"?

 

That undiscussed doubles in certain situations are t/o and other situations are penalty or optinal and yet others really need to be discussed may not be very basic.

 

But here we have a South who had already shown five hearts and denied four cards in opps' suit. And a North who could have only two hearts and has not suggested any defensive values at all. I think it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general strength. The actual South hand has three aces and the longest minor is even opps' suit. I think it is very basic that this is a double. Make it a small singleton diamond and/or replace one of the aces by a KJ and it is not so basic.

I really think it is a matter of perspective. I occasionally discuss bridge with some beginners, one of whom shows both an interest in and aptitude for the game. I also, several years ago now, went to a local club and for almost a year gave a talk before the Friday night game, in which I mainly answered questions based on the previous week's hands. So I think I have a fairly good idea of how confusing the game is even to people who have played a lot of low-level duplicate. Those of us who read forums like this tend to self-select as people who like to read about the game and who like to get into discussions about sequences, with a strong appetite to learn. Most real-life bridge players aren't like that, in my experience. Even those who are may not have had real opportunity to learn, or exposure to the discussions that to us are so basic as to appear trivial.

 

I agree with you entirely were you to write not that ' it is very basic that 3♥ shows extra offensive values while double shows extra general shape' but rather that ' it is very logical that 3♥ shows extra offensive values......etc'

 

Btw, the notion that low-level doubles in competitive auctions shows a desire to compete rather than a desire to defend, which seems so universal these days, and so obviously best, is, in bridge terms, a fairly recent development. It became popular, as far as I know, on the NA tournament trail about 30 years ago. I remember discussing the idea with a BC player who spent a lot of time on the tour, and he was ridiculed by a number of the established local players who didn't travel to play. It may have been popular elsewhere earlier, I don't know. But I think it to be a common practice for people to see what is obvious to them as having to be obvious to everyone, and it just isn't so.

[mikeh]

Maybe I am taking a different viewpoint about what "basic" means. I do agree that many intermediate players would not know this. But it is much more basic than many other things about bidding that they do know.

 

Doubles showing extra values is more basic than 4N = RKCB or Smolen or inverted minors: both in the sense that is a simpler, less artificial concept, and that it is more important (it occurs more often, and it solves a problem that cannot otherwise be solved).

 

Having said all this, I do think an "advanced" player should be familiar with the concept of a double showing extra values.

I agree with the last part, and was writing a post in response to helene before seeing this one. I wasn't talking about advanced players.....indeed I think it to be a contradiction in terms to refer to something both as 'I'd expect advanced players to know this, but less experienced players not' and as 'very basic'.

[Phil]

Double is not basic to an intermediate player.

 

The literal meaning of a double is to increase the penalty not extra values or 'do something'. Newer players learn linear exceptions to this rule like 'takeout, negative, support and responsive' and aren't taught to look at the context of their hand in the auction. Even after you tell them double here can't be penalty it's not an easy idea to grasp. They just don't think that way because this isn't the way bridge is taught.

 

Anyone with a little experience understands the difference here but that's not what's being discussed.

[helene_t]

But even if double is penalty it is the right call with the South hand. North can still run based on the lott but even if is asleep and passes it may not be bad. We probably take 800. Maybe 1100. Probably below par but we may not bid the slam anyway.

[akwoo]

Most bridge players play by rote and never actually think about the game.

 

(C'mon, Arend - surely you know that the vast majority of students in Calculus pass the class by learning how to do calculus problems without actually understanding anything. Why should it be any different for bridge players?)

[jdonn]

Definitely North. I don't even like 2♥, seems like an easy 3♥ to me. If you start visualizing example hands for partner, you will see how little you need for game. In fact, as I start doing that, I don't even think 4♥ on the first bid is crazy. An overbid, but sometimes it will make when partner was passing 3.

[massem]

I believe that 3 H is not enough even after X.. if I had this hand I would say, or X or 4 D.... the first X is not right as well from my point of view.. i would bid 3 spades instead to show fit and strong hand..

[mike777]

good discussion in depth on the issues raised in this thread...love bbo forums.

 

Not a reflex...blame north.

[wank]

I believe that 3 H is not enough even after X.. if I had this hand I would say, or X or 4 D.... the first X is not right as well from my point of view.. i would bid 3 spades instead to show fit and strong hand..

 

a fit for the 5 card suit you already promised? partner hasn't promised hearts.

[MrAce]

I believe that 3 H is not enough even after X.. if I had this hand I would say, or X or 4 D.... the first X is not right as well from my point of view.. i would bid 3 spades instead to show fit and strong hand..

 

Since you are at it, why don't you just ask aces and bid the ***** grand if pd has ♣ A ?

[Jinksy]

Since you are at it, why don't you just ask aces and bid the ***** grand if pd has ♣ A ?

 

Because partner might think your 4♣ bid was showing 4 clubs? ;)

[rmnka447]

I agree with the basic criticism of North only bidding 2 ♥ originally. With a known 9+ card fit, doubleton in partner's other long suit, and ♣ A, the hand is much too good to make a bid that could be made on a doubleton ♥ and 0-4 points.

 

Nonetheless, one problem with Michaels is that the follow ups to the initial Michael bid and advancer's response are hardly discussed. The bidding can become somewhat confused and murky thereafter.

 

With a 4 loser hand as Michaels bidder, I'd take a different path then doubling 2 ♠. Yeah, it should show extras, but how much extra? Instead I'd make a 3 ♦ cue which advancer should have no problem recognizing as a big hand.

[neilkaz]

I've seen too many garbagy Michaels bids to want to jump right to 3♥ as north but after PD doubles 2♠ north needs to wake up and certainly after PD bids 3♥ north should carry on.

 

Blame is all on North from me.

[mike777]

blame north but all of you who blame north miss the big ..huge point

 

why does north get this wrong so often over so many years and decades.....

 

 

my answer is something is broken with michaels cuebid

solution...don't play it.

----------------

-------------------

 

 

I fully understand many of you will scream and yell about giving up a convention you have played for years. Fair enough....I just ask look at the alternatives

[MrAce]

blame north but all of you who blame north miss the big ..huge point

 

why does north get this wrong so often over so many years and decades.....

 

 

my answer is something is broken with michaels cuebid

solution...don't play it.

----------------

-------------------

 

 

I fully understand many of you will scream and yell about giving up a convention you have played for years. Fair enough....I just ask look at the alternatives

 

Are you taking lessons in BIL from PhilG, Mike?

 

While you are at it also, why don't you scratch the negative doubles as well?

Hell, all I know is the fact that people have much more accidents with negative doubles than they do with Michaels!

[mike777]

Are you taking lessons in BIL from PhilG, Mike?

 

While you are at it also, why don't you scratch the negative doubles as well?

Hell, all I know is the fact that people have much more accidents with negative doubles than they do with Michaels!

 

ok I assume you have facts to back you up. If that is what you think best in your judgment... ok.

 

 

Again your facts, your opinion.

[MrAce]

ok I assume you have facts to back you up. If that is what you think best in your judgment... ok.

 

 

Again your facts, your opinion.

 

Mike, trust me, neither you nor moderators want to hear my facts and opinions in a reply to you. Let's leave it at that.

[cherdano]

Most bridge players play by rote and never actually think about the game.

 

(C'mon, Arend - surely you know that the vast majority of students in Calculus pass the class by learning how to do calculus problems without actually understanding anything. Why should it be any different for bridge players?)

(Not singling out akwoo - just seems everybody misunderstood what I said.)

 

I never claimed anything different. "This is very basic" is not the same as "most people know this".

 

"Basic research" != "research everyone could do"

"It's a basic truth that currency union are only sustainable with constant transfer payments to poorer regions; yet most Europeans are seem to be unaware of this" is not a contradiction in terms.

Nor is "We spend 3 years teaching Calculus to high school and college students; yet afterwards they are good at complicated symbolic manipulations, but still don't understand basic concepts behind the notion derivative and integral".

 

Full Definition of BASIC

 

1

a : of, relating to, or forming the base or essence : fundamental <basic truths>

b : concerned with fundamental scientific principles : not applied <basic research>

 

2

: constituting or serving as the basis or starting point <a basic set of tools>

 

3

a : of, relating to, containing, or having the character of a chemical base

b : having an alkaline reaction

 

4

: containing relatively little silica <basic rocks>

 

5

: relating to, made by, used in, or being a process of making steel done in a furnace lined with basic material and under basic slag

[aguahombre]

I don't want to heat up anyone's firestorm, you guys can do that just fine. But the flaws in gadgets like Michaels are not built in to the convention; They are caused by its misuse.

 

Perhaps this North has seen South's Mikes before and doesn't trust him, or perhaps he doesn't know what to do about it -- like so many people who say o.k. thats what we play and have given it no further thought.

 

There are posters here who advocate doing it with 4-5, 5-4, and 4-4 hands. I would be reluctant to advance bids made by these folks, too.