[JLOGIC]

Oh, and flame warriors comes through again.

best site ever lol

[kenrexford]

Whenever I hear about a post where people are calling each other stupid, I have to join in.

The debate seems to be which idiot got us to 6NT, or whether everyone made perfect sense in their bidding. The first question seems to revolve around whether the south hand is an "opening hand." Of course, this is a dumb debate, to a degree, because the determination of whether a hand qualifies for an opening is not governed by some sort of cosmic justice. It is governed by agreements and understandings. As an absurd example, I have played where a 1♦ opening if balanced shows 18-19 HCP or 8-10 HCP (with 3+ diamonds). As this hand has 12 HCP, it is too strong for that opening. Change the range slightly, and it is perfect. Or, drop one or two Jacks, and this is perfect for a 1♦ opening.

Having (I hope) made the first point, the second question is whether this is a valid 1♦ opening within some mainstream views. The idea that some sort of losing trick count analysis is used is somewhat silly. Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx is an 8-loser hand and falls well below the expected 7-loser for an opening. So, is that passed? Of course, one will argue about adjustments and the like. But, the assumption is wrong for starters. Most do not expect a 7-loser hand for a balanced minimum opening. Most I know expect about 7.5 to 8 losers for that holding. If that means that a balanced minimum opening is made with a hand that has less playing potential than your average minimum unbalanced opening, then so what? I agree with that, but this does not change the fact that the normal, modern expectation is that a balanced minimum is in a sense a "sub-minimum" in historial terms.

The tendency toward lighter 1NT openings (15-17 but good 14's) means that the "balanced minimum" is in many circles getting weaker and weaker. Again, so what? if the expectation is for the balanced minimum to be sub-minimum, then expectations are met when a hand like this is opened.

Oh, and BTW, this also translate among many of us into interesting sequences to account for the sub-minimum expectation for balanced minimums, where unbalanced hands are often bid strangely by historical perspective. The 15-16 HCP hand with 1-4-5-3 shape, for instance, used to be opened 1♦ and then after 1♠ rebid 1NT. Today, many of us would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣, in part because of the extreme weakness expected for the balanced minimum.

The problem with this sequence, however, is that this Opener used that sort of "modern" trend, while Responder made a more archaic/traditional analysis of HCP combinations. When I saw this sequence, the 6NT call shocked me. I expected a combined pure strength of 31-33 HCP, not 32-34. With an average of 32, 6NT does not look good without a trick source. I would definitely want to explore 4-4 fits and the like, but 4NT seemed like enough. This, of course, is coupled with the fact that Opener would be expected to view a 13-14 HCP hand as a contextual maximum.

I see this all the time. The same thing happens with game tries. People open a minor with the range being a good 11 to a bad 14. Partner invites 3NT with hands that should sign off at 1NT. Or, partner bids 3NT out of fear that Opener will not see 13 as a maximum. Or, Opener in fact sees 13 as a minimum. All of which are "wrong" if your effective range for the balanced minimum is 11 to a bad 14.

By the way, the reduction of the expectation for a balanced minimum makes sense to be because it compliments the tendency for opening lighter unbalanced hands. If a 1♦ opening with 1-4-5-3 shape has a real chance of an 11-HCP minimum (because of the Rule-of-Twenty or some such analysis method), then it seems that the balanced minimum should be similarly ranged. When the unbalanced minimum catches no fit, the hand ends up analyzed for notrump contracts anyway. So, if the no-fit unbalanced minimum is in the 11 to 14 range, then the balanced minimum in the 11-14 range also makes sense, as consistent.

When 1NT showed 16 to 18 and 13 HCP was needed to open regardless of shape, all was well. But, if you reduce your HCP minimums for unbalanced hands, a corresponding reduction in range for balanced hands is complimentary and consistent and seems to me to work. But, then you have to grow along with this change as Responder and not view a 20-HCP hand "opposite an opening bid" as a slam force hand, as Opener does not have a 13-count "opening bid" that grandpa used to have. He has a limit raise or better.

Oh, and Justin is a kneebiter.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 kenrexford, on 2012-February-29, 16:41, said:

Whenever I hear about a post where people are calling each other stupid, I have to join in.

The debate seems to be which idiot got us to 6NT, or whether everyone made perfect sense in their bidding.
................................................................................................................
When 1NT showed 16 to 18 and 13 HCP was needed to open regardless of shape, all was well. But, if you reduce your HCP minimums for unbalanced hands, (then) a corresponding reduction in range for balanced hands is complimentary and consistent and seems to me to work. But, then you have to grow along with this change as Responder and not view a 20-HCP hand "opposite an opening bid" as a slam force hand, as Opener does not have a 13-count "opening bid" that grandpa used to have. He has a limit raise or better.

Sage observation.
I've had to make adjustments as Responder about what I think is a "game force" hand .
A good 12 hcp opposite "Aunt Gladys'" 13 w/2 quick tricks used to be enough.... Not any more.

[HighLow21]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 16:24, said:

HighLow...
<snip>

I'm going to keep this response simple by saying:
(1) I was attacked today on multiple fronts.
(2) I made the mistake of biting on some bait I shouldn't have; in the process, I created my own bait. I am sorry, but I was also provoked.
(3) I respect other people's opinions when they are opinions and not personal attacks.

Justin, if there's something else you'd like me to respond directly to, let me know.

[HighLow21]

 kenrexford, on 2012-February-29, 16:41, said:

<snip>

Oh, and Justin is a kneebiter.

I agree with everything you said, though I have no idea what a kneebiter is. I'm off to Urban dictionary to find out. LOL.

Agreed with this concept you elucidated: no one has a right to tell someone else what constitutes an opening bid or overcall. "Fert" bids on 0-7 points are standard in a couple of systems, for example. What I'm talking about is standard bidding: that which applies to, say, 90% of the players on this site. BBO Basic or its close cousin, SAYC.

And all I was arguing is that the OP blamed partner for putting me in the slam. I EXPECT to put my partner in slam holding 20 HCP most of the time, when he opens. This is assuming BBO Basic/SAYC.

And all I was trying to argue was that, as far as balanced 12's (a borderline or minimum opener in BBO Basic/SAYC) go, this hand is about as bad as it gets.

[bluecalm]

Quote

no one has a right to tell someone else what constitutes an opening bid or overcall

We can still try to observe which style is dominant in top level competition as it's likely it's dominant for a reason and not because of fashion or manliness of players involved etc.
As someone who is keen observer of high level bridge and who did a lot of work on various style differencies between say top American and Italian players I can tell you that you will struggle to find anybody ever passing such hand in top level competition. Aggressive or more solid - they all open it.

[HighLow21]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 16:28, said:

Lol I mean do you realize how funny you look to anyone with a clue? It is ok to not know anything about squeezes, but to post so authoritatively and then to post something like this is truly amazing.

You're right, clearly I don't have a clue. Nor do any of the people who supported many of the things I had to say. And I didn't say I don't have a clue about squeezes. I said that I explicitly was leaving squeezes out.

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 16:28, said:

Another gem. My post that I would double finesse clubs and go from there is dangerous as fire. However, your post that with no 5 card suit 6N needs 34 HCP (lol), that squeezes are very rare (lol), that this slam is 40 %, and that you should pass with the south hand in first seat (despite that being very non mainstream) are not dangerous at all.

That isn't what I what I said, Justin.

I wasn't referring to your comment about how to play this hand. On this topic, you said nothing dangerous. I was referring to a slew of other half-thoughts you have flippantly posted recently. My comments in this thread were in response to the deference others were paying you when, in my mind, you said absolutely nothing meaningful in your original response to this topic. The thing about RHM was a joke? Fine, maybe it's actually a funny joke. And maybe that joke is worth the rep points. But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 16:28, said:

lol. OP was not sure how to begin the play of this hand obviously. I said he should double finesse clubs, as did bluecalm. Maybe that is not an earth shattering post, and I am guessing I got repped because of the rhm joke combined with being right that that is the way to start the hand, but it I do not see why you're so offended by that post lol. It is MUCH better than 1000 words of incorrect nonsense from a novice who speaks authoritatively and holds highly controversial views which he speaks as definitive truths. Not to mention going off topic multiple times in hijacking a thread. Get a clue, <snip>

[/reading].

[HighLow21]

 bluecalm, on 2012-February-29, 19:04, said:

We can still try to observe which style is dominant in top level competition as it's likely it's dominant for a reason and not because of fashion or manliness of players involved etc.
As someone who is keen observer of high level bridge and who did a lot of work on various style differencies between say top American and Italian players I can tell you that you will struggle to find anybody ever passing such hand in top level competition. Aggressive or more solid - they all open it.

Fine. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have made the comment if the post were in the A/E forum, but it wasn't.

[Statto]

Bridge is a dangerous game

I've not been here long but had no trouble understanding JL's 1st post. RHM is another poster who I gather is a very good card player

[JLOGIC]

Quote

I wasn't referring to your comment about how to play this hand. On this topic, you said nothing dangerous. I was referring to a slew of other half-thoughts you have flippantly posted recently. My comments in this thread were in response to the deference others were paying you when, in my mind, you said absolutely nothing meaningful in your original response to this topic. The thing about RHM was a joke? Fine, maybe it's actually a funny joke. And maybe that joke is worth the rep points. But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

How did my comment hurt? I said you should start by double hooking clubs. There are too many possible combinations from there. You did not seem to realize that specifically because you did not understand how the squeezes affected the play. I mean look how long my reply was to you explaining the possible squeezes, and that was only for the set of hands where:

1) the club was ducked and won on left.
2) the diamond hook was on.

We had to discuss LHO having 4 clubs, RHO having 4 clubs, LHO having 4 diamonds, RHO having 4 diamonds, possible falsecards with QTxx of diamonds, etc etc.

We did not even get to what happens when they cover the club, then duck a club, etc. It is a hand with a lot of possibilities and it would be silly in my mind to write a book about it when in real life my line would be to lead teh CJ, and then if it held lead the CT, and then go from there, or if the club got covered, think about what to do and go from there. It cuts down on the tree of what we can do dramatically, and it will ALWAYS start with trying for a double club finesse.

Ergo, my comment of "double finesse clubs and then do some rhm stuff" was exactly what I meant to say. Perhaps others appreciated it. I do not know why this bothers you so much. I would still prefer my post to yours which was just wrong on so many levels, despite what it was trying to do, and that was just the part about the play (aka the relevant part).

Speaking of which, back to this quote:

Quote

But the original comment you wrote was unhelpful to anyone actually trying to understand the best way to play this hand.

How on earth was your tangent about the bidding and opening 12 point hands and 6N with 33 HCP and blah blah helpful to people trying to understand the best way to play the hand? My comment was on point directly: You should start by double finessing clubs. That is the first decision of the hand as you could go for some other lines (4 diamonds 4 hearts 3 spades 1 club). Your points about the bidding were not only off point, but they were obviously going to get a rise out of everyone.

[JLOGIC]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 19:07, said:

You're right, clearly I don't have a clue. Nor do any of the people who supported many of the things I had to say. And I didn't say I don't have a clue about squeezes. I said that I explicitly was leaving squeezes out.

I mean, man it's like discussing a chess game and you're like well I don't know what a fork is but this is the right line and here are my calculations and you MUST do this and blah blah AND BY THE WAY E4 as an opening sucks for sure you cannot play it!

If you don't understand squeezes then you cannot analyze this hand. I am not trying to be mean. Maybe squeezes are rare to you but when you have 32 HCP and no fit in 6N that has to be the most common time for them to come up. You could attempt to analyze and and ask where you went wrong, but when you are assigning percentages to things, you are implying some degree of certainty in what you're doing, or else it's pointless. Again, the problem I have is not really you criticizing my posting or posting style, its more that you say very very non standard things like they are factual which is gonna hijack the thread, and you criticize me for not analyzing the hand thoroughly but when you try to you butcher it and then say "well I ignored squeezes on purpose." Hopefully if you read the part of my post where I actually talked about the various squeezes they are very important to the hand. I mean, you wouldn't try to analyze a hand and then say "but I don't know finesses so I ignored them." It is not possible.

[sfi]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 16:28, said:

Maybe that is not an earth shattering post, and I am guessing I got repped because of the rhm joke combined with being right that that is the way to start the hand, but it I do not see why you're so offended by that post lol.

It got my upvote because your post was almost verbatim what I had decided my line would be (I left out the word 'type'). Nothing earth-shattering, but I was amused.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I don't know what a fork is but this is the right line and here are my calculations and you MUST do this and blah blah AND BY THE WAY E4 as an opening sucks for sure you cannot play it!

Lol, this is a good one !

[MrAce]

Highlow, bro i am very sorry about your girlfriend and the things u are going thru. I mean it.

CGibson knew there was something wrong, or you wouldnt care why someone got upvoted, or why he chosed to make a joke instead of educative explenation etc etc..

Imo you are a great person, so is Justin. When u started here rough at the beginning,if you paid attention he was one of those who gave you a slack and didnt join the bash train. Unfortunately you called him out, and called him out on the wrong subject. I mean he earned poster of the year by people's votes for a reason and this reason was not the jokes he made thru the years. He has more educative, informative posts than anyone else. I am not even gonna get into his talent and real life success.

I assume (i maybe wrong) he didnt see your post about your girlfriend, or even after u call him out, he might have let you get away with it. But if u stick here with us, i can assure you he will be one of your favourite people.

Eventhough i hate your long posts, i really like you and want you to survive here m8. I dont know how old are you but if you are not as old as most of us here, you have a future in this game. Because obviously u love this game and u need experience and a good mentor. He is the man u need. Seriously. Unless u have ***** loads of $$$ and can hire pros at his level, you can learn most things from him for free in these forums. Or you can drop him a msg and ask something in his blog he will do his best to explain, he does it for the people that he doesnt even know.

EDIT: So sorry that i posted this one here, now that i see u made a totally different topic for this in "general" section.