[manudude03]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 09:49, said:

OK, I disagree with literally everything you just said here.
(1) The south hand is a textbook opener only for underinformed disciples of Bergen's Rule of 20. I even bet Bergen himself would pass it.
(2) The actual layout is ANYTHING BUT unlucky, for a number of reasons I've already stated. Actually, all things considered, it's extremely fortunate.
(3) Calling my blame of the opener 'stupid' is offensive and, well, stupid. It is called an "ad hominem" attack, which means that, as a debating strategy, you attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. Very immature, ineffective, arrogant, and in this case, blatantly wrong.
(4) The scenario Phil is referring to is not this one for a number of reasons, and I'd be happy to elucidate them for you. I can think of at least 4 off the top of my head.
(5) Good luck with the last part of your analysis there, chief. Squeezes, as a rule, are unlikely. And, in testing for the 3-3 splits you refer to, you will have only 1 entry back to the South hand. Feel free to explain what squeezes are available to us.

1. Given that Bergen was (is) known to be very aggressive, I'd be surprised if he passed. Aces are good cards, using modified LTC (a concept I don't really like FWIW) it comes out at 7.5-8 losers, not the 8.5 you stated earlier, 7.5-8 losers is about normal for a weak NT hand. This hand also satisfies Klinger's Extended Rule of 22.
2. Put dummy's ♠Q in diamonds and 6NT is very good, needing little more than one of the clubs onside
3. Whatever, I'm not going to mince words, all I can say is I'll be opening the south any day and hope I will still be doing so when I'm 90 (if I live that long).
4. Maybe you will have to list them, it seemed pretty clear that's what the main fear was.
5. Here's 2 off the top of my head, give East xx Jxx xxxx Qxxx, during the play, you double hook the clubs, finds it loses, West comes back a second spade say, hook the clubs again, cash a third round and find they break 2-4, you play 3 rounds of hearts and find they break 3-3, play the fourth round out of principle, then cash the spades and when they break 6-4, you will have a full count, he will have to come down to 2 diamonds, now you can drop the Q with confidence (showup or count squeeze). Give West instead xx Jxxx QTxx Qxx, you take 2 club finesses again and this time they break 3-3. You then cash all your major suit winners throwing 2 diamonds from hand, then cross over to the ace of diamonds to lead the final club squeezing West in the majors.

By the way, squeezes aren't that rare, can't remember the figure I read once, but it was something like 1 in 6 hands you declare (though realising there is a squeeze is another matter)

[Phil]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 09:08, said:

Thanks. It still doesn't make any sense to me.

BTW, I'm going to make an extremely unpopular comment here and say: I love how JLOGIC posts a comment which says, in effect, "Take a double finesse and try to play it like some other guy," including a spelling error and a grammatical error, and it gets positive reputation points when other posts don't. Really? Really. I mean, Really??!

Rainer is one of the top analysts on here. That is saying a lot. He also posts on Bridgewinners and can debate card play problems with the likes of Michael Rosenberg. When Justin mentions "RHM type stuff" he isn't making a random reference.

Furthermore, when you have had Justin's success then you can start posting brief 'stream of consciousness' posts with syntax errors and expect to get '+'s'.

[HighLow21]

 Phil, on 2012-February-29, 10:28, said:

Rainer is one of the top analysts on here. That is saying a lot. He also posts on Bridgewinners and can debate card play problems with the likes of Michael Rosenberg. When Justin mentions "RHM type stuff" he isn't making a random reference.

Furthermore, when you have had Justin's success then you can start posting brief 'stream of consciousness' posts with syntax errors and expect to get '+'s'.

I just wish his posts were actually insightful, success in actual play aside. To say something like "wave my hands, do magic thing RHM does" is kinda... unhelpful.

[CSGibson]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:38, said:

I just wish his posts were actually insightful, success in actual play aside. To say something like "wave my hands, do magic thing RHM does" is kinda... unhelpful.

Geez, Justin gives us bridge gold 9 of 10 days, and your response is to complain about the attempt at humor on the 10th day? Its not like he's paid to provide these insights, or anything, just appreciate the good stuff and ignore anything you don't find helpful.

[ArtK78]

Someone definitely got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

[HighLow21]

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

1. Given that Bergen was (is) known to be very aggressive, I'd be surprised if he passed. Aces are good cards, using modified LTC (a concept I don't really like FWIW) it comes out at 7.5-8 losers, not the 8.5 you stated earlier, 7.5-8 losers is about normal for a weak NT hand. This hand also satisfies Klinger's Extended Rule of 22.

This hand is balanced so the Extended Rule of 22 doesn't apply.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

2. Put dummy's ♠Q in diamonds and 6NT is very good, needing little more than one of the clubs onside

But that's not the scenario, is it? And, you're just taking what is already a fairly favorable layout and making it extremely favorable.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

3. Whatever, I'm not going to mince words, all I can say is I'll be opening the south any day and hope I will still be doing so when I'm 90 (if I live that long).

I don't really care whether you would open it. To me, an aggressive but not extremely aggressive player, this hand doesn't qualify as an opener. Not close, even. Give me another jack and I still would consider passing it (though I would open it, as would almost anyone else).

What I do care is that you attacked my criticism by calling it stupid. It's not stupid. There are 10-counts out there that are far better suited to a 1-level opening than this hand. What IS stupid is your calling my argument stupid.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

4. Maybe you will have to list them, it seemed pretty clear that's what the main fear was.

(a) By the time you take the diamond finesse you will already have one club loser in the bag. You never duck a finesse when taking it gives you the setting trick.
(b) LHO could have QT♦.
© The primary reason to duck a first finesse is to cause declarer to chew up dummy entries. This dummy obviously has more than enough entries.
(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

I could give more, but that's enough for now.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

5. Here's 2 off the top of my head, give East xx Jxx xxxx Qxxx, during the play, you double hook the clubs, finds it loses, West comes back a second spade say, hook the clubs again, cash a third round and find they break 2-4, you play 3 rounds of hearts and find they break 3-3, play the fourth round out of principle, then cash the spades and when they break 6-4, you will have a full count, he will have to come down to 2 diamonds, now you can drop the Q with confidence (showup or count squeeze). Give West instead xx Jxxx QTxx Qxx, you take 2 club finesses again and this time they break 3-3. You then cash all your major suit winners throwing 2 diamonds from hand, then cross over to the ace of diamonds to lead the final club squeezing West in the majors.

You mean the spades break 6-2, not 6-4. And yes, you are correct, you now have a show-up squeeze in that scenario.
In the other scenario, you mean that you squeeze West in the red suits. Fine. But in so doing you've ruined the finesse position in diamonds in order to shoot the squeeze. Also, you would have only 1 diamond discard, not 2.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 10:25, said:

By the way, squeezes aren't that rare, can't remember the figure I read once, but it was something like 1 in 6 hands you declare (though realising there is a squeeze is another matter)

OK, even if that's accurate (which is very unlikely in my mind), there will be substantial overlap between the squeeze cases and the 37% probability of success that I just described. So it won't bump the total up to 53% or 54%. Maybe it will bump it up to 45% on a good day. And that assumes you NEVER fail to take advantage of an available squeeze, which even Terence Reese couldn't do.

[HighLow21]

 CSGibson, on 2012-February-29, 10:43, said:

Geez, Justin gives us bridge gold 9 of 10 days, and your response is to complain about the attempt at humor on the 10th day? Its not like he's paid to provide these insights, or anything, just appreciate the good stuff and ignore anything you don't find helpful.

I suppose that makes sense, Chris. Perhaps you are right. I just don't agree with the 9 of 10 assessment based on what I've seen. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.

[HighLow21]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-29, 10:44, said:

Someone definitely got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

If "girlfriend dying of ovarian cancer" is a reason to wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, then yes, maybe I have a reason. Still, my comments all stand as if I were on the "right side of the bed" today. I call 'em as I see 'em and I encourage anyone to try to change my mind. I'm opinionated, but nothing if not flexible in my opinions in the face of contradictory evidence.

[Phil]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:55, said:

(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

Huh? What I said was:

Oracle of Bridge said:

The most interesting continuation is when they cover the 1st club and duck the 2nd.

By covering with the K OR Q, and then ducking the 2nd (with the other honor), we deny declarer the chance to test clubs. We also stop the count from being rectified, although this may lead to other end positions.

[manudude03]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:55, said:

This hand is balanced so the Extended Rule of 22 doesn't apply.

ERof22 applies in the same circumstances as rule of 20, and you were the one who brought that up

Quote

(a) By the time you take the diamond finesse you will already have one club loser in the bag. You never duck a finesse when taking it gives you the setting trick.
(b) LHO could have QT♦.
© The primary reason to duck a first finesse is to cause declarer to chew up dummy entries. This dummy obviously has more than enough entries.
(d) Phil is usually referring to the duck of a king. Ducking a queen is far more dangerous. It's much more likely that there is no need to repeat the finesse. It's also very unlikely the declarer will take the finesse again because of the 9♦ in dummy. And if you don't hold at least 3 small diamonds with your queen, it's much harder to hold it up (and much more dangerous) because now the queen is in dropville.

I could give more, but that's enough for now.

I wasn't aware those cards with ♦s on them were called clubs.

Quote

You mean the spades break 6-2, not 6-4. And yes, you are correct, you now have a show-up squeeze in that scenario.
In the other scenario, you mean that you squeeze West in the red suits. Fine. But in so doing you've ruined the finesse position in diamonds in order to shoot the squeeze. Also, you would have only 1 diamond discard,t not 2.

Yes I meant 6-2, and yes I'll only have 1 diamond discard (that only makes that line more attractive, it's still not too late to finesse then!). You also might have observed that I can't run both squeezes concurrently, a lot of squeezes require you to read the position. Ever heard the saying "why make on a finesse when you can go down on a squeeze"?

Quote

OK, even if that's accurate (which is very unlikely in my mind), there will be substantial overlap between the squeeze cases and the 37% probability of success that I just described. So it won't bump the total up to 53% or 54%. Maybe it will bump it up to 45% on a good day. And that assumes you NEVER fail to take advantage of an available squeeze, which even Terence Reese couldn't do.

I never said it was a good slam, but we've all been there. In fact, I even said it was a very unlucky layout. We don't mope around and strop just because it's not a good slam, we just try and maximise the chances of making it, I am not going to lose sleep over figuring whether I took a 44% line or a 42% line.

[Phil]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:59, said:

If "girlfriend dying of ovarian cancer" is a reason to wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, then yes, maybe I have a reason. Still, my comments all stand as if I were on the "right side of the bed" today. I call 'em as I see 'em and I encourage anyone to try to change my mind. I'm opinionated, but nothing if not flexible in my opinions in the face of contradictory evidence.

Really sorry to hear that dude. About your girlfriend. I'm serious. In late 2008 ago my wife had a fight with cancer and I was really mad at the world. Come to think of it, that was the time that 'pclayton' left the forums. I was pretty pissed off at a particular post (not from Justin) and said, f**k it I don't need this s**t anymore. A happier Phil came back a few months later.

BBF is not unlike many social groups. I'm going through some job-related crap right now, and I have discovered some of my best friends are through BBF and BBO. BBF can be a effective coping mechanism.

Best of all, I have seen my own game progress and my real life results now have consistently improved. I credit this to my general experience, but also working on my game and seeking out opinions from peers and players better than me.

Of course, like any group, it takes a while to meld in and gain respect from others, and frankly, many never earn respect despite the thousands of posts. Steaming around is not the way to do that, but I will give you a hall pass today because of your personal issues.

[HighLow21]

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 11:36, said:

ERof22 applies in the same circumstances as rule of 20, and you were the one who brought that up

I site: http://www.ronklinge...ge-2012-blog-11

Also, looking at Klinger's original article, yes it would be an opening bid under his original description list but his list fails to adjust for Jx, Qx, Qxx, and a host of other things. I think we can agree that the hand is borderline; I think I can also argue vehemently well that there are a series of reasons (call them "tiebreakers") why this particular borderline hand should be passed rather than opened. We can spend all day citing various guidelines for opening bid decisions and my position is simple: this is one of the worst borderline hands I've ever seen. Both 4-card suits are minors. Two isolated minor honors. Terrible spot cards in every single suit. Clear pass, to me.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 11:36, said:

I wasn't aware those cards with ♦s on them were called clubs.

This is a misunderstanding and I grant you that. In your original post, you first started talking about diamonds and then clubs briefly in the same sentence, and talked about holding up a finesse. It was ambiguously phrased but upon intense scrutiny, it seems you meant to be referring to clubs. Fine. But actually, the argument that they may duck the 2nd round of a finesse in clubs works against your arguments, not in favor of them.

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 11:36, said:

Yes I meant 6-2, and yes I'll only have 1 diamond discard (that only makes that line more attractive, it's still not too late to finesse then!). You also might have observed that I can't run both squeezes concurrently, a lot of squeezes require you to read the position. Ever heard the saying "why make on a finesse when you can go down on a squeeze"?

Sounds like a good excuse for taking an inferior line of play to me. If the information gained thus far in the hand suggests the finesse is still 50/50 and the squeeze isn't that good (few squeezes are unless a big surprise occurs), why play for a squeeze when you can make 50/50 on a finesse?

 manudude03, on 2012-February-29, 11:36, said:

I never said it was a good slam, but we've all been there. In fact, I even said it was a very unlucky layout. We don't mope around and strop just because it's not a good slam, we just try and maximise the chances of making it, I am not going to lose sleep over figuring whether I took a 44% line or a 42% line.

Given that you have a 4333 hand, a 4432 hand, and 32 HCP, the fact that you can even get to 40-ish percent success is a miracle. An absolute miracle. There is no unlucky layout here. There are a series of flaws in both hands obvious before the bidding ends and in spite of them, there is still a possible, and not incredibly unlikely, way to make the slam. That's miraculous to me.

[HighLow21]

 Phil, on 2012-February-29, 12:30, said:

Really sorry to hear that dude. About your girlfriend. I'm serious. In late 2008 ago my wife had a fight with cancer and I was really mad at the world. Come to think of it, that was the time that 'pclayton' left the forums. I was pretty pissed off at a particular post (not from Justin) and said, f**k it I don't need this s**t anymore. A happier Phil came back a few months later.

BBF is not unlike many social groups. I'm going through some job-related crap right now, and I have discovered some of my best friends are through BBF and BBO. BBF can be a effective coping mechanism.

Best of all, I have seen my own game progress and my real life results now have consistently improved. I credit this to my general experience, but also working on my game and seeking out opinions from peers and players better than me.

Of course, like any group, it takes a while to meld in and gain respect from others, and frankly, many never earn respect despite the thousands of posts. Steaming around is not the way to do that, but I will give you a hall pass today because of your personal issues.

Thanks Phil. The most important thing is that I am there for her as much as I can be, and if I piss a few people off in the process, so be it. And I am very sorry to hear what happened with your wife. Few people understand what this is like until they face it for the first time.

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect and/or based on a misunderstanding of something someone else said or missed or omitted or misquoted.

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

[wyman]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 12:43, said:

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect

We have different definitions of "factually," apparently.

[HighLow21]

 wyman, on 2012-February-29, 13:01, said:

We have different definitions of "factually," apparently.

Mine involves things known to be true. What's your definition?

[CSGibson]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 12:43, said:

Thanks Phil. The most important thing is that I am there for her as much as I can be, and if I piss a few people off in the process, so be it. And I am very sorry to hear what happened with your wife. Few people understand what this is like until they face it for the first time.

I guess the ad hominem attacks earlier just sent me into a rage. Especially when they were factually incorrect and/or based on a misunderstanding of something someone else said or missed or omitted or misquoted.

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

1) you are getting very defensive. Manudude said blaming someone was stupid. He wasn't replying to you, and didn't mention you. It's not an ad hominem attack on you - you just read into it because you blamed someone earlier. If that's going to send you into a rage, then don't post on the forums unless you feel like being angry a lot.

2) I want to suggest that it's not productive to care about who gets praise (by which I assume you mean upvotes) and who doesn't on this forum. Upvotes are personal, and people do so for different reasons, not always related to bridge content. But again, why should you care what A poster thinks of B poster when you are neither A nor B?

3) If you are worried about your own treatment, then I have additional suggestions which may improve your posting experience: Don't take things personally. Don't responding defensively to every post. State your opinions as what they are - your opinions, which may or may not be fundamentally flawed. Do not get offended or up in arms when others disagree.

[HighLow21]

 CSGibson, on 2012-February-29, 14:14, said:

1) you are getting very defensive. Manudude said blaming someone was stupid. He wasn't replying to you, and didn't mention you. It's not an ad hominem attack on you - you just read into it because you blamed someone earlier. If that's going to send you into a rage, then don't post on the forums unless you feel like being angry a lot.

You don't use the word 'stupid' without intending to incite. Period. Unless, of course, you don't know what yuo're doing, but that's a different issue.

 CSGibson, on 2012-February-29, 14:14, said:

2) I want to suggest that it's not productive to care about who gets praise (by which I assume you mean upvotes) and who doesn't on this forum. Upvotes are personal, and people do so for different reasons, not always related to bridge content. But again, why should you care what A poster thinks of B poster when you are neither A nor B?

I only care when (1) others attack me baselessly, or (2) one of the posts is dangerous. Both apply today.

 CSGibson, on 2012-February-29, 14:14, said:

3) If you are worried about your own treatment, then I have additional suggestions which may improve your posting experience: Don't take things personally. Don't responding defensively to every post. State your opinions as what they are - your opinions, which may or may not be fundamentally flawed. Do not get offended or up in arms when others disagree.

Chris, if only you know how bad it got today--> not just here, but in several other forum topics. I was blatantly attacked and called names by a regular poster here.

And I will say this, mandude: I am sorry that you bore the brunt of my frustrations. That happens and it's not OK. I was wrong for taking the word 'stupid' personally, even if I find the word 'stupid' offensive in general.

The reality is, something else that happened here on the forums today was far, far more offensive, and I felt like I was getting attacked for everything I said. I stand by my comments, except where they were in obvious error or misunderstanding. But that doesn't change the fact that, after reviewing a series of posts by JLOGIC, I find them often unhelpful at best and dangerous as fire at worst to someone who only partially understands where he is coming from.

[JLOGIC]

HighLow, I am sorry you do not like my posts and get jealous that I get upvoted. Personally I do not ever read your posts since they are very long and full of nonsense, and I do not like rising to troll bait anymore. I think this thread is a good illustration of the differences in our posting styles, and why you are so mystified in general. A lot of people think if they make very long posts with long "analysis" that is what makes a good poster, but imagine if everyone posted like you, the forum would just be a huge cluster*****.

For instance, this guy posts a play problem. I basically just said the same thing as bluecalm, obviously start by double hooking clubs and go from there. There are simply too many permutations to go through at this point, I don't see any reason to analyze all of them when the start is always to hook clubs. That said, OP probably didn't know that hooking clubs was best to begin with and that's why he posted it starting from trick 1. Fair enough, he got his answer. I made a joke about "rhm type stuff" perhaps that is why I got upvoted and not bluecalm, or perhaps it is a bias in my favor, who cares?

Meanwhile, in response to his play problem, you latch onto a semantics thing because OP said that partner got us there. Perhaps he just meant partner is the one who made the final bid, and thus literally got us there, who cares? You then post hundreds of words on why you should not open a 12 count with 2 aces despite the fact that almost everyone in the world would open it. Ok, maybe you wouldn't open it and think the world sucks for opening with 12 points, that's great, who cares, it's a play problem? You are not being insightful by doing this, you are being a troll who is hijacking a thread. I assume you are at least aware enough to know that almost everyone in the world opens this hand. I also assume you know some people open even lighter than that. Perhaps that is their opening bid style to open all 11 counts. It doesn't say because it's not a thread about bidding or where the bidding is relevant. If you have a non-standard opening bid style, that is great for you, make a new thread about it. Instead you make people waste their time reading stupid BS and no doubt hijacking the thread.

Then you move on to your play "analysis" starting with:

Quote

As far as the play, you have 9 on top. Terrible. But not surprising given all of the flaws I've already mentioned. In fact, to be honest, I'm surprised there is any play for 6NT whatsoever. The only reason there's a play for it is that you have all the aces.

I mean jeez, that's really insightful, you have 32 highs with 2 key tens and a key 9 and you're surprised 6N has any play. You are a great poster, that definitely deserves an upvote!

Quote

You simply MUST find a club honor with RHO. Find out how many club tricks you have first.

Nice, isn't that what I said? Oh no, it isn't because it is untrue that you MUST find a club honor with RHO as you could make outside of the club suit. Since you love semantics, this is factually untrue, it is hilarious that you add in the capital MUST when it is just WRONG.

Next, you move on to your patented PERCENTAGES. Maybe if you use lots of numbers you will seem smart and mask that you are clueless about bridge. HINT: There is a reason that you only see top bridge players/analysts/writers use percentages, they are almost always irrelevant in figuring out what the best line is, and especially on a hand like this they are a lot trickier to use if you want to be accurate.

Quote

(a) If clubs divide 3-3, you STILL need a red suit finesse to make. I'd cash 3 hearts and then take the diamond finesse, combining the J♥ dropping with the Q♦ onside. This is about a 21% chance: 27% of the time, clubs will be 3-3 with at least one club honor onside; the jack of hearts will fall 52% of the time, and when it doesn't, the Q♦ finesse will work half the time. So 27% x (1 - (1 - 52%) x (1 - 50%)) = 27% x 76%, or about 21%.

That's nice, how do you know if clubs are 3-3 when they cover one and duck one?

Quote

(b) If clubs do not divide, you have only 10 tricks. You should try for 4 diamond tricks, or 4 hearts and 3 diamond tricks. You now MUST get the diamond finesse to work. Try that first. If it works, cash AK♦. If they divide, you have 12. If they don't, play for 4 heart tricks. This is about a 16% chance: Clubs will be 4-2 or worse with at least one honor onside about 3/4 of 64%, or 48% of the time. Of this, you need (i) Qxx♦ onside (18%) OR (ii) Q♦ not tripleton (32%) AND 4 heart tricks (52%). This is: 48% x [18% + (32% x 52%)] = 48% x (16% + 18%) = 48% x 34% = 16%. (This is all rounded, btw.)

Quote

Thus, barring squeezes, I put this contract's chances at about 21% + 16% = 37%. With squeezes, maybe it's 40%. Please feel free to verify my math on this. My gut tells me 40% is too high.

That's great you clown, the squeezes are what make this hand interesting, and they also add a lot to your chances when clubs are 4-2 with a diamond honor on and they don't duck a club which is why your "percentages" are so silly. You just put up irrelevant numbers with BOLD and UNDERLINE and CAPS and ITALICS after spending the majority of your long post going on a tirade about how it's YOUR FAULT not PARTNERS FAULT you got to this awful 32 HCP "40 % slam" which you're surprised had any play at all and think you are being insightful.

What if I told you that when the play went:

Spade
Club hook losing to LHO
Spade
Club hook winning
Club LHO showing out
Diamond to the king
Diamond to the jack winning

That you are now 100 % to make? Yet in your "percentages" you have it as far lower:

Quote

OR (ii) Q♦ not tripleton (32%) AND 4 heart tricks (52%).

The AND 4 heart tricks part is false, you do not need that, as you will just cash the major suits and squeeze RHO.
If RHO has Qx of diamonds, you can claim on a double squeeze (cash DJ, heart to the ace, spade pitching a club, claim).
But wait, perhaps this exposes you to a brilliant falsecard from QTxx of diamonds playing the queen on the second round? Nah, you're actually ok cashing the diamond, crossing to the HA, and playing a spade. If RHO follows, then you can hook the heart later with a full count. If RHO has xx Jxx Qxxx Qxxx he will be squeezed in 3 suits, forced to pitch his heart, thereby giving you the position.

So, whenever RHO has Hxxx of clubs and the DQ you are cold, yet your "percentages" show that you will be cold only half the time in that case when diamonds are 4-2. Very insightful.

What about when LHO has 4 clubs and it goes:

Spade
Club around to LHO
Spade
Club
Club RHO showing out
Diamond to the jack holding

Would you be surprised to learn that we are cold unless LHO has 4 diamonds to go with his 4 clubs (then we need the heart jack to fall)? Just cash the diamonds, if 3-3 claim. If RHO has 4, cash the last spade pitching your diamond and claim on the double squeeze. Yet, again, your analysis shows that when clubs are 4-2 with 1 honor on, and diamonds are 4-2 with the queen on, we are 52 % to make from there, instead of nearly 100 % Why bother posting percentages when they are irrelevant (we are not comparing 2 lines to see which is higher percentage) and also glaringly wrong? How can you look at a hand like this and mention squeezes as an afterthought and not include them in your analysis?

It is funny, I imagine you sitting there posting your long ass gramatically correct posts, underlining, bracketing, bolding, numbering, italicizing up the wazoo, adding in percentages and math and numbers and thinking "man I really nailed this one, I am gonna get so many upvotes" and then being distraught to see succinct posts with a joke that you don't even get having a couple of upvotes and you getting none and thinking "wow this system is rigged, unbelievable!"

Then you go back to this

Quote

The morals of this story:
1. The south hand is an automatic 1st seat pass in my opinion.
2. The south hand is only worth an invitation to 6NT after partner opens 2NT, and that's only if I'm feeling extremely lucky.
3. The invitation to 6NT should probably be declined by north for the reasons I enumerated earlier.
4. A 4-3-3-3 opposite any 4-4-3-2 with usually not make 6NT with fewer than 34 HCP. That's right: 34. Not 33. These two hands have 32 and I'm amazed that it has as much of a chance as I calculated above. (BTW, with 2 4-3-3-3 hands, 35 HCP sometimes won't even do it!)

Again

1) Is about the bidding, and it's nice that you think that, maybe you should start a thread about it, but if your reaction to a somewhat interesting play problem is to criticize someone doing something that 95 % of experts and non experts alike do, and is at best a style thing, then GTFO if you want positive reactions to that!

2) An invite only if you're feeling lucky when you have 32-33 HCP? That is hyperbole and what does it even mean? Do you really bid based on how lucky you feel? Of course you know it is a highly contentious argument and is trollbait and will start the thread talking about the bidding rather than the play, classy.

4) Lol. I guess if I had no idea how to do a squeeze, I wouldn't want to play slam with 33 HCP.

I mean it is really just painful to read your posts, lol @ you being jealous that people might like my posting when I am "not insightful."

[JLOGIC]

long double post!

[JLOGIC]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 09:49, said:

(5) Good luck with the last part of your analysis there, chief. Squeezes, as a rule, are unlikely. And, in testing for the 3-3 splits you refer to, you will have only 1 entry back to the South hand. Feel free to explain what squeezes are available to us.

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.

Quote

But that doesn't change the fact that, after reviewing a series of posts by JLOGIC, I find them often unhelpful at best and dangerous as fire at worst to someone who only partially understands where he is coming from.

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.

Quote

The fact that people cut Justin so much slack -- nay, praise him even when his posts fail to shed an ounce of light on the issue at hand -- and meanwhile are hard on me when I omit the word "MIGHT" from a post? Well, maybe I'll just learn to deal with it. It's ridiculous, and I don't see anything changing my opinion on that, but it is what it is.

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, people don't rep you because your posts suck. Before this I literally did not even read your posts after your first week or so here because it was always more of the same. Maybe you think this is personal, but I don't know you, your posts are actually so bad that I cannot read them, and I know I am not alone in that. Try using less words and saying more things that are actually relevant to the topic.