[matmat]

the urinals are in the water cooler forum, gentelmen.

[awm]

An interesting side observation:

It's much more tempting to blast 5♣ with a hand short in spades, than a hand short in diamonds. This is because opener's 2♣ bid pretty much denies four spades, whereas it could easily contain four diamonds. Also, 5♣X going down may be a good sacrifice against 4♠ but it's a silly sacrifice against 4♦. For example, I think 0544 is a much better 5♣ bid than 4504, and bidding 5♣ with 3514 seems totally ridiculous whereas 1534 I could sort of see (although it's pushy).

Anyways, if we suppose that RHO has 0-1♠, what do we think is going on? There are 6-7 spades between partner and LHO. Isn't partner a favorite to have four of those, especially considering that LHO has a large number of clubs whereas partner has probably two or three of them?

[Codo]

I am no partner of Phil, but he made some points why he thought that 5 Spade is the winning call. I liked that, it opened my mind, no matterwhether I agree or disagree.

Justin made some good bridge statements why 5 Spade is not good. Fine, I liked that too and may agree or disagree.

But he and Josh made some remarks which are insulting and contended no bridge reasons. I hated that part and see no reason for anybody to write such statements. In my view it just shows bad manners and the disability to discuss.

[pclayton]

Justin:

Please don't think for a second that you are educating me on what an Appeal to Authority or an Ad Hominem attack is. Up until an hour ago, you had provided very little evidence why you think double is superior. Like it or not, you made AH comments. You said that bidding 5♣ is more appealing if "I" was on your left. Sorry but you attacked the character of the person presenting the argument. I doubt I will convince you otherwise but it is a fact.

As far as an appeal to authority (Chris) is concerned, he is the only bridge authority I have asked outside this forum about this hand. I intend to ask others. Just because he says bidding is right. doesn't mean that it is. Just because you say doubling is right doesn't mean that it is. All we can do is present logical arguments and make an informed decision. His comments, however, are relevant in a bridge forum, since he is a recognized authority.

Back to bridge.

If you believe that RHO can really be 5-4 or even 4-4 in the round suits for this bidding then by all means double. Hell, a 4-4 brings 800 into play for both 5♣ and 5♠. I don't debate this for one second. My argument hinges on RHO being 5-5, because in my experience (more limited than yours, especially at the higher levels I admit) this is what he'll have at equal (I know I said vul earlier, and I recognize your point about the irrelevancy of r/r vs w/w) a great majority of the time. This was my read at the table, and FWIW, it was right.

If someone wants to run a sim with these parameters, I sure would be interested. LHO is 11-15 with 6-7 clubs. RHO has at least 4 points and has exactly 5-5 in hearts and clubs. If by chance 5♠ works out worse than a double in these conditions, then I will be the first to admit I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

In your earlier post, you made no mention of less than a 5-5, as a matter of fact you said 5-5 yourself. If you now believe that RHO will quite often be less, I'll grant you this. I am of the opinion that some 5-4 or 4-4 for that matter might not jam it into game. Perhaps a 4♣ call that invites pard to save over the anticipated 4♠ is a better plan. I really don't know. It's an interesting problem to say the least, and the validity of bid versus double might well come down to the frequency of different holdings.

[pclayton]

By the way, I went back and looked at the movie. Pard actually held a 4=3=4=2. They did have 11 clubs as it turned out.

5S Hand

[whereagles]

what's going on here..? a flamewar? well, I didn't read any of it, but, as a matter of principle. I'll be for Phil and against Justin. Nothing personal. As I said, just a matter of principle

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 02:20 AM, said:

By the way, I went back and looked at the movie. Pard actually held a 4=3=4=2. They did have 11 clubs as it turned out.

5S Hand

That reminds me, I need to ask my partner what the hell he was thinking when he doubled.

[rbforster]

rogerclee, on Apr 30 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

That reminds me, I need to ask my partner what the hell he was thinking when he doubled.

A clear stripe-tailed ape X, and a successful one!

[rbforster]

Did anyone consider Unusual 2NT followed by 4♠, rather than an initial 4♠ or X?

(1♣)-P-(1♥)-?

If you put all the hands too good to overcall into double (besides maybe the ones bidding an unusual 2NT and bidding again), you can run into problems when you've got the strong hands with one long suit instead of the usual takeout double.

Do you really need all of 2♣, 3♣, and 4♣ as natural (or stopper asking?) here? Would 1NT have been conventional (sandwich, i.e. weak takeout), and if so, can you use it to show big hands too by bidding again in the same way as with an unusual 2NT? Maybe 1NT and bidding again would show a good 4♠-6♦ shape?

Just some thoughts. Now back to your regularly scheduled arguing...

[the hog]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 30 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

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.

Saying "don't imply that I am making bad calls" on a bridge forum is very LOL. I know he is your partner but come on.

Saying "trust your vulnerable opponents" (a saying which he got from this forum, and has since constantly misused) when they are saving at red/red is LOL. I am sorry that I felt the need to point this out. Do you also trust your white/white opponents when they are saving? There is almost not difference in a red/red save and a white/white save.

Trust your vulnerable opponents means when they are red and you are white and you've shown great strength (and thus partner is marked with weakness) and they STILL bid at say, the 5 level, they probably have the goods. This does not apply to someone who opens 4S red/white, or any other nonsense.

Phil does not seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. I gave a reason why his usage of this is wrong, and the context he used it in is silly. That is not an ad hominem attack. In no place at that time did I imply that Phil was wrong because he was Phil. That would be an ad hominem attack: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem

Phil has no problem using Appeals to authority (Chris Larsen). Ok fine. We can do that to. Phil, as an authority on bridge I can tell you that you will beat them 2 a lot on this auction. Ok? Probably not with him, but when it suits him (ie when an authority agrees with him) it seems to be fine.

Phil never replied to the main point of my post, which is that he does not understand the concept of "trust your vulnerable opponents" which was my only point. He instead tried things such as "RHO saved" when I said LHO saved. That is a very relevant point, thank you for fixing my typo Phil.

As far as bridge goes, he didnt really offer up anything new. He thinks that we will make a lot of the time, and they will go down 1 a lot of the time. I think we will make most but not all of the time, and they will go down 2 a lot of the time. Nothing much was added to this.

His assertation that partner having 4 spades makes them less likely to go down 2 is silly; it just means we are cashing more diamonds. Phil, because I say your point is silly, that is not an ad hominem attack.

Justin I seriously think this is a little unfair. I don't always agree with Phil, but I often do. To say that he is not prepared to listen is not true. I have read posts where he has changed his mind.

This whole crap about as hominem attacks is precisley that - crap. This term has been misused frequently by posters on this forum wishing to attack the posts of others WITHOUT reading what it is that they really say.

As it turns out Phil's decision proved to win the marbles ON THIS BOARD. Whether it would do so consistently, I don't know. ! probably wouldn't bid 5S.

Fwiw I will submit this hand to Brad Coles on the Oz bridge bidding forum.

[han]

I posted the hand on a Dutch forum, will report later.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

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.

I agree from what I know of you, I meant specifically in this thread based on how you had posted.

[FrancesHinden]

It's interesting to read some of the arguments, which if I have understood them correctly are somewhat along the lines of:

- Opponents are not usually being silly when they bid 5C in this auction, if you trust them then it's right for you to bid
- But if I know you are always going to bid on this type of hand, I'm going to bid 5C on all sorts of rubbish just to laugh when you go off instead of taking your 500
- But if I know you are going to bid on rubbish here, I'm going to double you in 5C more often
- OK, in that case I'm only going to bid 5C when I mean it

I have a friend, team-mate and occasional partner whom I know likes to defend doubled partials. He will pass out a take-out double in auctions such as 1H x 3H x, or 1S 3C P P x, or 3H x, a lot more often than I usually would. That does not just slightly changes the way I play with him (I am more likely to bid than double in some auctions) but it changes much more the way I bid against him. Against some people you can make fairly unsound pre-emptive raises as long as you have good trumps, because you know they don't like to defend to without a trump stack. Against him I am more conservative in competition because I know he tends to defend more often - but I don't think he knows that yet, as we hardly ever play against each other.

Similarly I know people who wouldn't bid 5C here unless they were (close to) expecting to make it; and I know people who could have absolutely anything - and both sets of people are similar standard and have had international success, it's not about ability but more about style. This is just another advantage of knowing your opponents well.

As for the actual hand: I hate double-then-bid auctions and I sometimes overcall on absurdly strong hands just so as not to have the problem. But I can't really claim I wouldn't have doubled. Yes, you have a club void... but given you have a zillion count, it's still a surprise when the auction's at 5C next round when oppo are not yet obviously in a fit auction. I don't know what I would have done over 5C at the table; I was still thinking about it and thought it was a long way from obvious what the right call was when the actual hand got posted. The main thing I thought was that anyone who claims double is 'flexible' is in cloud-cuckoo land: after all, wouldn't you double 5C looking at AKxx Kxx AKxx Ax ?

I doubt anyone uses 1C P 1H 3C to mean anything much useful... maybe we should invent the meaning 'good hand with spades'

[pclayton]

By the way, I've checked in with Steve Robinson, Sergey Kustarov, and two ex-national champs (who specifically asked to remain anonymous) on this.

Steve: 5♠. Pard will pass a double with most hands.

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠. 5♥ also brings diamonds more into focus instead of a strong single suited hand.

ENC1: If I were playing with myself (heaven forbid) who would never leave a double with a 6 card suit, I would double, because partner might have 6 diamonds. Of the opponents are any good, I tend to trust them wehn they are vul. Rho has a freako something like AQxxx of hearts And Kxxxx of club.

ENC2: Double again, no doubt expecting partner to leap to 6D holding the likes of 3 small (or Qx); 3 or 4 small; 4 or 5 small; and a stiff or doubleton club. No highcards but the right shape and 6D is a breeze. LOL. Yes, i still double. I think it's a stand-out

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

Up until an hour ago, you had provided very little evidence why you think double is superior.

That is true. I did however make a good point as to why your statement: Trust your vulnerable opponents, do you really think they are going down more than 1? is nonsense.

You see the way it works is I wil make some relevant point, and then back it up with reasoning. I never did anything other than that. You still have not even mentioned that your statement was nonsense and that I was correct, you have simply moved on to other subjects. Fine. But I offered plenty of arguments that supported my initial point as to why the context you used that argument in is silly.

Quote

Like it or not, you made AH comments. You said that bidding 5♣ is more appealing if "I" was on your left. Sorry but you attacked the character of the person presenting the argument. I doubt I will convince you otherwise but it is a fact.

That is not an ad hominem attack. You still do not understand what an Ad Hominem attack is. You even admitted you bid at the 5 level too much. I didn't make this point explicitly, but you seemed to get it. Against someone who is more likely to bid at the 5 level one is more likely to try to push them around at the 5 level, especially when they have a X and bid again hand.

I did not say "Phil is stupid, thus his argument is worng" (not implying you're stupid, just an example). I said that especially against you they should be willing to bid 5C when they think it might go down 3. This is certainly relevant to my argument. I don't know about you, but I know at the table exactly how I am perceived by my opponents and try to use that information when trying to figure out what they might be doing to me etc. That is good bridge.

I do not know how you can think that your tendencies at the bridge table in this situation could be irrelevant to the argument at hand, or how that is part of "your character."

And if you want to accept Chris Larsen's one liners for a bidding problem (which I think you should), then you should probably accept the one liners of good players who don't agree with you as well. I will not always analyze every problem thoroughly, but I will often post what I think about a hand. You can take that FWIW. I do think you are being very stubborn, and have approached this subject from an already stubborn point of view, and that this is no longer constructive. I have made about all my points that I can on this hand.

I do not regret how this all started though; me saying that you did and have consistently misused the statement "trust your vulnerable opponents." This is not an ad hominem attack either, I understand you are not going to admit to this and will just ignore it but hopefully in the future you will understand the meaning of this rule because it is a very good one.

I've moved past this dude.

Have a nice day

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Apr 30 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

By the way, I've checked in with Steve Robinson and Sergey Kustarov on this.

Steve: 5♠. Pard will pass a double with most hands.

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

If you have so many great people to ask and give no weight to the forum then why do you post this hand on the forums? Is it to inspire us with your great wisdom and then bombard us with great players like....sergey...who agree with you? I mean lol, I can post 10 people who will X if you like within a day and they will be much better than the people who you have offered up. This excersize is completely pointless.

First you say you want people to argue based on the merits of their argument then you go off forum to ask some people and get some one liners.

LOL do you have a problem with me asking others?

Please ask others. I'd like to hear their opinions.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

While we're at this, can you ask him what a 5♠ bid that doesn't qualify for this special strong treatment looks like?

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 30 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 30 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Sergey: 5♥. He's intending this as a STRONG 5♠ hand. He passes 5♠.

While we're at this, can you ask him what a 5♠ bid that doesn't qualify for this special strong treatment looks like?

He just told me AKJxxxx KJx AKQ v. Consistent with my (edited) comment above that 5♥ shows some willingness for diamonds.