Help
maybe to you Josh, but I just cannot read a single word he writes.
Just a nice hand
#41
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2008-December-23, 18:55
#42
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2008-December-23, 19:07
Fluffy, on Dec 23 2008, 07:55 PM, said:
maybe to you Josh, but I just cannot read a single word he writes.
I think it all hinges on your definition of "interesting".
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,502
- Joined: 2007-December-22
Posted 2008-December-23, 19:39
I vote with Han & Fluffy.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
#44
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2008-December-24, 02:08
"It's both "perfectly normal" and not."
I think that makes perfect sense and it doesn't. I both disagree and agree with Han and Fluffy because I can and can't read Foo's posts.
I think that makes perfect sense and it doesn't. I both disagree and agree with Han and Fluffy because I can and can't read Foo's posts.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#45
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,465
- Joined: 2006-January-07
- Location:Montreal Canada
- Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.
Posted 2008-December-24, 02:12
I play that 2S is a catch all bid, so its an easy 3C rebid (and 2S is a poor bid). If 2S show 6 Ill probably rebid 2S followed by 3H. I think that Qx in partner suit is a more relevant feature for slam or for COG than showing my 4 card minor. If my hand was stronger ill bid S+C+H but here its not clear that 4H will always make so bypassing 3Nt is a bit dangerous (slightly i agree).
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,465
- Joined: 2006-January-07
- Location:Montreal Canada
- Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.
Posted 2008-December-24, 02:24
Also i think that 2Nt should show positionals values and is rarely a catchall bid. Here however you are a bit screwed since both 3C and 3D are misbids so 2Nt is probably correct.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#47
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2008-December-24, 02:37
benlessard, on Dec 24 2008, 03:12 PM, said:
I play that 2S is a catch all bid, so its an easy 3C rebid (and 2S is a poor bid). If 2S show 6 Ill probably rebid 2S followed by 3H. I think that Qx in partner suit is a more relevant feature for slam or for COG than showing my 4 card minor. If my hand was stronger ill bid S+C+H but here its not clear that 4H will always make so bypassing 3Nt is a bit dangerous (slightly i agree).
I take issue with the comment that 2S is a "bad bid". For me and for many, 3C would show more strength. Hard to believe that anyone can call rebidding a 6 card suit a "bad bid."
I would need to know more about the style that is played to determine whether i would bid 4H. Does the given sequence show a minimum as Cherdano suggests, or does it show extra strength?
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#48
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2008-December-24, 03:00
I vote for 655321 and Josh.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#49
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-December-24, 04:46
The_Hog, on Dec 24 2008, 02:37 AM, said:
I would need to know more about the style that is played to determine whether i would bid 4H. Does the given sequence show a minimum as Cherdano suggests, or does it show extra strength?
In NA, it is pretty universal that responder's sequence does not show extras.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#50
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-December-24, 06:07
cherdano, on Dec 24 2008, 11:46 AM, said:
In NA, it is pretty universal that responder's sequence does not show extras.
Does it deny extras?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#51
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2008-December-24, 12:35
han, on Dec 22 2008, 11:12 PM, said:
♠ AKT9xx ♥ Qx ♦ x ♣ KQxx
1S - 2H (GF)
2S - 2NT
3C - 3NT
??
Agree with the auction to date? Now what?
1S - 2H (GF)
2S - 2NT
3C - 3NT
??
Agree with the auction to date? Now what?
IMO 4♥ = 10, _P = 5
Playing natural methods, neither 2♠ nor 2N would be forcing; but I presume this should be in the 2/1 discussion.
#52
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2008-December-24, 14:57
whoa. natural methods?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#53
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 279
- Joined: 2008-July-15
- Location:North Central US
Posted 2008-December-24, 15:16
nige1, on Dec 24 2008, 01:35 PM, said:
han, on Dec 22 2008, 11:12 PM, said:
♠ AKT9xx ♥ Qx ♦ x ♣ KQxx
1S - 2H (GF)
2S - 2NT
3C - 3NT
??
Agree with the auction to date? Now what?
1S - 2H (GF)
2S - 2NT
3C - 3NT
??
Agree with the auction to date? Now what?
IMO 4♥ = 10, _P = 5
Playing natural methods, neither 2♠ nor 2N would be forcing; but I presume this should be in the 2/1 discussion.
Nigel,
What about 4♠ ?
If we expect pard to hold a balanced hand, game forcing values, and 5 Hearts then why is Hearts better than Spades?
On the given auction, we may have an 8-card fit in Spades but we don't in Hearts.
thanks,
RichM
#54
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2008-December-24, 15:21
nige1, on Dec 24 2008, 01:35 PM, said:
Playing natural methods, neither 2♠ nor 2N would be forcing; but I presume this should be in the 2/1 discussion.
Hmm? I don't think you know what the word 'natural' means.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#55
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,465
- Joined: 2006-January-07
- Location:Montreal Canada
- Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.
Posted 2008-December-24, 16:39
Quote
I take issue with the comment that 2S is a "bad bid". For me and for many, 3C would show more strength.
Ive said that if 2S is showing 6 i would bid 2S. If not 3C is surely better then 2S the hand clearly has enough values to bid 3C.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#56
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-December-24, 17:35
I agree with Ben: this hand is well worth 3♣, so 2♠ is only correct if it allows you to show six spades.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#57
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2008-December-24, 20:58
jdonn, on Dec 24 2008, 04:21 PM, said:
Hmm? I don't think you know what the word 'natural' means.
Some terms are defined implicitly or explicitly in laws and regulations; but IMO
- In principle a bid is a contract to take a specified number of tricks in a specified denomination. Hence, IMO, a natural call should approve the current strain as a possible final contract.
- In contrast, the main message of an artificial call is independent of level and strain.
- A conventioal call conveys additional information, by agreement. A natural bid may become forcing by convention. For example, in America, some suit raises and rebids and some notrump bids are forcing, which are non-forcing in some other places. All artificial calls are conventional.
- I agree that most people regard
- Their own methods as natural.
Other's methods as artificial and of doubtful efficacy except in their capacity to confuse.