[bid_em_up]

whereagles, on May 16 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 16 2006, 05:55 PM, said:

1.
It is a very anti-field, and anti-percentage action. That to me, is what I call masterminding.

2.
As always, jmoo.

1. Huh..? Apparently, to you anything that isn't conservative bidding is masterminding, eh?

2. Fair enough. To me, it's jmoo that you're wrong.

It really has nothing to do with being conservative. 1N is not descriptive of the hand, in any way, shape, form, or fashion. It is an anti-systemic bid (most likely), anti-field bid (the field will not be opening 1N, so you are swinging, in a sense), and most of the times, it will be a losing action. Also, it is anti-partnership, as it will irritate the crap out of your partner when you do this, and it fails.

Feel free to prove me wrong, though (but start a new thread to do it). Present a logical argument for opening it 1N then, if you can possibly find one. "Preemptive value" is not a reasonable argument for a bid that prevents your side from finding its best contract.

I, on the other hand, believe that I have presented several good reasons for NOT opening it 1N (as have many other posters).

You're quite welcome to open this hand 1N any time you feel like it. Just dont be surprised when you find your results are less than desirable.

We now return to our originally scheduled programming.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on May 16 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

What does "JMOO" mean?

Just My Own Opinion.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 16 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

foo, on May 16 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

What does "JMOO" mean?

Just my own opinion.

Interesting question from someone who typed TANSTAAFL on another thread

If "JMOO" is a Longism (actually Heinleinism ), it's not one I remember.

OTOH, TANSTAAFL is the quintessential Lazarus Long.

[bid_em_up]

foo, on May 16 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 16 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

foo, on May 16 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

What does "JMOO" mean?

Just my own opinion.

Interesting question from someone who typed TANSTAAFL on another thread

If "JMOO" is a Longism (actually Heinleinism ), it's not one I remember.

OTOH, TANSTAAFL is the quintessential Lazarus Long.

I've read Time Enough For Love probably 30 times, but I dont remember it.

Now i gotta go read it again lol!!

Hmm, on second thought.....thats what Google is for. I wouldnt consider this to be a Longism, since he did not appear in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

[whereagles]

bid_em_up, on May 16 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

1.
1N is not descriptive of the hand, in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

2.
It is an anti-systemic bid (most likely),

3.
anti-field bid (the field will not be opening 1N, so you are swinging, in a sense),

4.
and most of the times, it will be a losing action.

5.
Also, it is anti-partnership, as it will irritate the crap out of your partner when you do this, and it fails.

6.Present a logical argument for opening it 1N then, if you can possibly find one.

7.
You're quite welcome to open this hand 1N any time you feel like it. Just dont be surprised when you find your results are less than desirable.

1. Excuse me, but I must disagree. There are many experts who open 1NT on a 5M-3-3-2. From that to a 5M-4m-2-2 isn't that big a step, especially when the doubletons have honors, as in this case.

2. Only if you agree never to open 1NT with a 5 card major. Otherwise it's completely routine.

3. That I agree. But I play precision on occasion, so I'm used to go against the field.

4. Sorry, but that statement is void without presenting any serious statistics.

5. Not if you agree to open 1NT with 5 card majors. Is that such an alien concept to you that you call it "anti-partnership"?

6. Isn't that self-evident? If I describe 1NT as "15-17 with balanced or semi-balanced shape", this hand fits the description beautifully. It seems you're just not used to the semi-balanced part of the definition, but many people nowadays are dumping more and more hands into 1NT because they've understood the opening can take a few off-shape hands without creating too much trouble. The upside of this is easing the pressure on the 1M openings, which is also a good thing.

7. I've been opening 1NT on 5M4m22s for a while now and it works just fine (only with regular pards, though). If the doubletons are weakish I usually open 1M, but if they're strong 1NT is the bid.

[jdeegan]

4♣. An excellent problem, BUT the analysis contained in this thread IMO (or should I say, JMOO) is lacking in one important respect . NOBODY IS CONSTRUCTING HANDS FOR PARTNER. This particular problem is amenable to that approach because partner's distribution is considerably contrained.

The opponent's announced a 9+ card spade fit. This limits partner to two spades at most. Partner's negative double denies three hearts. Unless something is quite amiss, partner has nine or more minor suit cards and 8+ HCP.

Bankers have an interesting concept called the "worse case scenario" (WCS) that can be applied here. A WCS is not the worst possible case, but rather the worst case that is likely to happen. In this instance, it would look like:

♠ xx
♥ xx
♦ K9xxx
♣ AJxx

Even with this dog, one has a 25% play for 4♣ and three probable tricks against 3♠ in the form of one spade and two clubs. There are two finesses in the red suits. If 3♠ goes down, 4♣ probably makes, and vice versa. Four clubs doubled has three about equally likely outcomes:

down 2: -500 and minus 8 IMPs
down 1: -200 and minus 2 IMPs
making 4: +660 and plus 12 IMPs

So, a worse case scenario isn't too bad, and if partner has a better hand, we ought to be in good shape.

[whereagles]

I don't think you need to worry of opps doubling 4♣. They don't have the hcp to do that.