[aguahombre]

bbrad...chk ur email

[the hog]

Phil, on Apr 4 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 2 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Lall was just off his medication last night.

Ron, I have known you for a very long time here and this is way beneath you. Nothing Josh or Justin previously said comes remotely close to justifying this kind of attack.

Please stop acting like one of these.

Yeah ok Phil, fair enough. He totally pissed me off though. My first post said I play it like this, others possibly play it differently and the response I got was totally off beam. Fine, everyone has their own ideas, but his stupid comments regarding Americans and bidding got to me. But yes you are right, the comment regarding he meds was a bit over the top, so I apologise for that, Justin.

[aguahombre]

Actually you could further make it right by congratulating Justin for bringing his old man in in San Diego, and "nailing" 2nd in the Nail Open

[the hog]

aguahombre, on Apr 4 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

Actually you could further make it right by congratulating Justin for bringing his old man in in San Diego, and "nailing" 2nd in the Nail Open

Now lets not get too lovey dovey here aguahombre. Enough is enough. His old man is probably far better than he is anyway.

[jdonn]

Never too late to sneak in one last snide comment eh?

[gnasher]

Bbradley62, on Apr 4 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 3 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

It's better than that, because we have ♠J.  I would cash the top trumps, then the top diamonds, and if the queen hadn't fallen I'd take a spade finesse.  So, I need 3-2 hearts, and one of:

♦Q singleton or doubleton (33%)
♠Q onside with diamonds 3-2 and queen guarded (20%)
♠Q onside with diamonds 4-1, a bit of the time - see below (say 1%)

Your diamonds are 5-2, so they have 6.

We were discussing how good 6♥ would be opposite xx Kxxx Axx Axxx.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Apr 4 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 3 2010, 06:12 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 3 2010, 09:57 PM, said:

I'll try from a West Coast perspective:

1♣ - 1♦*
1♥** - 3♥***
3♠# - 3N##
4♦....

[snip]

after 4♦, I think we have just enough info for responder to take control.

From responder's point of view, can't opener have xx K10xx Ax KQxxx, opposite which the five level isn't great? Your auction doesn't seem to address the question of club wastage.

Opener would cue 4♣ showing 2/3 honors.

OK, so make it Qx K10xx Ax KJxxx.

To me, responder's bidding in your auction looks like the sort of poor sequence people used to have before splinters were invented: exchange a few cue-bids without finding out anything about how well the two hands fit, then guess the right level.

[Codo]

So,if you studied this thread you learned that:

4 ♣ is a splinter, but not for Ron.
4♣ is limited, but not for Andy.
1 ♣ 1 ♦ 1 ♥ 2♥ is GF with 5+/4+ in the reds, but not for Phil.

(Ther names are just examples... the point is: There is no lonely right way in bidding.

I had not bid 4 ♣ because my partner and me, we have a clear defiition of this bid and the given hand does not fit. Opposite an unknown expert I had not tried it because I had no idea, how he can limit his hand- and I need a little more from him then just no wasted club values. If I had agreed walsh, I had tried a simple 2 ♥- and played it there opposite Phil and others.... No success.

[Phil]

gnasher, on Apr 4 2010, 03:06 AM, said:

OK, so make it Qx K10xx Ax KJxxx.

To me, responder's bidding in your auction looks like the sort of poor sequence people used to have before splinters were invented: exchange a few cue-bids without finding out anything about how well the two hands fit, then guess the right level.

Your examples are starting to look contrived.

Why the snipe about 'guessing the level'? I think I've demonstrated why my sequence isn't guessing at all and conveys controls and strength.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Apr 6 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

Your examples are starting to look contrived.

I'm trying to demonstrate a particular problem with a particular auction. There wouldn't be much point in providing example hands which don't match the auction or which don't demonstrate the problem.

If you tell me something about your methods which makes my example inconsistent with your sequence, it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to adapt the example to make it consistent.

Quote

Why the snipe about 'guessing the level'? I think I've demonstrated why my sequence isn't guessing at all and conveys controls and strength.

My point is that controls and strength aren't the only ingredient in succesful slam bidding: establishing how well the hands fit is at least as important. If you can't adequately do that, you do often end up guessing the right level. That is the reason that everyone plays splinters and other shortage-showing bids.

This is a hand which is suitable for a splinter in terms of shape, but which many people would bid in some other way because they regard it as too strong for a splinter. By doing so, they may be able to exchange more information about strength and controls. If, however, they sacrifice the ability to discuss how the hands fit, I think it's a net loss rather than a gain.