Open This With?
#1
Posted 2008-March-28, 00:54
IMPs, All Red, First Seat
♠KQJ9xxx ♥KJxxx ♦void ♣x
Your call.
#2
Posted 2008-March-28, 01:39
#3
Posted 2008-March-28, 01:41
George Carlin
#4
Posted 2008-March-28, 02:04
--Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.
#5
Posted 2008-March-28, 02:49
#6
Posted 2008-March-28, 04:04
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#8
Posted 2008-March-28, 05:39
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#9
Posted 2008-March-28, 08:28
rogerclee, on Mar 28 2008, 01:54 AM, said:
IMPs, All Red, First Seat
♠KQJ9xxx ♥KJxxx ♦void ♣x
Your call.
How good is "pretty good"?
If "pretty good" means "they are good, but we are even better", I would open 1♠, which I consider the technically better bid. I will try to play the percentages and expect some IMPs coming in here and there.
If, on the other hand the opponents are better, I expect to loose some IMPs here and there. It may be great to loose a 24 board match against Nickel with a score of 8-11, which may be the best you can hope for if you play your absolute best bridge.
But this is a board where you can create a large swing in IMPs by going only slightly against the odds. Okay, 2 times out of 5, you will loose the board if you open 4♠: you will loose the match which you were destined to do anyway. 2 times out of 5, nothing special will happen: you will also loose the match, it's destiny. But 1 time out of 5, you might just win 12 IMPs. If there is another board like this, you are given a 0.2x 0.2 =0.04 (4%) chance to actually beat these guys and defy destiny (unless they can overcome a 24 IMP margin on the other 22 "boring" boards).
Let me think: Go for a 0% chance to win and a 50% chance to keep the margin small (and a 50% chance to loose big) or go for a 4% chance to win, a 16% chance to keep the margin small and an 80 % chance to loose big. I would grab the 4% chance that I am given to actually beat these guys. And I would do it again at the next opportunity.. and the next.. and the next, untill I once succeed. (After that I will be so arrogant that I will play technical bridge, since "I rate to beat them anyway".
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#10
Posted 2008-March-28, 08:35
#12
Posted 2008-March-28, 09:05
#13
Posted 2008-March-28, 09:07
-P.J. Painter.
#14
Posted 2008-March-28, 09:09
- hrothgar
#15
Posted 2008-March-28, 10:15
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#16
Posted 2008-March-28, 14:17
andy_h, on Mar 28 2008, 11:15 AM, said:
Cobras usually play best in the 7-card suit.
EDIT: forgot to add smillie, this was a joke.
- hrothgar
#17
Posted 2008-March-29, 00:15
Harald
#18
Posted 2008-March-29, 00:26
This hand is no exception, but isn't really a strong case. I opened this 4♠ in first and it got swished out for +650.
At the other table, the player in my seat (actually a pretty good player) opened 1♠ and it got competitive quickly. He failed to pull a double of 5♦, which made, but 6♦ is a good sacrifice which is impossible to find after opening 4♠.
#19 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-March-29, 01:17
#20
Posted 2008-March-29, 19:25
rogerclee, on Mar 28 2008, 01:54 AM, said:
IMPs, All Red, First Seat ♠KQJ9xxx ♥KJxxx ♦void ♣x
Your call.
IMO 4♠ = 10, 1♠ = 7. _P = 4.
However you treat this hand, you hope to end up in 4♠, so you might as well save time and give problems to opponents rather than to partner. It is easier for opponents to cope with stereotypical pre-empts. Terence Reese railed against "The pre-empt that is known to be weak".

Help
