[mikestar]

ArtK78, on Apr 28 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Much too good to overcall the first time.  Besides, you can handle any response from partner.

Have to double 5♣.  If we play in 5♣x, I would be surprised if they made it, but I have been surprised before.

True as far as it goes, but with the club void is it at all hard to imagine opponents bidding 5♣ to put you to a guess at the 5-level? I think the chance of missing slam is less likely than being outbid in clubs when you show strength by doubling. 4♠ puts the enemy on a guess where the cards are.

If they bid 5♣ over my ostensible preempt, I will double them. This will clue my partner in that I bid 4♠ to make, so he will have some useful data in deciding between 5♠ and pass. He will bid 6♠ on some perfectos that he wouldn't be sure about not knowing about my spade length: this will compensate for some of the time we won't get to a red suit when we should.

Consider also that responder may not bid 5♣ when his partner has not had a chance to show real clubs. Even if we have slam, 4♠ making 6 will outscore anything we can get defending clubs.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Apr 29 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

3. I figured at worse I'd be turning a +200 (if I doubled) into a -200 when I bid 5♠ (and got x'd). If either 5♣ was wrapping and /or 5♠ is, bidding on is a huge gain. Again, +500 against 5♣ just seems very remote to me with a hand this offensive.

-200 instead of +200 is a 9 IMP loss. -200 instead of -600 is a 9 IMP gain, and +650 instead of -200 is a 10 IMP gain, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

In any case, I think the odds that I have to play hearts by myself when I bid 5♠ are too big (when partner doesn't have an entry). In that case bidding may turn +500 into -500.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, but they are vulnerable.

[ArtK78]

mikestar, on Apr 29 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 28 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Much too good to overcall the first time.  Besides, you can handle any response from partner.

Have to double 5♣.  If we play in 5♣x, I would be surprised if they made it, but I have been surprised before.

True as far as it goes, but with the club void is it at all hard to imagine opponents bidding 5♣ to put you to a guess at the 5-level? I think the chance of missing slam is less likely than being outbid in clubs when you show strength by doubling. 4♠ puts the enemy on a guess where the cards are.

If they bid 5♣ over my ostensible preempt, I will double them. This will clue my partner in that I bid 4♠ to make, so he will have some useful data in deciding between 5♠ and pass. He will bid 6♠ on some perfectos that he wouldn't be sure about not knowing about my spade length: this will compensate for some of the time we won't get to a red suit when we should.

Consider also that responder may not bid 5♣ when his partner has not had a chance to show real clubs. Even if we have slam, 4♠ making 6 will outscore anything we can get defending clubs.

I really do not expect that my next opportunity to bid will be at the 5 level when I have a hand this good at both vul, even with the club void.

As for bidding 4♠ first and doubling 5♣ when that comes back to me, I think it gives an impression of a truly one-suited hand rather than the 3-suited hand that I have. A typical hand for 4♠ followed by double would be something like:

AKQTxxx
KQx
Ax
x

The message that I try to convey with this sequence is that I bid 4♠ to make, not that I have a penalty double of 5♣. Partner will understand that while my spades are very strong, they may not take too many tricks on defense against 5♣ and will act accordingly.

While the double followed by double sequence on the hand given in this thread will certainly not reveal my powerful spade suit, it is not the type of spade suit that I would intend to show by bidding 4♠ first and then doubling.

[pclayton]

Wow.

Quote

Phil you seem to always find the worst time to apply this. LHO is bidding as a save.

RHO is saving here.

Quote

He is likely just weak and shapely. There's no reason to think he will not go down 2.

Generalizations, generalizations, generalizations. Give me a hand! Show me why 5♣ is going -2, especially when 5♠ isn't making, since this is the best argument for doubling. Construct some logical hands for RHO and I will show you why I think 5♠ is right.

Quote

Red/red opponents can bid as a save with 5 clubs and a stiff and not much else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....You really think that in this auction your LHO could not have bid 5C with a 5-5 near-yarborough and a spade void knowing you have 10+ spades and they have 11+ clubs?

Too many exclamation points to count. Are you making an advance save on a 1=4=3=5 bust? That really looks rich to me, especially when the opponents haven't bid game yet. I think RHO is 5-5 here and LHO is a lock to hold 6 clubs. So, lets count:

Pard has two clubs. Pard has three to five hearts (and when he has 5, LHO isn't getting a ruff). That leaves six to eight cards in the pointed's. When pard holds 4 spades, we are an overwhelming favorite to make 5♠. +500 against 5♣? No way.

When pard holds 3 spades, 5 diamonds and a yarb (OK I need a diamond better than the 9), we are still cold, as long as spades aren't 4-0. 5♣ looks to be a likely -1 or -2 here, with us getting 1♠, 1♥ and 1 or 2's ♦. I'd say -1 / -2 is equally likely here.

I'm really discounting pard to hold 2♠ / 6♦'s. As long as pard has some useful card, this hand takes a 2♦ call over 2♣.

In short, the EV for bidding is looking really good over doubling.

Quote

Please do not use this rule anymore to justify decisions to go to the 5 level because every time I have seen you use it on the forums it has been in a very silly context (snip) Even if he EXPECTS to go down 3 a fair amount of time it is a good bid (especially against you).

I think I'll throw the ad hominem flag on this one. I don't really care if you disagree, but don't refer to call someone else silly, or imply that I am making bad calls.

Give me another hand where I advocated this. The one Roger doubled 5♦ and traded 800 for 1430 or 2210? Yeah, guilty.

I probably bid too much at the five level. I'll agree with that, and I'm sure you could dredge up some examples over the past three years where I have on here. I'd like to think my high level judgment has improved over the past several years, but I don't think this hand or Roger's is a good example of a hand not to bid on.

By the way, I gave this hand to Chris Larsen. Some of you might respect his opinions and some of you might not but no one is going to disagree that he is a damn good player. He thought it was close between 5♠ and 6♠. I thought 6 was really, really excessive, since you will frequently be facing a yarb, and he ended up agreeing, but he thought double was something that never crossed his mind. But if someone like Chris is thinking six is the right bid, then how far off the mark is five? And to totally discount a double? I told him to poll some of his friends, and I'll report back.

By the way, he chuckled when he gave him pard's hand. He said "+1430, right again"

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Apr 29 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

-200 instead of +200 is a 9 IMP loss. -200 instead of -600 is a 9 IMP gain, and +650 instead of -200 is a 10 IMP gain, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Arend what I am saying is that we are losing nine IMPs in one specific scenario. In two others the loss is about the same.

[jdonn]

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

[Echognome]

From my reading, Phil is arguing the bridge merits and not just refusing to listen to anybody. Note that he said he was going to explain why he felt bidding 5♠ was right. I don't really want to get involved with the bridge argument. I obviously respect the game of most of the posters involved. But I think some of you are being unduly harsh on him.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Apr 29 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong. Sure it could be obvious to you, but it might not be obvious to everyone. I don't see the harm in making a case. Sure it might be torn apart, but I certainly learn from it when I make an argument and a better player tells me why I am wrong. It's certainly more constructive than "the majority says you're wrong, isn't that enough?"

[jchiu]

Flame war!

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Apr 29 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

Lol, Phil you are beyond hope and I'm not referring to your bridge. Good luck.

Thanks. If my bridge was beyond hope, I'd be feeling pretty crappy right now.

[han]

Ch00 you bid like my grandmother.

[jchiu]

han, on Apr 30 2008, 05:43 AM, said:

Ch00 you bid like my grandmother.

Oh yeah??? You play cards like the rueful rabbit!

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Apr 30 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 29 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong.

Who was debating? He posted, when almost no one agreed he was teaching, he was obviously never going to be convinced he was wrong. I've got nothing against Phil, but he became everything I hate in this thread.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 29 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 30 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 29 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

Phil I really expect better out of you than posting as one of those who already has their mind made up and refuses to be swayed by a clear consensus to the contrary. It's not like it's just Justin, it's almost everyone! So your answer is to explain why the opposite is still right, peanut gallery be damned?

I don't understand this. Shouldn't we debate why something is right or wrong.

Who was debating? He posted, when almost no one agreed he was teaching, he was obviously never going to be convinced he was wrong. I've got nothing against Phil, but he became everything I hate in this thread.

That's funny Josh.

Because up until a few minutes ago, this thread was turning into everything I hate. Which is, "provide all the examples you want, but I am a better player than you, and no matter how much logic you throw at me, you are wrong. I don't need to give you any reasons, just go away".

As far as "I'll never be convinced I am wrong", that is incorrect and I can give you many instances on here where I have reversed my opinion". I'm just not that kind of individual.

Up until this point, no one has presented any compelling reasons to the contrary. I'm reviewing Justin's latest and I'll try to respond to it tonight.