[gordontd]

l milne, on 2010-December-01, 17:57, said:

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

A splinter bid.

[Fluffy]

mini-splinter for most

[mike777]

2c no problem yet

[rhm]

han, on 2010-December-01, 14:24, said:

Usually I am all for making fun of Fluffy, he takes any form of teasing very well. But one of the things that Fluffy is clearly not is arrogant. Mikeh's post once again shows his deep disrespect for logic. Wasn't it clear that when Fluffy posted

You can say as much nonsense as you want

he did not characterize the 1D opening as nonsense, but the stuff that some people posted in this thread?

Having said that, I think that 1H is a terrible call. I say that knowing full well that Fluffy plays internationally and I probably never will, but then, I never claimed that I am not arrogant.

One of my pet ideas, is to play canape with 6-5 or more extreme distribution. The main argument for this treatment is that when your higher ranking suit has six cards you can be weaker to reverse than when your higher ranking suit has only 5 cards, because once you rebid your six card suit, there is rarely a need to preference back to the lower ranking 5 card suit.
It is amazing how many problems are solved that way compared to standard bidding.
(You can check for yourself by browsing this forum for problems with 6-5 hands. There are a lot of them)
If partner shows a good fit with your 5 card major suit you never need to bid your six card suit and even good opponents misjudge in the bidding and in the play.
Having this agreements with my partner I would open 1♥ of course. If partner shows a good fit with ♥ I am obviously in a good position.
If not my partner will know once I rebid ♦ that my ♦s are at least as long as my ♥s and if he does not preference over my first ♦ bid, I know he has at most a doubleton ♥.
I know 1♥ in standard is a dubious bid, but that is because standard is not well thought out for such distributions.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

fwiw I play canape longer than most of you alive



see "SimpleClub" and what it comes from

[Free]

Looks like a simple 1♦ to me, hopefully this won't be passed out. We can make the auction forcing and show our 5-6 in 3 calls. I hate opening 2♣ with such hands, although it may work better sometimes we won't be able to describe our shape as accurately as after a 1♦ opening.

[han]

l milne, on 2010-December-01, 17:57, said:

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

I suspect most posters here play it as an invitational splinter. I play it as a better raise than 3S (3S = 15-16, 3H = 17-18).

[the hog]

Phil, on 2010-December-01, 09:53, said:

I suppose if KFay wanted to offer a lousy option, he could have included 1♥, true.

Perhaps you might like to discuss this with Steve Robinson, Phil.

[han]

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

[gwnn]

1♦ please don't pass please don't pass.

[rhm]

han, on 2010-December-02, 04:48, said:

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

If Frank Stewart was an under-bidder, he would hardly be as successful as he actually is.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

l milne, on 2010-December-01, 17:57, said:

Maybe I need to bind a key with *reply "agree with han" *post. 1♥ I really don't like. Lying to partner just seems unnecessary here.

Also, what would 1♦-1♠-3♥ be for most people?

Mini splinter ? although I play it as this hand without the ace of spades, ie 2 good suits, but not a huge hand.

[the hog]

han, on 2010-December-02, 04:48, said:

I have to say I saw that coming. If you need support for underbidding, quote Frank Stewart. If you need support for distorting your suit lengths, quote Steve Robinson.

You could cite a few more. Sarcasm on//Balicki Zmusdinki deny a 5 card M if they don't open one. They appear to be an ok pair. Sarcasm off//. So do practically all the top Polish players. Before you say they play PC, yes they do, but it is 2/1 based. Here, of course, they would open 1C.

[Fluffy]

Ron I am no longer opening 1♠ with 5 spades and 7 clubs, do Balicki-Zmudinski open 1♠?

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2010-December-01, 10:44, said:

At least in the early stages of most auctions, the partnership is engaged in the exchange of information.

There are auctions in which one partner assumes captaincy very early on, but most auctions don't go like that.

Thus most experts would see this hand and think about how best to go about describing it to partner...

You got to the point mike, I find that trying to describe our hand to partner is completelly hopeless for slam purposes, partner will never realise that we have AK AK A instead or AQJ AQJ, even describing the club void will be tough. And the only way to investigate accuratelly for slam is to take captancy.

I don't think this concrete hand is best suited to exchanging information. And 1♥ might be a better approach. Why? because when partner has 3+ hearts (he has average 2.66 I think, so he is a favourite) and raises, we can easilly ask about ♥Q and ♠K/♣A. Wich are our main concerns, since ♦Q can be fineses or dropped or whatever.

I still don't claim that 1♥ is a better opening, but if out hand was ♠Ax ♥AKJxx ♦AKxxxx ♣- I'd be more inclined to open 1♦.

[mikeh]

han, on 2010-December-01, 14:24, said:

Mikeh's post once again shows his deep disrespect for logic..

nice ad hominem argument

[Phil]

rhm, on 2010-December-02, 05:04, said:

If Frank Stewart was an under-bidder, he would hardly be as successful as he actually is.

Rainer Herrmann

True, I'm sure Frank Stewart rules the Birmingham, AL sectionals and Bracket II regionals KOs.

Please do not confuse him with Kit Woolsey's partner, Fred Stewart.

[nige1]

kfay, on 2010-November-30, 20:44, said:

---

IMO 1♦ = 10, 2♣ = 9, 1♥ = 5.
But a 2♣ opener has many attractions e.g.

• It quickly expresses the power of your hand. It bathes partner's fitting Yarborough in a rosy hue.
• 7♥ making scores more than 1♦.
• If successful, you can smile at all the sour grapes carping by old-fashioned bidding purists.

[han]

mikeh, on 2010-December-02, 08:59, said:

nice ad hominem argument

It was not an argument, just an insult for the sake of insulting, but I think it was to the point nevertheless.

I've had enough of the constinuing stream of posts in which you portray yourself as an expert who thinks like an expert and acts like an expert, usually in contrast with the person you are comparing yourself with. It's usually absolutely uncalled for, it certainly was this time.

[mikeh]

han, on 2010-December-02, 10:36, said:

It was not an argument, just an insult for the sake of insulting, but I think it was to the point nevertheless.

I've had enough of the constinuing stream of posts in which you portray yourself as an expert who thinks like an expert and acts like an expert, usually in contrast with the person you are comparing yourself with. It's usually absolutely uncalled for, it certainly was this time.

I know that my posts are often amongst the longest on these forums. A number of people have told me that they appreciate the detail I go into when setting out my thinking. No-one has to read the long posts if they don't want to.

I hope I've made enough admissions about being wrong and being converted to other peoples' point of view on some matters that most readers understand that, despite the arrogant tone that appears in a lot of my posts, I don't see and have never seen myself as infallible or as the font of all (bridge) wisdom. In fact, from my perspective, one of the benefits of making long posts, outlining my thinking, is that it sometimes prompts others to take issue with some or all of my thinking....and in that way I almost always learn something...sometimes something that really alters the way I think. Thus, through these forums I have come to think that rebidding 1N with a stiff, after say 1♦ 1♠ and finding me with 1=4=4=4 or 1=4=5=3 may be the best approach (tho none of my partners yet agree), or that responding to 1♥ by 2♣ with a gf 4=4 blacks may be better than my usual 1♠.


I know I have been (unfairly on most occasions) sarcastic in my responses to some of your posts, and after the fact expressions of regret don't do much to remove the sting of such an attitude. Combine those failings with the argumentative style I often adopt, and I can understand the animosity you have recently expressed.

As for this thread, I had perhaps erroneously but (I suggest) reasonably interpreted Fluffy's comment about 'nonsense' as a criticism of criticism of opening 1♥...in a post in which he certainly did not suggest he'd open 1♦. Fluffy has, if memory serves, often espoused opening 5 card majors while holding a longer minor, and I thought he was advocating the same here. He later clarified the issue in a long post that was responsive to mine. He didn't persuade me, and I didn't persuade him, but I suspect we both better understand our respective points of view as a result of the detailed expositions we exchanged.

Meanwhile, please accept my apologies for any offence I have caused you thus far, and (in advance) for the offence I am sure that I shall, intentionally or otherwise, cause you in the future. I usually respect your posts (and certainly respect the posts of almost all of those with whom I disagree), altho once you descend into personal insult merely for the sake of personal insult, you risk diminishing yourself more than you do the object of your insult....who presumably has already harmed himself in the eyes of others if your insults are valid.