[mike777]

So it has nothing to do wth SEMANTICS, but with partnership
agreements.



NO''


You show it has everything to do with semantics......partnership agreements are semantics......

meaning of words....meaning of agreements....study of communication.........

Do not assume words...phrases....agreements mean what you think they mean just because you may have PHD.....other person may not have one........

esp in bridge....


study meaning in communication......

[gnasher]

cherdano, on Sep 3 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

There is always a right strategy, but we don't know whether it is pure or mixed.

There is always at least one right strategy.

[MFA]

gnasher, on Sep 3 2008, 07:20 AM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 3 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

There is always a right strategy, but we don't know whether it is pure or mixed.

There is always at least one right strategy.

... if we have agreed on what is "right" when it comes to dispersion of the results.

[jdonn]

Mike wth are you talking about??? Why am I even asking in fact...

[ASkolnick]

Yes, he is correct there is always one right strategy for every hand, however that strategy is dependent on what partner holds.

So, if I choose to double on these cards and partner sits and we take them for 1100, it was the right strategy for THIS HAND.

However, since we do not know what partner holds, the best we can do is work with incomplete information and say, if we were take action X, on average, would this be the best option.

Obviously, action X may have negative consequences on this hand, even if on the other 90% of the hands it would work out.

[mike777]

Here is one email comment. I have edited out the names.

"I agree with edit completely. I have run a simulation on these hands, and pass is by far the percentage action opposite a passed hand.

That being said, I have to admit that I would still probably bid 4H at the table. There's a reason why edit refers to me as the most aggressive partner on the planet!
I'm sure most would agree I resemble that remark.

I should also mention that this is yet another example where it pays to open at the 4 level as often as possible. If the auction had started with 3N
(minor preempt for those playing Namyats), the direct hand has an easy card showing double available, and can now pass the rest of the auction. edit says I have opened
at the 4 level more times playing with him, than himself and all of his partners combined have opened in his entire bridge career (about as long as I've been alive!).
The reason I keep doing it is that it creates impossible problems for the opponents to solve.

Try it for a few sessions with all of your partners. Try to find a reason to open at the 4 level on as many hands as possible (7 card suits, 6-4 hands, 6-5 hands, etc.).

By the way, those of you that play Namyats should go back to playing natural 4 level preempts. If you need a way to show a solid major, use 3N for that."

[jdonn]

mike777, on Sep 3 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

I should also mention that this is yet another example where it pays to open at the 4 level as often as possible.

I agree, the fact that this guy would overcall 4♥ does show why it pays to open at the 4 level as often as possible.

[Lobowolf]

ASkolnick, on Sep 3 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Yes, he is correct there is always one right strategy for every hand, however that strategy is dependent on what partner holds.

So, if I choose to double on these cards and partner sits and we take them for 1100, it was the right strategy for THIS HA
ND.
However, since we do not know what partner holds, the best we can do is work with incomplete information and say, if we were take action X, on average, would this be the best option.

Obviously, action X may have negative consequences on this hand, even if on the other 90% of the hands it would work out.

Quote

Yes, he is correct there is always one right strategy for every hand, however that strategy is dependent on what partner holds.

So, if I choose to double on these cards and partner sits and we take them for 1100, it was the right strategy for THIS HAND.

Disagree entirely. If you have no reason to do so, and you drop a stiff king offside holding 8 cards in the suit, you didn't "choose the right strategy." You made a bad play and got lucky. It's not the "right strategy" to double down with 19 on the first hand of a new blackjack shoe, but sometimes you draw a 2.


The "right strategy" though IS dependent on at least one thing that should be noted -- your partnership agreements. For instance, if your partnership balances aggressively, then the "right strategy" might be to pass rather than overcall with a borderline hand, because you know that your partner will mitigate some of the downside of inaction by covering you. But if you're playing with a partner who doesn't balance, then you'd better jump in there when you can. Similarly, whether or not to move forward after partner balances is partly dependent on how aggressively he balances -- does he have a solid, direct-seat hand that you can move forward with confidence on, or does he just never let the opponents play at the 2-level, in which case you're probably going to hang him even if you have a good hand?

Bidding 45% games at IMPs is "the right strategy" even when it doesn't work out.

[mike777]

For all you guys saying just pass, what would you do with a stronger hand and the same distro?



Suppose Ax KQJx Axx AJxx……do you again pass? If not how should partner respond with bad 4 card suits?

I am trying to bring up a discussion of 4 level doubles.....

1) takeout, optional, penalty which are which?
2) what should partner respond with poorish hands and 4 card suits?

[han]

With Ax KQJx Axx AJxx I double. And again I think it is clearly right.

Double is takeout, but the higher the double, the more often partner will leave it in. You prefer to have a more traditional takeout shape when you double, but with a 19-count like above the plusses outweight the minusses.

Give me a hand with poorish cards and 4-card suits and I'll tell you what I'll do. With a 4333 I'll pass. With a 4-4-1-4 I'll pull.