[jdonn]

Focused on the important point as usual I see...

[Cascade]

The usual sarcasm I see.

You make fallicious claims and when challenged instead of attempting to back them up or admit that they are nonsense you just attack the challenger.

[the hog]

1H 1S 4H looks fine to me. Disagree with 2C.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

The usual sarcasm I see.

You make fallicious claims and when challenged instead of attempting to back them up or admit that they are nonsense you just attack the challenger.

Lol has anyone ever told you that you are a troll before? Oh that's right, many times. I wonder if it could be due to exchanges resembling this.

A: Open 2♣, if you open 1♥ you make game opposite as little as this hand...
B: If partner has that hand the deal won't be passed out.
A: I disagree, and anyway it doesn't matter due to the following reasons...
B: I ignore your reasons and the point of your example to repeat that I am right and you are wrong.
A: You are ignoring the point.
B: I again ignore your reasons and the point of your example to repeat that I am right and you are wrong.

I didn't attempt to back it up since, wait for the repetition.... it was not the point I was trying to make! But (and I hasten to even address your argument, lest you ignore the point again) if you consider both players passing on layouts like
AQxx xx KJ QJxxx
KJx Jx Qxxxxx Kx
astonishing (not unlikely or inferior) then we simply do not agree on what that word means. Btw someone refusing to argue with you doesn't mean their claim was falacious. It may simply mean they are trying to avoid being drawn into an argument that they just don't care about. But I failed at that, as I so often do.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jul 6 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

If you open 1H you can't show a 9 playing trick 1 suiter because you open 2C with that! What is the reason for not opening 2C?

depends on your methods... I can (over 1♠ or 1N, 3♣ is either gf natural or a hand that looks like this one)

[mikeh]

I should add that I am a 1♥ bidder here, tho I am closer to accepting 2♣ than I used to be...part of the reason I still prefer 1♥ is that while this is obviously a wonderful hand, it needs a lot more help for slam purposes than a typical suit oriented 2♣ opener, at least in my style. I like responder to think of a fit and an Ace and a King as highly slam invitational, and most such hands here don't add up to 12 tricks. Yes, game before slam, and 2♣ minimizes the risk of missing game... but despite the sarcasm of some of the 2♣ bidders, that risk is truly very small... I have been opening 1♥ on the handtype for decades without problems.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 7 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 6 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

The usual sarcasm I see.

You make fallicious claims and when challenged instead of attempting to back them up or admit that they are nonsense you just attack the challenger.

Lol has anyone ever told you that you are a troll before? Oh that's right, many times. I wonder if it could be due to exchanges resembling this.

A: Open 2♣, if you open 1♥ you make game opposite as little as this hand...
B: If partner has that hand the deal won't be passed out.
A: I disagree, and anyway it doesn't matter due to the following reasons...
B: I ignore your reasons and the point of your example to repeat that I am right and you are wrong.
A: You are ignoring the point.
B: I again ignore your reasons and the point of your example to repeat that I am right and you are wrong.

I didn't attempt to back it up since, wait for the repetition.... it was not the point I was trying to make! But (and I hasten to even address your argument, lest you ignore the point again) if you consider both players passing on layouts like
AQxx xx KJ QJxxx
KJx Jx Qxxxxx Kx
astonishing (not unlikely or inferior) then we simply do not agree on what that word means. Btw someone refusing to argue with you doesn't mean their claim was falacious. It may simply mean they are trying to avoid being drawn into an argument that they just don't care about. But I failed at that, as I so often do.

For some the word troll seems to mean someone who makes arguments that they do not agree with.

I notice you make more fallacious arguments.

I never said that it was astonishing that the hand was passed out given any two particular hands but that the likelihood of those hands occurring was astonishingly small.

I never ignored your reasons - you would have no idea. I simply disagreed with your claim that my statement was some sort of extreme 'overbid'. Not commenting is far from synonymous with ignoring.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

One could easily argue successfully I would imagine that your inflammatory comments about my 'overbid' based on a distortion of what I said and your subsequent sarcasm would easily fit this definition.

Edit: In fact my words were "diminishingly small". Josh was the one who introduced the idea of anything being "astonishing".

This post has been edited by Cascade: 2009-July-07, 12:52

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jul 7 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

I should add that I am a 1♥ bidder here, tho I am closer to accepting 2♣ than I used to be...part of the reason I still prefer 1♥ is that while this is obviously a wonderful hand, it needs a lot more help for slam purposes than a typical suit oriented 2♣ opener, at least in my style. I like responder to think of a fit and an Ace and a King as highly slam invitational, and most such hands here don't add up to 12 tricks. Yes, game before slam, and 2♣ minimizes the risk of missing game... but despite the sarcasm of some of the 2♣ bidders, that risk is truly very small... I have been opening 1♥ on the handtype for decades without problems.

Curiously I have been experimenting for some time with opening stronger and stronger hands that are unbalanced at the one-level. I have been very happy with the results.

More recently we have modified our system so that we must open at the one-level unless the hand is suitable for some very specific action e.g. specific ace ask. That is we have no strong artificial (or natural) forcing opening suitable for unbalanced hands. Our only strong forcing openings are 2♦ which shows a balanced or nearly balanced hand and 3NT which asks for aces. (4NT is both minors and in theory could be opened with a slam hand but is normally weak). This means that our one-level openings are 11+ HCP - unlimited.

After several tournaments and many many more hands in practice (several sessions that just concentrated on these sort of hands) we have had no problems (from the method but occasionally from judgement) in actual play and very few - less than 1% in practice - where we have missed game or slam by opening at the one-level. And compensating this we have had occasional hands where we played safely at the one-level where we would have failed in game with a stronger forcing opening.

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Jul 6 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

If you open 1H you can't show a 9 playing trick 1 suiter because you open 2C with that! What is the reason for not opening 2C?

Last summer I was housebound for a couple months and on pain meds so I didn't really want to ruin partnerships playing like a dufus on BBO. I spent hours and hours watching the super pros playing in a big tourney or two on viewgraph. I used to prefer to open 1♥ here since it is only 17 HCP and on a really bad day the ♥ don't run.

However, the W/C players I watched in this big event tended to open 2♣ with hands like this. One pair had just this hand but with 7♦ rather than 7♥. His 2♣ opening got his hand to a slam missed at the other table.

9 near certain tricks also seems to be too good for Namyats (at least as I play it when I play it)

.. neilkaz ..

[Flameous]

This is really a borderline hand. I play gazilli so 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT would pretty much show something like this. But more likely slower stoppers in minors...

2♣ isn't far but I'd like to have Q or even 2 Js more there. "Something little that's always needed for a good slam." I also like my 2♣ opening to have 4-5 defensive tricks and here I have 2-3 and spade shortness. (Of course if playing against noobs who fear 2♣ opening, it seems a lot better)

Namyats is quite clear Vul vs. NV. In other zones this is bit too much.

[peachy]

2C-2D (at least one king)
3H - 4H (set trump; no ace).

Alternatively
2C - 2D (at least one king)
4H (minimum 2C opener with self supporting hearts)

[aguahombre]

The way I understand Namyats, the 4C opening would show partner an 8-8 1/2 trick hand, and deny two outside primes. The vulnerability is not supposed to be relevant. It is used to inform partner. Opening Namyats on this 9 (8.85) trick hand would be misleading to my center opponent.

With plain old agreements on 2C openings (2D waiting, 3C 2nd neg, etc., it would seem to be an easy 2C opener, followed by a natural 2H --then another cheap heart bid unless responder does something surprising.