[Trysalot]

I would bid 3 hearts. In balance seat I am not promising good texture. So despite the ugliness of the suit I would bid it rather than pass 2 spades.

[the hog]

Either 3H or double could be correct. I think 3H is the winner in the long term. Not pass.

[foo]

CSGibson, on Dec 23 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

General observation:  Every time foo answers a thread, it gets hijacked to a example-counter example argument, foo vs everyone, with neither side ever giving any ground. 

Can we all just agree not to argue with foo, as regular posters already know that he is not to be taken seriously as a bridge authority?  I call for a cone of silence around foo!

1= Your 1st statement is not true. In any particular.

a= Discussion, even debate, and examples germane to the topic under discussion are not "hi-jacking". Such discussion is what these forums are for. I wish those discussions did not get as heated as they do occasionally, but debates sometimes do that.

b= While I am often in the minority opinion, I am rarely the only person to hold an opinion I post.

c= I have shown more flexibility in changing my mind when presented with convincing enough argument or evidence, as seen even in this very thread, than most on this site.


2= This is a site for discussing bridge. Not personal vendettas.

a= Discussions of bridge issues are supposed to be based strictly on bridge merits. Not on Argument From Authority, Ad Hominem attacks, or any other logical fallacy.

b= last I checked, you were not one of the people whose job it is to police these forums. It is inappropriate for you or anyone else who is not in that group to act as if they are part of that group.

You've got a problem, you PM me privately if you think you can discuss it like an adult. If you don't think you can manage that, then please talk to one of the people whose job it is to police the site and have them speak to me.

But please refrain from public personal attacks or calls for such or other such inappropriate behavior.

[MarkDean]

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

How about this one:

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

Or this one:

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

And the list goes on....

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

I am a bit confused by your argument. Are you saying we should bid 3♥ on the hand in question in part because partner will not hang up by bidding game with 42(34) 12 counts, and the reason partner will not do that is that because those hands will not make game opposite the hand in question?

Would you not bid 3♥ with x KJT9xx Axx Axx? Would you want partner to give you the bump with Qxxx Qx KJx KJxx? I gave you some spade wastage and no aces, still game is pretty darn good.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 24 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

c= I have shown more flexibility in changing my mind when presented with convincing enough argument or evidence, as seen even in this very thread, than most on this site.

Maybe this is because you are wrong more often than most! <BIG smiley>

[ArtK78]

MarkDean, on Dec 24 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 23 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Apparently my definition of a flat, boring 12 count with 4 spades and 2 hearts differs somewhat from foo's definition.

How about this one:

KJxx xx QJxx KQx

Here you are off 4 tops and probably one off the bottom.

Or this one:

QJxx xx KJx KQxx

Again, 4 off the top and no assurance that you won't lose another one.

And the list goes on....

By the way, if partner has one of these flat, boring 12 counts, 2♠x may or may not make (depends on how many of your tricks can cash) and 3 of your 4-3 minor suit fit doesn't look that great, either.

I am a bit confused by your argument. Are you saying we should bid 3♥ on the hand in question in part because partner will not hang up by bidding game with 42(34) 12 counts, and the reason partner will not do that is that because those hands will not make game opposite the hand in question?

Would you not bid 3♥ with x KJT9xx Axx Axx? Would you want partner to give you the bump with Qxxx Qx KJx KJxx? I gave you some spade wastage and no aces, still game is pretty darn good.

My argument is that we have bid 3♥ in balancing seat. Partner should give us some leeway and not raise to game on any hand with 12 HCP. There are 12 HCP hands and then there are 12 HCP hands. As shown in foo's examples and my examples, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Partner should be able to tell the difference.

Yes, we could have a better hand for the balance of 3♥, and game might make opposite a random 12 count if I had a better hand. But partner should not expect it to make opposite a random 12 count. Preempts often make life difficult. You can't get all of these hands right.

If partner has a good 12 count, or a better hand that was going to pass the reopening double, then he should probably bid game (not that there is any guarantee that it will make).

[cherdano]

A balanced 12 count with a double stop and two hearts will bid 3NT over our 3♥ balanced, I don't think it matters whether the 12 count is good or bad.

[ArtK78]

cherdano, on Dec 24 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

A balanced 12 count with a double stop and two hearts will bid 3NT over our 3♥ balanced, I don't think it matters whether the 12 count is good or bad.

Those are the risks that you take when you balance.

[mikeh]

My two bits worth on the Art-foo 'debate'

I opted for 3♥. I did so knowing full well that partner will often put me in an ummakeable game, or put himself in a hopeless 3N.

So what?

Since when did we start judging our choice of calls based solely or largely on the possibility that we might get a bad result?

We choose our calls based on our assessment of mulitple factors, including whether we may get a bad result but also including our assessments of:

1. the chances that alternate actions will be worse

2. the chances that the chosen action will generate a good result

3. the 'size' of the bad result that may arise, compared to the 'size' of the good alternative that may result.. this is more important, of course, in imps than in mps, where frequency of gain/loss is the critical criterion.

The foregoing is not to be viewed as exhaustive.

So, when I bid 3♥ and partner raises me to a bad game with some boring 4=2 in the majors 12 count... I give it my best shot, accept the result and take my cards from the next board, unless this was the end of the match.

Postulating possible hands for responder, especially with a ridiculously silly constraint such as 12 hcp 4=2 in the majors, is an utter waste of time, and, as I am sure Art knows, like waving a red flag in front of a bull... foo is always going to 'rise to the challenge', and the resulting 'debate' spirals rapidly down the rabbit hole and away from the interesting issues raised by the original post.

(I hereby acknowledge my own rabbit-chasing tendencies, lest anyone feel that I can a pot calling a kettle black)

[Rossoneri]

3♥ for me.

[H_KARLUK]

Pass.

Pull the next board to table please.

[mtvesuvius]

3♥. Of course partner could have AQTX♠ or something of the like, but partner may also pass with Q9XX. We only have 2 defensive tricks, but partner is marked with cards... X is too penalty oriented.