Help
Hannie, on Feb 16 2006, 01:57 PM, said:
When Rodwell decides not to explore slam because he thinks that the chances that an exploration gives away vital information to the defense are far larger then the chances that Meckwell will find a good slam, then we all say (correctly imo) that Rodwell must have been right (even when slam happened to be good).
Now we have a young bridge player who wants to improve and is thinking about these issues. The circumstances seem right to him (no good agreements for this hand, matchpoints, etc.) so he decides to try the same strategy. That seems a healthy attitude to me, but some of our starred posters say that this is "bad for his partnership morale" and that he is making "sick bids". How can you learn these things when you are not allowed to make mistakes?
Now we have a young bridge player who wants to improve and is thinking about these issues. The circumstances seem right to him (no good agreements for this hand, matchpoints, etc.) so he decides to try the same strategy. That seems a healthy attitude to me, but some of our starred posters say that this is "bad for his partnership morale" and that he is making "sick bids". How can you learn these things when you are not allowed to make mistakes?
Are we not supposed to say it's sick if that is what he ASKS and that is what we think?
By the way, the 2 situations you describe (rodwell and arend) are not analagous. In this case partner has a very high upper limit and a very wide range. We are misdescribing (given that with the same shape and 0 HCP 99 % of people would bid 4S) our hand opposite that and making a unilateral decision. Making unilateral decisions is fine opposite a limited partner (and in the instance you cite, rodwell's partner was limited).
We really have no idea what partner has. Arend said that this hand is in range for his partnership's splinters and partner would NOT expect more. He would not expect side controls or more high card points. We have not denied a void. Most of the hands where slam is good include little wastage in clubs with partner (or just a huge hand).
I'm glad Arend is thinking about things such as getting favorable leads and shutting the opponents out. Indeed Rodwell does too. I think that Arend is doing his learning in a great way, making his bid then discussing it with many other people. He is asking for us to be honest about what we think of his bid, and taking no offense if we think it is a bad bid. Indeed, some very good players think its reasonable and think 4C is not a good bid. Arend can read all of this and form his own views on bridge and this hand, so I think that that is a great way to learn.
I don't think that because I said his bid was "sick" when he asked if it was sick that means he is not allowed to make mistakes. And just because I think it is sick does not make it so.
I will always be honest with someone about what I think of their bid if they ask. I think that is the point of the forums, and that is why it's such a great utility. It is insulting to that person if you lie to them and sugarcoat your reply when they specifically ask you if you think their bid is bad. I will never do that.
