Help
I think the original hand is excellent in context, I also think you're making 4 5% of the time or less so I'm not bothering to shoot for it. I think partner will bid 4 if you make a try far more often than that, so making a try is a net loss.
Our game tries are "long suit with values" and I think this is pretty common here, partner won't evaluate xx as a good holding when it really is about the best here, and will evaluate Hxx as excellent when it isn't, which is why 3♥ is completely out. Clearly anybody with agreements different to MrAce's is a complete idiot, so there's no point in arguing with him.
hand has improved
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,115
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2013-December-05, 05:14
#22
- VIP Member
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,971
- Joined: 2009-November-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston, TX
Posted 2013-December-05, 12:45
Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-05, 05:14, said:
t. Clearly anybody with agreements different to MrAce's is a complete idiot, so there's no point in arguing with him.
You nailed it !
I was not saying "We have a max hand, and now we found 9 card fit + my AQx club improved almost to AKx ♣. And that we should make a better description of this hand as oppose to just bidding game or just trying to sign off in 3♠ After all as 1 NT opener i should not be the one who decides everything in the pdship and just bid game or just shut the door for my pd ! I just think everyone else is an idiot who disagrees with me.
I love the way you understand things, the way you think when looking at a hand, and the way you have a specific agreements with your pd for this type of "maybe 1 in a lifetime" auction, and the way you covered the hands with KJxx ♥ and brought this up in a topic where "no further agreement" was in charge . Pd is so idiot that, even when you open NT, you should be in charge of all the analysis and decisions to prevent pd from making stupid things like bidding game more often than not when you already opened 1NT.! You have mad skills! Way to go !
Re read what i wrote, i did not disagree because of your agreements. I don't really care on people's agreements even if they bring it up almost each and every time after OP says "no further agreement" I just disagreed with the logic that says "i can not describe my hand because due to my agreements, 3 ♥ is reserved for a specific hand" Period. ( most people don't even have that kinda agreement for their grandslam investigation.)
If there is anyone who thinks someone is idiot, i think it is you who thinks pd is an idiot. When you open 1 NT, an 11 -13 balanced hand, your hand does not improve by a lot. You will not be raised more often as you claimed. . Just be clear about the main msg you are sending to your pd and stop worrying about details of details. Because you are drawning in details which you to think is so important and can not even see that you have disabled yourself from sending the correct msg anymore.
You can not even see this entire debate was not about agreements and you thought i was disagreeing your agreements. No, we disagreed about whether this hand worth a game try or not. This has absolutely ***** nothing to do with agreements.At the end of the day, i or you may be wrong. But please don't tell me that i thought you are idiot because i did not like your agreements. I never thought you are an idiot to start with (imo you are one of those who likes to talk and read more about the styles-agreements-systems than the logic of the game) Looking at a hand and evaluating it has very little to do with agreements, and has nothing to do especially when OP says "no agreement" I admit you dragged me into "which heart holdings should bid 3♥" kinda argument, and i admit that i found it funny, but never said you are an idiot
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#23
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2013-December-05, 13:55
Can partner have ♠Axxxx ♥xxx ♦AQx ♣xx?
If so, then this discussion seems easy. If you super-accept by bidding where you live (3♦), then partner can count tricks. Three diamonds, plus an expected five spades = 8, assuming both the diamond and spade King (6 HCP) plus either the spade Queen or the spade Jack(10) and a good guess or a 2-2 split. If Opener's hand grew up because of the club bid, Opener has another club trick assured if the King, two if the Ace-Queen or King-Queen (11-13 HCP net), with a tenth in the former coming somewhere for the super-accept (which seems like 4+ expected covers). If you do not show the diamond value, he needs too much for game and cannot find out if it is there.
If so, then this discussion seems easy. If you super-accept by bidding where you live (3♦), then partner can count tricks. Three diamonds, plus an expected five spades = 8, assuming both the diamond and spade King (6 HCP) plus either the spade Queen or the spade Jack(10) and a good guess or a 2-2 split. If Opener's hand grew up because of the club bid, Opener has another club trick assured if the King, two if the Ace-Queen or King-Queen (11-13 HCP net), with a tenth in the former coming somewhere for the super-accept (which seems like 4+ expected covers). If you do not show the diamond value, he needs too much for game and cannot find out if it is there.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,115
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2013-December-05, 14:37
MrAce, on 2013-December-05, 12:45, said:
You nailed it !
I was not saying "We have a max hand, and now we found 9 card fit + my AQx club improved almost to AKx ♣. And that we should make a better description of this hand as oppose to just bidding game or just trying to sign off in 3♠ After all as 1 NT opener i should not be the one who decides everything in the pdship and just bid game or just shut the door for my pd ! I just think everyone else is an idiot who disagrees with me.
I love the way you understand things, the way you think when looking at a hand, and the way you have a specific agreements with your pd for this type of "maybe 1 in a lifetime" auction, and the way you covered the hands with KJxx ♥ and brought this up in a topic where "no further agreement" was in charge . Pd is so idiot that, even when you open NT, you should be in charge of all the analysis and decisions to prevent pd from making stupid things like bidding game more often than not when you already opened 1NT.! You have mad skills! Way to go !
Re read what i wrote, i did not disagree because of your agreements. I don't really care on people's agreements even if they bring it up almost each and every time after OP says "no further agreement" I just disagreed with the logic that says "i can not describe my hand because due to my agreements, 3 ♥ is reserved for a specific hand" Period. ( most people don't even have that kinda agreement for their grandslam investigation.)
If there is anyone who thinks someone is idiot, i think it is you who thinks pd is an idiot. When you open 1 NT, an 11 -13 balanced hand, your hand does not improve by a lot. You will not be raised more often as you claimed. . Just be clear about the main msg you are sending to your pd and stop worrying about details of details. Because you are drawning in details which you to think is so important and can not even see that you have disabled yourself from sending the correct msg anymore.
You can not even see this entire debate was not about agreements and you thought i was disagreeing your agreements. No, we disagreed about whether this hand worth a game try or not. This has absolutely ***** nothing to do with agreements.At the end of the day, i or you may be wrong. But please don't tell me that i thought you are idiot because i did not like your agreements. I never thought you are an idiot to start with (imo you are one of those who likes to talk and read more about the styles-agreements-systems than the logic of the game) Looking at a hand and evaluating it has very little to do with agreements, and has nothing to do especially when OP says "no agreement" I admit you dragged me into "which heart holdings should bid 3♥" kinda argument, and i admit that i found it funny, but never said you are an idiot
I was not saying "We have a max hand, and now we found 9 card fit + my AQx club improved almost to AKx ♣. And that we should make a better description of this hand as oppose to just bidding game or just trying to sign off in 3♠ After all as 1 NT opener i should not be the one who decides everything in the pdship and just bid game or just shut the door for my pd ! I just think everyone else is an idiot who disagrees with me.
I love the way you understand things, the way you think when looking at a hand, and the way you have a specific agreements with your pd for this type of "maybe 1 in a lifetime" auction, and the way you covered the hands with KJxx ♥ and brought this up in a topic where "no further agreement" was in charge . Pd is so idiot that, even when you open NT, you should be in charge of all the analysis and decisions to prevent pd from making stupid things like bidding game more often than not when you already opened 1NT.! You have mad skills! Way to go !
Re read what i wrote, i did not disagree because of your agreements. I don't really care on people's agreements even if they bring it up almost each and every time after OP says "no further agreement" I just disagreed with the logic that says "i can not describe my hand because due to my agreements, 3 ♥ is reserved for a specific hand" Period. ( most people don't even have that kinda agreement for their grandslam investigation.)
If there is anyone who thinks someone is idiot, i think it is you who thinks pd is an idiot. When you open 1 NT, an 11 -13 balanced hand, your hand does not improve by a lot. You will not be raised more often as you claimed. . Just be clear about the main msg you are sending to your pd and stop worrying about details of details. Because you are drawning in details which you to think is so important and can not even see that you have disabled yourself from sending the correct msg anymore.
You can not even see this entire debate was not about agreements and you thought i was disagreeing your agreements. No, we disagreed about whether this hand worth a game try or not. This has absolutely ***** nothing to do with agreements.At the end of the day, i or you may be wrong. But please don't tell me that i thought you are idiot because i did not like your agreements. I never thought you are an idiot to start with (imo you are one of those who likes to talk and read more about the styles-agreements-systems than the logic of the game) Looking at a hand and evaluating it has very little to do with agreements, and has nothing to do especially when OP says "no agreement" I admit you dragged me into "which heart holdings should bid 3♥" kinda argument, and i admit that i found it funny, but never said you are an idiot
You utterly misunderstand what I was saying.
What I was saying is that absent other agreements, most people here play long suit with values game tries. Hence that's what 3♥ is without any agreements special to this sequence, so this hand is inappropriate as partner will raise on the wrong hands.
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,366
- Joined: 2012-March-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Illinois
- Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer
Posted 2013-December-05, 15:13
I bid 3 ♠.
With a "good" 11 count, partner might have opened. If not, then partner might well make an invitational bid as responder. Partner did neither of these things, so chances of game seem remote. OTOH, partner could be bidding on virtually nothing with 5 ♠s to get out of 1 NT. Most of the time partner is somewhere in between.
Over a weak NT, opener's LHO can have considerable values and not be able to bid. That's because with the NT bidder opening with less, opener's partner is more likely to have values behind the LHO. So paradoxically, you need better values to intervene immediately over a weak NT than over a strong NT. (Over the years, a steady stream of +500s and +800s from those who didn't pay heed to the foregoing after our weak NT openers has confirmed this.)
So it's not clear that the NT opener's side has the balance of the points.
In the meantime, 3 ♠ obstructs the opponents as much as possible. If responder has the right hand, we might get to a thin game that makes.
With a "good" 11 count, partner might have opened. If not, then partner might well make an invitational bid as responder. Partner did neither of these things, so chances of game seem remote. OTOH, partner could be bidding on virtually nothing with 5 ♠s to get out of 1 NT. Most of the time partner is somewhere in between.
Over a weak NT, opener's LHO can have considerable values and not be able to bid. That's because with the NT bidder opening with less, opener's partner is more likely to have values behind the LHO. So paradoxically, you need better values to intervene immediately over a weak NT than over a strong NT. (Over the years, a steady stream of +500s and +800s from those who didn't pay heed to the foregoing after our weak NT openers has confirmed this.)
So it's not clear that the NT opener's side has the balance of the points.
In the meantime, 3 ♠ obstructs the opponents as much as possible. If responder has the right hand, we might get to a thin game that makes.
#26
- VIP Member
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,971
- Joined: 2009-November-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston, TX
Posted 2013-December-06, 07:17
Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-05, 14:37, said:
You utterly misunderstand what I was saying.
What I was saying is that absent other agreements, most people here play long suit with values game tries. Hence that's what 3♥ is without any agreements special to this sequence, so this hand is inappropriate as partner will raise on the wrong hands.
What I was saying is that absent other agreements, most people here play long suit with values game tries. Hence that's what 3♥ is without any agreements special to this sequence, so this hand is inappropriate as partner will raise on the wrong hands.
Ok, got it. I think we both made our points and i just came from work, tired as hell, time to rest my case and leave myself to gravity
. Apologies if i got too excited when replying during the heat of debate 
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#27
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2013-December-06, 15:59
Fluffy, on 2013-December-04, 04:19, said:
Having read the arguments, I agree with Mr Ace that 3♦ might be misinterpreted and that 3♥ is more like a "Last train" try for game than a specific suit trial bid. Partner knows you have at most a flat 13 HCP. Your hand couldn't be much more suitable. Anyway, If partner treats 3♥ as a long-suit trial-bid, regards ♥ honours as useful cards, and judges to bid 4♠ as a result, then that should be a playable contract e.g.
♠ A x x x x ♥ K Q x ♦ x x x ♣ x x
Realistically, you may hope for equally useful ♥ shortage e.g.
♠ A Q x x x ♥ x ♦ Q J x x ♣ x x x
Although partner would be unlikely to bid game ulnless he held a bit more strength, which he may well have.
No further agreements.