[slothy]

IS it just me??

I find that advert of Larry Cohen in BBO very distracting.....

i am sat there playing a hand....AND THE GUY IS STARING AT ME FROM THE CORNER OF THE SCREEN.....he hypnotising me man.....bad, real bad...

20 mins later i shake my head and i am OK....but by now we on to next hand and he still looking at me

slothy

[pbleighton]

"20 mins later i shake my head and i am OK....but by now we on to next hand and he still looking at me"

He can't understand why you didn't bid 3 spades.

Moron.

Learn to bid, he'll go away.

Peter

[slothy]

pbleighton, on Apr 7 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

He can't understand why you didn't bid 3 spades.

Moron.

Learn to bid, he'll go away.

Peter

Well you can talk Peter!!!!

He was looking at you in EXACTLY the same way when you bid that 5♦ VULNERABLE.... YES Vulnerable..

[jdonn]

Hmmm, I had thought he just finds me to be a handsome man.

[pbleighton]

"He was looking at you in EXACTLY the same way when you bid that 5♦ VULNERABLE.... YES Vulnerable.."

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD SAC!!!!!!!!!!

Peter

[slothy]

Havent see the advert for a couple of days now

[cherdano]

I can't see any of the ads as I am using WINE, but I would love to be able to blame LC when my law raises turn out badly...

[Gerben42]

The Law always worked perfectly for me until Mike Lawrence came along and pointed out that it doesn't, since then it has gone downhill. A bit like a cartoon character who doesn't fall until he notices there is no ground below him

[inquiry]

Gerben42, on Apr 10 2007, 07:12 AM, said:

The Law always worked perfectly for me until Mike Lawrence came along and pointed out that it doesn't, since then it has gone downhill. A bit like a cartoon character who doesn't fall until he notices there is no ground below him

One needs a guiding principle when trying to decide on close hands. One principle might be, if all else is equal, the queen will be over the Jack so finessee it that way. Another might be, if deciding to bid or not, and it is close, follow the law.

We all know there are times the queen doesn't lie over the jack (perhaps one might think that is about exactly 50% of the time), but even if you decide when it is a pure guess to always play it that way, we know that from the bidding, the distribution in other suits, and the card play, we might go against the rule that the queen is always there (if that is the way you decide to play). The same thing applies for the law. There will be other factors to take into consideration.. how aggressive your partner/opponents are, the location of honors in your hand, the quality of ODR. If after taking all those into effect, you still can't decide bid or pass, following the law would be a reasonable approach. If I am 4333 with four card support for partner, I frequently down grade the law by at least one... maybe that is just me. Maybe that is application of "I fought the law"....

[Gerben42]

C'mon Ben this is the water cooler, I didn't mean my post literally...

[Al_U_Card]

Hey Gerben, does that mean that I can't mention that I always put the queen in the same hand where the 8 is?

[Gerben42]

No, especially since it is well known that out of symmetry considerations the Queen is exactly opposite of the 4.

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on Apr 10 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

One needs a guiding principle when trying to decide on close hands. One principle might be, if all else is equal, the queen will be over the Jack so finesse it that way.

We all know there are times the queen doesn't lie over the jack (perhaps one might think that is about exactly 50% of the time), but even if you decide when it is a pure guess to always play it that way, we know that from the bidding, the distribution in other suits, and the card play, we might go against the rule that the queen is always there (if that is the way you decide to play).

Ben, I will assume you know where this theory is derived from, but maybe others don't. (I also can't tell if your post was tongue-in-cheek or not).

The "Queen lies over the Jack" comes from the principle of actually playing with physical cards and tossing them into the middle of the table (i.e. rubber bridge). Since people would normally cover an honor with an honor, then the Queen would "cover" the jack or "be over it".

In a shuffle and play environment, the theory was that the two cards were more likely to remain together in the shuffle/dealing the next deal, leaving the queen still lying over the jack on the next deal, and quite surprisingly, it worked more often than not, usually as a result of improper/inadequate shuffling.

This idiom has no merit in an online play environment, where a computer randomly generates the hands. Obviously, in this environment, it is 50% either way....unless there are other factors (bidding, distribution, etc) to indicate otherwise.

[Al_U_Card]

Gerben42, on Apr 10 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

No, especially since it is well known that out of symmetry considerations the Queen is exactly opposite of the 4.

Doesn't group theory also address the "hand"edness of the 4 Q's? (God, when he stops playing dice with the universe, is gonna get me for that one!)

[BillHiggin]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 10 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

(God, when he stops playing dice with the universe, is gonna get me for that one!)

Nah!
He gonna get you cuz you pooh-pooed minors in another thread