[jdonn]

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

I often disagree with you, but I totally agree with this comment. Bidding 3S is really a beginner's mistake.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I would pass now, but I think I might have opened a (strong) notrump, and bid spades up to the three-level if given the opportunity. I wouldn't be too happy with rebidding 2♠, 3♠ or 2♣ after 1♠ 1N.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

But isn't partner going to pass almost anything with <3♠ and <4♥ here that can't bid an immediate 3N ? (I disagree with mich-b's comment above in that either action is going to get you to a silly spot, and the assessment that this is a minimum opening hand, yes the K♦ has got worse during the auction, but it started out around 6.5 playing tricks and has dropped to 6, so I'm quite happy continuing).

Partner is still likely to have quite a reasonable hand, I'd give him an average holding of a 2344/2335 11 count (assuming in ACBL land 3♦ is weak as it usually is over here).

And at this vulnerability, I wouldn't rule out the 3♦ bid being a right load of rubbish, so there is still a decent chance of him holding a full on penalty double.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

Are you really demanding that partner bid 3NT with

Scoring: IMP

---

Not everyone likes to do that. The way you are complaining about everyone's ignorance about level and scoring is losing you the right to bitch about not being protected; UNLESS you have an agreement that partner MUST protect you and you get to choose willy nilly when you will protect (This is known BTW as the mastermind agreement). Acting over 3♦ is not without risk but you do have a passing RHO and a preempting LHO at unfavorable. If you can't act in most situations in passout seat under those circumstances you need to consider giving up negative doubles over 3 level bids.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I just think you are overreacting to what is clearly an ugly choice with a wide divergence of possible outcomes. Possibly a simul can help with odds on the negative side.

[jukmoi]

pooltuna, on Mar 11 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

Are you really demanding that partner bid 3NT with

Scoring: IMP

---

Not everyone likes to do that. The way you are complaining about everyone's ignorance about level and scoring is losing you the right to bitch about not being protected; UNLESS you have an agreement that partner MUST protect you and you get to choose willy nilly when you will protect (This is known BTW as the mastermind agreement). Acting over 3♦ is not without risk but you do have a passing RHO and a preempting LHO at unfavorable. If you can't act in most situations in passout seat under those circumstances you need to consider giving up negative doubles over 3 level bids.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I just think you are overreacting to what is clearly an ugly choice with a wide divergence of possible outcomes. Possibly a simul can help with odds on the negative side.

Do you really think that is a hand partner is likely to hold?

[Cyberyeti]

jukmoi, on Mar 11 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Mar 11 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

Are you really demanding that partner bid 3NT with

Scoring: IMP

---

Not everyone likes to do that. The way you are complaining about everyone's ignorance about level and scoring is losing you the right to bitch about not being protected; UNLESS you have an agreement that partner MUST protect you and you get to choose willy nilly when you will protect (This is known BTW as the mastermind agreement). Acting over 3♦ is not without risk but you do have a passing RHO and a preempting LHO at unfavorable. If you can't act in most situations in passout seat under those circumstances you need to consider giving up negative doubles over 3 level bids.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I just think you are overreacting to what is clearly an ugly choice with a wide divergence of possible outcomes. Possibly a simul can help with odds on the negative side.

Do you really think that is a hand partner is likely to hold?

Strength is pretty much spot on average, and somebody has made a WJO at favourable, ♦Q10xxx by no means impossible, and ♦ Q10xx not unlikely at all.

Don't you WJO on AJxxxx and out at favourable ? I know I do on AJxxx and out, and the knowlege that I'm a lot less likely to get caught because people fail to reopen makes me do it more.

[aguahombre]

Those who reasonably think pass is correct with the given opening hand, and the given vulnerability, with the given auction --as do I --- hopefully have a partner who will anticipate that:

1) Opener will excercise good judgement and pass out 3D with the given hand or similar.
2) Holding TX AQX QTXXX KXX is not very likely or anticipated.

Therefore, responder who does hold that hand will use HER judgement and bid 3NT/3D, which rates to be an ok contract and will prevent a possible disasterous swing.

[pooltuna]

jukmoi, on Mar 11 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Mar 11 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

Are you really demanding that partner bid 3NT with

Scoring: IMP

---

Not everyone likes to do that. The way you are complaining about everyone's ignorance about level and scoring is losing you the right to bitch about not being protected; UNLESS you have an agreement that partner MUST protect you and you get to choose willy nilly when you will protect (This is known BTW as the mastermind agreement). Acting over 3♦ is not without risk but you do have a passing RHO and a preempting LHO at unfavorable. If you can't act in most situations in passout seat under those circumstances you need to consider giving up negative doubles over 3 level bids.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I just think you are overreacting to what is clearly an ugly choice with a wide divergence of possible outcomes. Possibly a simul can help with odds on the negative side.

Do you really think that is a hand partner is likely to hold?

no. Do you think it is impossible?

[jdonn]

Pooltuna what are you saying, that if an action could POSSIBLY SOMEHOW IF PARTNER HAS ONE PARTICULAR UNLIKELY HAND not work as well as another then it can't be obviously correct? If not then I have no idea what your point is at all. And if that is your point it's a completely absurd point.

[gwnn]

jdonn:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=426803

[ArtK78]

I don't think that partner, with a penalty double of diamonds, will anticipate that you have a significant enough diamond holding so that you will pass out 3♦. Partner reasonably assumes that you are short in diamonds and will reopen with a double. So the argument that partner should act directly with some random 11 count and 5 diamonds to the QT is not convincing to me.

Of course, holding the hand that you have, the pass is pretty clear.

You may have to chalk this one up to a hand where you had them dead to right but couldn't find a way to punish them.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

jdonn:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=426803

A very smart forum member who shall remain anoymous was just talking with me about tunafish and said this:
person: i almost think he's pulling our leg, he is like anti-good judgement.
person: it's gotten to the point when i see his post i know what is wrong
I don't know if I should take that bet, I have no idea what to believe! I mean sorry I don't want to just post gratuitously mean comments but if it's all a prank I want credit for calling it.

[Bbradley62]

I think there's an important piece of information missing from the original question: how high do we play negative doubles? If we are only playing negative doubles through 2♠, then there is no need to protect the possibility that partner holds a penalty double.

[junyi_zhu]

twcho, on Mar 10 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

2nd seat playing IMP, red vs white, holding KQJxxx Kx K8 Q109, you open 1♠ after RHO passes. LHO overcalls 3♦ and two passes follow. What will you do? Will your action differs if the vulnerability is different?

Suppose you decide to double. Partner bids 3♥. What will you bid now?

It is an easy pass. Once a blue moon, you may miss some juicy penalties against reckless opps, but it's just too dangerous to act at three level with the hand, cause it's aceless and DKx strongly suggests defense.

[eyhung]

Agree, pass is by far the percentage action; anyone who chooses double is catering too much to low-probability outcomes. Double can be right, but Pass rates to be so much better.

Also, few people in the modern game play penalty doubles at the 3-level, so the negative double issue doesn't seem relevant to me.

[Pict]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Pooltuna what are you saying, that if an action could POSSIBLY SOMEHOW IF PARTNER HAS ONE PARTICULAR UNLIKELY HAND not work as well as another then it can't be obviously correct? If not then I have no idea what your point is at all. And if that is your point it's a completely absurd point.

Another unemotional contribution I guess.

My potted history is that people started to make weak jump overcalls, and then it was realised that penalty doubles were inefficient, and then people 'protected' in some fashion with full strength openers (including opposite Aquahombre's slow pass partner because the protect was deemed obvious).

I am open to the rationale that negative doubles from 4th hand (values no shape) were the next stage of efficiency, and changed the equation on protecting.

But then maybe that is not the rationale, since no-one could be bothered to offer it. Instead we got a load of garbage of about ..ssssss, (100, 10) ... no (60, 0) blah.

Anyway, if that is it - partner has eliminated all hands better than n+ points by passing ( and will punt 3NT mostly when 3♦ doubled is best result), that is trivially easy to understand.

Then we are just left with whether this particular hand is worth bidding, with such constraints. Seems to be room for judgment liberally laced with vituperation

[jdonn]

Pict, on Mar 11 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Pooltuna what are you saying, that if an action could POSSIBLY SOMEHOW IF PARTNER HAS ONE PARTICULAR UNLIKELY HAND not work as well as another then it can't be obviously correct? If not then I have no idea what your point is at all. And if that is your point it's a completely absurd point.

Another unemotional contribution I guess.

No more at all than his post that I was replying to...

It's not garbage to just state your opinion or rate options. (In fact I would have thought that was all that was needed for a decision that is so basic.) Garbage is stating nonsense like "but what if they overcalled on AJxxxx and their partner has a void?" or "the average holding for partner's pass over 3♦ is 11." How can someone mount a serious argument to nonsense like that?

[helene_t]

Bbradley62, on Mar 11 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

I think there's an important piece of information missing from the original question:  how high do we play negative doubles? If we are only playing negative doubles through 2♠, then there is no need to protect the possibility that partner holds a penalty double.

Of course dbl would be negative. What that precisely means is another question but p certainly could have a trap pass.

Except that we aren't short in clubs (sr I mean diamonds). So we don't need to worry about p having a trap pass.

Edit: Thanks Ron for correcting.

[the hog]

pooltuna, on Mar 11 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 11 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't people see they are now on the 3! level opposite a silent! partner with a minimum! opening bid that has gotten worse! with no! assurance that we have a fit or that even if we do our action will find it? I am dying a slow death here. Anything but pass shows some combination of lack of experience, lack of understanding of how scoring in bridge works, or stubborn reliance on cliches and bad advice.

Are you really demanding that partner bid 3NT with

Scoring: IMP

---

Not everyone likes to do that. The way you are complaining about everyone's ignorance about level and scoring is losing you the right to bitch about not being protected; UNLESS you have an agreement that partner MUST protect you and you get to choose willy nilly when you will protect (This is known BTW as the mastermind agreement). Acting over 3♦ is not without risk but you do have a passing RHO and a preempting LHO at unfavorable. If you can't act in most situations in passout seat under those circumstances you need to consider giving up negative doubles over 3 level bids.

Sorry if this is coming across as harsh. I just think you are overreacting to what is clearly an ugly choice with a wide divergence of possible outcomes. Possibly a simul can help with odds on the negative side.

Tuna, you are talking nonsense. It might have escaped your attention that opener has Kx of Ds. Unless the 3d bidder has learned the game that afternoon, this responder holding is impossible. I am inclined to agree with josh that you are pulling everyone's leg. You remind me of a former poster on rgb; even the nicks are similar as he was called reefish. Are you one and the same perchance?