[ghow]

Partner opens 1s (Precision 11-15) and it goes 1s (p) 1n (p) 2h (x) ? U hold
x xx QJTxxx KTxx. what now?

[whereagles]

Now 3♦, though you probably should have passed 1♠. This isn't sayc: you don't have to bid opposite a limited opener with a weak misfit.

[the hog]

Agree with Nuno. I too would have passed 1S.

[neilkaz]

The_Hog, on Dec 31 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

Agree with Nuno. I too would have passed 1S.

Me too playing precision.

[andy_h]

Even playing precision I doubt I can be persuaded to pass on the first round with the given hand. Bidding can lead up to so many upsides.
I will now bid 3D.

[TylerE]

3♦ looks obvious.

Shocked at the passers. This looks like a great hand to steal the pot. If I was your partner, opps might be cold for 3N, and instead let us drift off a couple in a partscore. (I generally open about rule of 19 with a 5 card or longer major playing precision, in all seats)

[whereagles]

TylerE, on Jan 1 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

Shocked at the passers. This looks like a great hand to steal the pot. If I was your partner, opps might be cold for 3N, and instead let us drift off a couple in a partscore.

There's a time to steal the pot and a time to stay quiet.

On this particular hand, pard is a statistical favourite to hold 9+ cards in the majors and 12-14 hcp, in which case I don't really see how opps are going to make 3NT.

[TylerE]

I was referring to the people suggesting pass of 1♠.

[Winstonm]

TylerE, on Jan 1 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

3♦ looks obvious.

Shocked at the passers. This looks like a great hand to steal the pot. If I was your partner, opps might be cold for 3N, and instead let us drift off a couple in a partscore. (I generally open about rule of 19 with a 5 card or longer major playing precision, in all seats)

This comment shows how times change.

The history of the forcing club in the U.S. (aside from Vanderbuilt in the infancy of bridge) started with Howard Schenken - who wrote in his book how much better the Italian forcing club systems were than the American systems - after the U.S. had lost once again to Italy in the Bermuda Bowl.

The reason he cited was the need to keep the bidding open because in Standard American opening bidder could hold as many as 22 HCPs for his 1 bid - thus the limited range in a forcing club system reduced the pressure to keep the bidding open in case partner had a "rock crusher".

Now, we see the opposite rreasoning - keeping the bidding open with a weak misfit for the benefit of stealing the hand.

Curious. The passers seem to hold with Schenken's view. I wonder if the passers tend to be 50+ year olds and remember Schenken while the bidders are more prone to copy Meckwell?

[Hairy_Scot]

As an unrepentant precisionophile (is that the word? ) I am firmly on the side of the "passers".
What is the point of employing a limited bid system and then ignoring it?
In fact, even in SAYC I might be tempted to pass 1S and then deflect pard's ire by claiming I had miscounted

[jdonn]

Wow you couldn't get me to pass 1♠ in precision no matter how hard you try. The combination of chances that I keep the opponents out when they can make something (maybe game) and that I improve the partscore is enormous. The main advantage of the limited opening system is in competition.

Passing on hands like this went out among top players decades ago.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The main advantage of the limited opening system is in competition.

I will tell Howard Schenken when I see him next that he was wrong.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 1 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Quote

The main advantage of the limited opening system is in competition.

I will tell Howard Schenken when I see him next that he was wrong.

Just tell him

Winstonm, on Jan 1 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

times change.

Your post actually made me giggle a little. It looks like you are trying to imply experts of past generations didn't bad badly (as in, how ridiculous that I imply something opposite what Shenken said!) By today's standards they bid TERRIBLY! Look through a world championship book from 40 years ago or more, you will be amazed.

I believe the gold medalist in the marathon took about 3 and a half hours at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). Time brings on improvement.

[Lobowolf]

Many of the world's most brilliant chess players in history were wrong about a lot of things, as those who have stood on their shoulders (and computers!) have evaulated things further with the historical advantage of a better starting point. Theory evolves.

[Lobowolf]

There's also an equivocation at play here, too -- Schenken's opponents bid differently than today's players. What was "best" against one group of opponents is not necessarily "best" against another. A 2009 Schenken certainly might disagree with his earlier position based on nothing more than modern opponents' tendencies. Similarly, a top poker player in one era/location, playing against timid opponents, might claim that bluffing in situation A is best; faced with different opponents, who call more often, he might opine that it's not best in an identical situation.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Your post actually made me giggle a little. It looks like you are trying to imply experts of past generations didn't bad badly

You have the luxury of the arrogance of youth - enjoy it while it lasts.

I am not imply anything about generations - I am implying that Howard Schenken was the Meckstroth of his day - and if you think you cannot learn something today from his wisdom then your arrogance is a detriment.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 1 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

I am not imply anything about generations - I am implying that Howard Schenken was the Meckstroth of his day - and if you think you cannot learn something today from his wisdom then your arrogance is a detriment.

No, you are as usual changing what you are implying from post to post, which makes it difficult to keep up. You say something, I say it's wrong, you weaken your original statement. In this case from "Yeah right as though you could be right and Shenken wrong" to "You must think you can't learn anything from Shenken, damn arrogant youngsters".

If his bidding was so ingenious compared to today's bidding, why does no expert pair in the universe play his system now?

[whereagles]

Times may change, but judgement always applies. Mine is that bidding is more likely to get you into trouble than passing.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 1 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 1 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

I am not imply anything about generations - I am implying that Howard Schenken was the Meckstroth of his day - and if you think you cannot learn something today from his wisdom then your arrogance is a detriment.

No, you are as usual changing what you are implying from post to post, which makes it difficult to keep up. You say something, I say it's wrong, you weaken your original statement. In this case from "Yeah right as though you could be right and Shenken wrong" to "You must think you can't learn anything from Shenken, damn arrogant youngsters".

If his bidding was so ingenious compared to today's bidding, why does no expert pair in the universe play his system now?

Wrong once again, Martini-breath.

The only thing I ever objected to was the lack of humility in your original statement:

Quote

The main advantage of the limited opening system is in competition.

Well, that settles that debate. JDONN has spoken so it must be truth. Again, I'll explain to Howard how JDONN proved Howard's ideas wrong simply by declaring himself to be right. That is certainly a conveniece and a time saver - hard find a rebuttal to that logic. I am sure Howard will be as impressed with the argument as I was.

What is your next argument to be - uh huh, is so, am too, oh yeah?

[jdonn]

Now I can't even make a bridge statement without being accused of arrogance. Maybe it's not the youth who are ruining the world...

Look, like any remotely decent person I do my best to avoid pointing out my own accomplishments. However, I feel I have achieved enough in bridge to be in a position which gives my opinion a reasonably high level of credibility on the topic. Additionally, I submit that I have probably played more hands of bridge in my life than literally 99% of all bridge players on earth. Of course this doesn't make me right anywhere near 100% of the time, but it gives me a basis to make claims that are based on bridge judgment. So if you disagree with something I say then disagree. But don't pretend I'm being arrogant because I make any claim at all. Even if it comes from the Meckstroth of his day (a day in which bidding was much worse than it is today.)

By the way, what you are referring to is not an argument, it's a claim. I claimed what the main advantage of limited opening bids is, I didn't attempt to offer evidence to back it up. As fun as it would be to find a way to "prove" it and match your sarcasm with truth, I don't think I have the time today. Or this decade. So I simply use

- my judgment
- my experience
- the fact that my opinion is also the common one among experts
- the fact that bidding has progressed a great deal over time and thus modern ideas have more credibility than older ideas that they contradict

and I use all that to reach a conclusion. Then stating it is not arrogant.