You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my observations, if not playing a strong club system, 1C balanced and transfer responses with 1D 5 or 4441 beats the snot out of “Partner, I bet you can't guess my pattern” 1m openings. Add Gazzilli and you should have pretty playable methods.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another way to think about this is, “Are you trying to bid games and slams, or part scores?” Raising to 2S may win more part scores. If I play in 2D and the other table is in 2S, I dont really care at imps. (And the 2D pref cant be 5422. We play reverse flan.) But being able to pattern out on game/slam hands is where the imps are. (We play relay methods after 1D-1S-2C-2H (GF).)
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the opponents have 9+ hearts and half the deck, modern experts are unlikely to allow the auction to proceed 1D-(P)-1S-(P). So when it does, there is an indication responder is going to have sufficient values to take a second call. This is even more so when the opening bid is virtually all 11 counts and some upgraded 10's. If you had one bid for your life, perhaps 2S should be it. But if you are going to be able to make two or more bids, rebidding 2C and then raising spades is a much better description of your hand.
David, I can see you favor the “Northern European Church.” I am a devout member of the “Pattern Bidder's Temple.” I will defend your right to exercise the religion of your choice but I don't have to agree with it.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I keep looking at it. My logic as posted and your logic appear to be the same. The difference was my crude rounding and my choice to use 5/62 which I knew would be enough and not 4 (which with my rounding would make the plays about equivalent.) So, I agree with your 5.51.
But my statement still stands. Experts looking at KQT9 in dummy and having no other reason to win the first round Ax “instinctively duck” 95+% of the time. I have no recollection of an expert declarer winning first round from Ax. (No my experience is not statistically reliable (nor is my memory), but my reason for asking the question was to determine if others agree.)
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This post violates the Bridge Winners community standards. It is a question about religion. My god tells me that 2C is the right rebid. Someone else may worship a different god who requires a 2S rebid. Those who are “wishy-washy” are obviously nonbelievers.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one ever took the bait on how do they believe competent opponents behave so I am going to say it myself. I believe that when KQT9 is in dummy, they duck their Ax from behind damn near 100% and certainly more than the ~8% necessary (assuming there aren't other reasons for winning first round, e.g., give partner a ruff.)
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, doesn't that depend on what is meant by the “spirit of the policy”? If the spirit is to balance the competing interests of full disclosure and avoiding UI in circumstances where an alert may or may not be necessary, then it is very relevant. Writing a rule which relies on an understanding of its “spirit” (an undefined term) creates problems in interpretation and application.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get the “bid” concept and I understand this only applies where there are no screens. My concern was more with the statement, “players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter.” My example of a lead inhibiting double is something I would not expect many opponents to expect and it would seem that the “spirit” would be to alert. Of course, the flip side is that these sorts of doubles are also forgotten from time to time and the alert may awaken partner, aka UI.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are we to assume that “all doubles” takes priority over “bids which have a special meaning.” For example, lead inhibiting doubles which say, “lead something other than the suit doubled.”
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play a strong club system with agressive openings as most do (we are told NS are playing a club system) and constructive raises (a good idea with agressive openings because otherwise your range is too large), your “box” as responder is not 6-9. A four trip 10 count is a “normal” raise to two. After a short suit game try, the DK is not carrying its weight but the SA and HK are certainly big cards. To not bid game when partner raises your 7 bagger is hopeless. Trust the law and all that. On the other hand, responder might have kicked it in.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play Daytona most years because we have a condo just down the road in the “Shark Bite Capital of the World”, a moniker the local chamber of commerce tends not to brag about. But, seriously, don't wear too much bling if you go swimming. The flashes from the jewelry look like baitfish.
If you care about strength of field, Daytona will undoubtedly be the strongest. One proxy for how strong the field is is the number of master points you win in the top bracket. I would not expect the other regionals to be close.
The drive from Orlando isn't too bad. The town is your typical beach resort. Relativelyly cheap food and lodging and it does have a very nice beach. If you get a day off, go see the race track. I am not a motor head but I found it very interesting.
All that said, if I lived in the Bay area, I would probably go to Puerto Vallarta.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, As a dice player, a gamester and a puzzle solver, I thought you were “the man” to answer my question of how to randomize, physically and actually, at the table. Read above to David Wetzel's response. He is thinking about it the way I do. No, “time on your watch” = clearly illegal, using an aid. No = encrpyted signals. And no = “boards 12, 24 and 36.” Unauthorized agreement not disclosed.
So, imagine you want to play “X” 92% of the time and “Y” 8%, the question that fascinates me at the moment is how to do that. The next generation computer will intuit it to the nth decimal point.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to play that 1C was either a 10-12 notrump or “strong” (16+hcp). We told our opponents that we believed they each occurred with roughly equal regularity. It is always difficult to quantify something like that accurately because we used our judgment to upgrade and downgrade (typically more of the former than the latter) or to choose an alternative bid (think a six card minor or five card major in range). I think our disclosure served its intended purpose which was to warn the opponents that if they wanted to screw around over our 1C there was a significant risk that it could really be their hand.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See Mike Bell's response. If you always play the A from Ax the first round, then when you don't you can't have Ax. The relevant positions are then either a singleton x or Jx. Since Jx is more likely than x, your defense has given the declarer an edge he is not entitled to.
Of course, this all assumes that declarer knows what the defender is going to do. As most defenders don't know what they are doing, how can declarer possibly know. That was the point of my third question.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not expect unanimity because there is no perfect bridge answer. Bidding 2C or 2D is “going low”, bidding 3C or 3D is closer to the proper value call but is putting all your eggs in one basket, and partner is generally entitled to expect a better stopper than JTx for a 1NT bid.
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David, I can see you favor the “Northern European Church.” I am a devout member of the “Pattern Bidder's Temple.” I will defend your right to exercise the religion of your choice but I don't have to agree with it.
David Caprera
But my statement still stands. Experts looking at KQT9 in dummy and having no other reason to win the first round Ax “instinctively duck” 95+% of the time. I have no recollection of an expert declarer winning first round from Ax. (No my experience is not statistically reliable (nor is my memory), but my reason for asking the question was to determine if others agree.)
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
(Where is Nino Scalia when we need him?)
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
David Caprera
If you care about strength of field, Daytona will undoubtedly be the strongest. One proxy for how strong the field is is the number of master points you win in the top bracket. I would not expect the other regionals to be close.
The drive from Orlando isn't too bad. The town is your typical beach resort. Relativelyly cheap food and lodging and it does have a very nice beach. If you get a day off, go see the race track. I am not a motor head but I found it very interesting.
All that said, if I lived in the Bay area, I would probably go to Puerto Vallarta.
David Caprera
So, imagine you want to play “X” 92% of the time and “Y” 8%, the question that fascinates me at the moment is how to do that. The next generation computer will intuit it to the nth decimal point.
David Caprera
David Caprera
Of course, this all assumes that declarer knows what the defender is going to do. As most defenders don't know what they are doing, how can declarer possibly know. That was the point of my third question.
David Caprera
But what does matchpoints have to do with bridge?
David Caprera