[jdonn]

foo, on Mar 19 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

This is definitely a wtp opener.

4th hand at IMPs playing a mainstream style you consider
Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx
a "wtp opener"?

Ah, the days of being a Junior...

I think I opened 1NT with 14 at some point today too. Then I got arrested for riding my skateboard in a parking lot, which made me late for teeball.

Ah, the days of being a bridge player...

[jchiu]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 06:28 AM, said:

foo, on Mar 19 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

This is definitely a wtp opener.

4th hand at IMPs playing a mainstream style you consider
Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx
a "wtp opener"?

Ah, the days of being a Junior...

Foo,

You are such an idiot.

Love,

Justin.

Justin should stop posting the obvious. Think of the server storage space.

[foo]

Gentlemen, this is a teaching site.

Telling people that 8 loser 4333 12 counts are "wtp" 4th seat opener's playing IMPs opposite the average aggression now standard in 2nd seat playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF is simply not good Bridge advice.

...and if the pair is enamoured with Light Initial Action as in the Rule of 20, it rates to be a mine waiting to explode.

The Roth Stoners can consider the likes of Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx a "wtp" 4th seat opener playing IMPs. That's because they systemically pass just about every 13 count in 2nd seat. Maybe the old style Goren folks as well since they systemically would pass many 13 counts.

But any pair more aggressive than that in 1st or 2nd should be more cautious about opening this. Anyone who considers JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx or the like a "normal" 1st or 2nd seat opening had best be passing out the board when holding the OP hand ASAP.

The more aggressive your action is systemically in 1st or 2nd, the more sound it has to be in 3rd or 4th. Especially playing IMPs.

I'll fire up Dealmaster Pro and see if I remember enough of what my friends have taught me to get and post some pertinent results.

Or perhaps you folks should be forced to open all of these opposite standard aggression and then play or defend the resulting contracts XX. If that doesn't drive the point home perhaps you should be forced to put a month's wages at risk while doing it.

[Trinidad]

foo, on Mar 19 2008, 03:03 AM, said:

Gentlemen, this is a teaching site.

Telling people that 8 loser 4333 12 counts are "wtp" 4th seat opener's playing IMPs opposite the average aggression now standard in 2nd seat playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF is simply not good Bridge advice.

It is fairly obvious that the answer to the question whether to open this hand in fourth seat depends on partner's aggressiveness in 2nd seat. Well, partner's aggressiveness was given in the OP:

Quote

(Partner will open most 12 pts and some 11 pts with 5 card Major).

But what is at least as important is: How aggressive are the opponents in 1st and 3rd? I would say that there is general concensus that 1st and 3rd seats are the positions where you would want to be aggressive while one would take a more conservative approach in 2nd seat. If you have reasonably 'modern' opponents, the odds are that your side has more power than they do.

The given hand (Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx) has the advantage that it can pass any response by partner (unless you play inversions ). After my 1♦ opening and subsequent pass, I expect to score +110, +90, +80, +50 or -50, each about 20% of the time with +140 and -110 as outsiders. I would expect to gain 0.2*3+0.2*3+0.2*2+0.2*2-0.2*2 IMPs = 1.6 IMPs if they pass at the other table.

If I have to make 24 decisions like this in a 24 board match, I will win by 24*1.6=38 IMPs. That is 22-8 in VPs on a set of horribly boring hands.

Rik

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Mar 19 2008, 12:47 AM, said:

Their expected number of ♠'s is 10/3. ♥'s 10/3. ♦'s 9/3. ♣'s 10/3.
IOW, a flat hand like yours.

That simply isn't correct. The fact that your hand is flat does not mean that your partner's hand will be flat. It increases the odds, but only slightly.

[pclayton]

Foo, I'm sorry but you have lost any remaining credibility you had with me. You constantly challenge the better players with minority viewpoints in a vain attempt to appear intelligent. Frankly I think you are just contrarian by nature, and I'd like to believe you really wouldn't take a lot of the actions you espouse at the table.

You are correct, BBF is a teaching site. I hope the newer players recognize that you aren't teaching anything useful and that they should disregard your posts.

If you want to float some ideas that aren't mainstream as 'something to consider', I want to encourage that. But to blather on how opening this is unsound, when so many great players are saying it isn't is ludicrous.

[jdonn]

Foo, free advice. You bring this on yourself by responding to EVERY POST that disagrees with yours! If you want to avoid this sort of treatment, my recomendation is you post your opinion once, then only post again in the thread if:

- Someone quotes your post or otherwise directly replies to it.
- Someone asks you a question.
- You have a NEW and UNRELATED point to make based on someone elses post.

I mean look at mine as an example, I just post my opinion, not in relation to anything you said, and you feel the need to dispute it despite your opinion having been stated several times already, and in doing so you offer nothing new except some passing comment implying only those crazy juniors would be brash enough to open a balanced 12 count. You quit doing that sort of thing and I guarantee everyone's problems with you will go away...

[han]

Opening a balanced 12-count in 4th seat is a mine field waiting to explode!

[foo]

josh, han, etc

This is =IMPs= folks, not MPs.

You can not both tell people that it is normal to open hands like JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx in 1st or 2nd and at the same time tell them it is "wtp" to open in 4th with hands like the OP Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx and in good conscience call it good Bridge advice.

If GOP's initial pass denies hands as weak as JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx WTH do you think they rate to have over there?

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores. That's =MPs=. IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

There is just about zero chance that a pair playing the sort of Light Initial Action you folks advocate as "normal" is going to miss a game or slam by passing out Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx in 4th.

OTOH, there is a fairly decent chance that a 1♦ opening could get you into trouble. IOW, I disagree with Trinidad's expectation analysis.

I'm trying to put together some decent results to shed some more objective light on the topic.

As for the Ad Hominem stuff, this is not a popularity contest. I really do not give a darn about the mutual admiration society in some cliques around here. I care about giving developing players good advice and learning things myself.

All anyone is going to learn from advice as aggressive as what I'm objecting to is how to get bad results in IMP events and how to lose a lot of $$$ when playing for stakes.

As I said, stiffen up the requirements for 1st and 2nd openings by enough and I have no problem with calling the OP hand a 4th seat opening playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF. But not for the style that is being advocated as mainstream around here by many.

[Codo]

foo, on Mar 20 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

As for the Ad Hominem stuff, this is not a popularity contest. I really do not give a darn about the mutual admiration society in some cliques around here. I care about giving developing players good advice and learning things myself.

I am surely not in a "clique" with Josh or Han.

But if you care about giving "good device", you better stop posting, because your devices are no good at all.

There is nothing wrong in having a different point of view, but it should be a sane view.

Look for example at Ken Rexfords advices: They are more often then not far away from the mainstream.
But he is a very respected member of this community, even if many people often disagree with his ideas.

But there is a difference in the way he puts his idea and the way you try it.
And there is a difference in the value of the advices too. His advices have a big value, even if you don't share his views.

In the given hand it is simply more often wrong to pass this hand then to open it. (No question that this is a close descission, but still ALL open it.) . At least all bridge players opens it, just a lone wolf in the dark still howls.

You don´t just win imps for slams and games. I will win 3 imps any time I make my 2 Heart on the given hand and you pass it out.

[skjaeran]

foo, on Mar 20 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores. That's =MPs=. IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

Excuse me, but you're not entirely correct here.

If you sit down and do a proper analysis of IMP games, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that those teams that consistently do best at the partscore level are those teams who overall do well.

It's true you can't compare MP and IMP here. But if you consistently manage to go plus on the partscore deals, you're going to be a huge winner overall. Dont' care if your score is +90, +110, +120 or whatever, +50 is also a good score compared to -110. If you can score +110 in a 3m contract you don't care at all if +120 or +140 is possible. If your teammates have a plus score, you win the board with 4-6 IMPs.

Because of frequency, you'll add up enough IMPs at the partscore level to be able to stand missing a very tough slam. Almost anyone can bid the games you should reach at IMPs, and most of the slams.

The OP hand is mainly about competing for the partscore. Game is just possible, but not a big issue when deciding to open the hand or pass.

[foo]

skaeran, on Mar 20 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

foo, on Mar 20 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores.  That's =MPs=.  IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

Excuse me, but you're not entirely correct here.

If you sit down and do a proper analysis of IMP games, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that those teams that consistently do best at the partscore level are those teams who overall do well.

It's true you can't compare MP and IMP here. But if you consistently manage to go plus on the partscore deals, you're going to be a huge winner overall. Dont' care if your score is +90, +110, +120 or whatever, +50 is also a good score compared to -110. If you can score +110 in a 3m contract you don't care at all if +120 or +140 is possible. If your teammates have a plus score, you win the board with 4-6 IMPs.

Because of frequency, you'll add up enough IMPs at the partscore level to be able to stand missing a very tough slam. Almost anyone can bid the games you should reach at IMPs, and most of the slams.

The OP hand is mainly about competing for the partscore. Game is just possible, but not a big issue when deciding to open the hand or pass.

If you consider JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a "normal" opening bid in 1st or 2nd as many advocate around here, your pard rates to have real garbage in their hand when they pass in 1st or 2nd, and therefore opening 8 loser 4333 12 counts in 4th rates to go minus often enough and by large enough margins that the overall long term expectation is negative.

That makes it bad IMPs strategy to open the OP hand under such circumstances.

The OP board had a single dummy expectation of ~6.9 tricks with ♥'s as trump.
IOW, you did not rate to make even 2♥
The OP went down in 1N.

I'm fairly sure that if you play an initial action style as aggressive as that many around here advocate and consider 8+ loser 4333 12 counts in 4th normal openings your long term IMP expectation is negative.

I am trying to put together some math + a sim to prove it.

[jdonn]

foo, on Mar 20 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

If you consider JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a "normal" opening bid in 1st or 2nd as many advocate around here....

FOO!!!!! You have given the same example hand in just about every post. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! You are just repeating the exact same post over, and over, and over, and over. If you have nothing new to post then don't post! This ad hominim stuff is baloney, you bring this on yourself.

Now on top of that, NO ONE has advocated opening the hand in your example. It is an example I used in a different thread about whether to open JT KQJxx KJxx xx. My point was essentially that the hand in the thread is a lot better than other hands of the same shape and strength, such as [the one you keep using]. I never said I would open it, so your "many" is "me" and your "advocate" is "doesn't advocate". Other than that, the post you have made many times already is very convincing. Pleeeeease learn how to post or don't post.

[foo]

Bullshit. You called JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a reasonable opening.
TBF, You also called JT=KQJxx=KJxx=xx a better opening.

Both are basically Light Initial Action openings that are aggressive even by Rule of 20 standards.

But nonetheless, you and others are advocating them as "normal".
The above also conform to the opening standards given by the OP.

Fine. A tad too rich for my taste, but style can vary.

My problem is that anyone in the fan club you and others have gone out of your way to create around here is going to read =all= your posts and assume the aggregate represents your overall systemic advice.

...and openings such as above do not belong in the same style as 4th seat openings on 8+ loser 12 count 4333's.

Now since you seem to think there's not enough information being posted here; how about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition?

I'll even start you off. How about if an opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening?

Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

[jdonn]

foo, on Mar 21 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

Bullshit.  You called JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a reasonable opening.

jdonn, on Mar 18 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

I see nothing wrong with opening the south hand. All the honors are in the long suits. It's a better hand than JT QJxxx KJxx Kx or something.

That is the one and only time I mentioned that hand. I never said I would open it, in fact I quite clearly implied that I wouldn't, and indeed I wouldn't. It has since been mentioned on the forums probably about 8 more times, all by you, all lying about what I said about it to begin with. Care to continue to make a jackass of yourself? Are you seriously trying to argue with me about what I said, which is there for everyone to see you are completely wrong?

There is no fan club by the way. As far as I know the fan club consists of everyone but you on the forums wanting you to leave.

[han]

Glad to see that you are enjoying yourself Josh.

[jmc]

Partner and I play precision with a 10-13 NT and open all 11's plus Rule of 20 hands. I have been happily passing out 4th seat 12 counts under these conditions for the last 3 years. We are way ahead in the mp area.

[foo]

jmc, on Mar 21 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

Partner and I play precision with a 10-13 NT and open all 11's plus Rule of 20 hands. I have been happily passing out 4th seat 12 counts under these conditions for the last 3 years. We are way ahead in the mp area.

This I 100% believe.

[foo]

Josh and others advocating 8+ loser 4333 12 counts as "wtp" 3rd and 4th seat openings:

How about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition?

I'll even start you off. How about if a 1st oir 2nd seat opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening?

Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

..and please feel free to note if there is a difference IYHO as to standards here @ IMPs vs @ MPs.