[masse24]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 11:01, said:

Ty for your response, you came up with 22 points.

It is NO WHERE NEAR A 22 POINT HAND at first, but even if it were by K&R Hand Evaluator, Mr. Ace says he doubts Kaplan would open such a way. Convenient alibi.

Well, Kaplan is not here and neither is Marty. And if MrAce will inadvertently delegitimize a voting group of 33% versus 49% in another poll when there is no clear 51% majority, why should I trust his "unbiased" judgment or opinion?

Thank you, you told me what I needed to hear, you came up with 22 points and this simpleton's math is correct.

This hand has 4.5 quick tricks, 4 losers, 8.5-9 playing tricks, and 22 total points. I said it was the functional equivalent of a 22 point hand and then it became a random 22 point hand. Hmmm.

A bid means whatever I says it means- neither more nor less.--Humpty Dumpty

Its subject to your judgment and thus your judgment trumps anything or evidence to the contrary. 22 total points is a strong hand that is no where near 2 clubs. Fascinating.

Once again, you are conflating a 22 point hand with a 2♣ opener. Can they be opened 2♣? Certainly. Must they? Heck no!

Also, your statement concerning "the collective's" understanding of length ("This is the resistence to new ideas....the length points!") is a strawman. Everyone understands it, but the resultant re-evaluation" of the hand does not push it over the 2♣ threshold.

Moreover, please recall your earlier, initial responses:

• "East should be first to bid. From [a] Losing Trick perspective, he has exactly 4 losers in his hand.As such he has a royal hand and must sound the trumpets. roll out the carpet, and open up 2 ♣ to put his partner on official notice that he has a potential barn burner that warrants an game ending contract."
  
• "I know a game holding hand when I see one. I recognize the uniform. If I have no more than 4 losers in my hand....2 ♣ it is."
  
• "Nope...2 club open....has no more than 4 losers per LTC! See explanation that justifies the 2 club opening."
  
• "As stated, the adjusted value of the hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is for me."

So, when you subsequently state, "If Marty's hand evaluation says 22 points, that makes it 2 club ELIGIBLE. Notice, I said eligible, not a victor. We need to see if other tools shed light on the hand's true nature before if it makes the final cut," you are contradicting yourself.

Interesting.

And as far as Kaplan not being here, well, no.

But just to confirm Bergen's thinking--hey you brought him up--I emailed Marty.
He responded.
And, as stated earlier, Marty Bergen opens this 1♦.

[RedSpawn]

 masse24, on 2017-April-23, 12:00, said:

Once again, you are conflating a 22 point hand with a 2♣ opener. Can they be opened 2♣? Certainly. Must they? Heck no!

Also, your statement concerning "the collective's" understanding of length ("This is the resistence to new ideas....the length points!") is a strawman. Everyone understands it, but the resultant re-evaluation" of the hand does not push it over the 2♣ threshold.

Moreover, please recall your earlier, initial responses:

• "East should be first to bid. From [a] Losing Trick perspective, he has exactly 4 losers in his hand.As such he has a royal hand and must sound the trumpets. roll out the carpet, and open up 2 ♣ to put his partner on official notice that he has a potential barn burner that warrants an game ending contract."
  
• "I know a game holding hand when I see one. I recognize the uniform. If I have no more than 4 losers in my hand....2 ♣ it is."
  
• "Nope...2 club open....has no more than 4 losers per LTC! See explanation that justifies the 2 club opening."
  
• "As stated, the adjusted value of the hand with length points and suit quality points is 22 hcp and the LTC is no more than 4 losers so 2♣ it is for me."

So, when you subsequently state, "If Marty's hand evaluation says 22 points, that makes it 2 club ELIGIBLE. Notice, I said eligible, not a victor. We need to see if other tools shed light on the hand's true nature before if it makes the final cut," you are contradicting yourself.

Interesting.

And as far as Kaplan not being here, well, no.

But just to confirm Bergen's thinking--hey you brought him up--I emailed Marty.
He responded.
And, as stated earlier, Marty Bergen opens this 1♦.

I said one must sound trumpets and open 2 clubs. I said in the same area that 2 clubs it is FOR ME.. .what does "for me" mean? It means personal opinion. It is 2 clubs FOR ME because of adjusted point count and LTC.

There is no gospel in bridge so if someone says for me that is qualifier for MY PERSPECTIVE.

I also have 8.5 winning tricks in this hand which i have on my bbo profile. It says 8.5+ tricks for 2♣ look it up. That's my risk appetite. If you want I will try to get barmar to confirm my profile has always had 8.5 winning tricks on it for 2 clubs and hasn't changed during this entire discussion.

The collective wouldn't even recognize it as 22 points at first!!!!! It took way too much effort to get to random 22 point status.

There was also a discussion of 8.0-8.5-9.0 playing tricks.

Have you reviewed the resistance to the 22 point acknowledgement? You were one of the 1st people to say yes this hand was 22 points without qualifying it as random.

By the way, ty for reviewing Marty Bergen adjust 3 method and confirming the 22 total point count.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 11:25, said:

I

Why argue? Have whatever agreements you want with your partners. Disclose appropriately. It does not matter who thinks your methods are good or bad.

EDIT: For example, I open 2♣, my only strong opening, with 20-22 balanced. Some people don't think that this is winning bridge. I think the advantages are sizeable and will continue to play the method until such time as it no longer works for me. Until then I am not interested in others' opinions.

You are right.

By the way, your 2♣ range for balanced is blasphemous. Just kidding.

The 8.5 playing tricks requirement was always on my BBO bridge profile. I accept the poll results but all of us need to realize you should not regulate or cast dispersions on bids that are subject to judgment calls and bidding dialects and most importantly, risk tolerance.

2 clubs is a very crafty feline if we let her be and no one has a monopoly on 2 clubs until a TD rules against you....

[masse24]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 12:06, said:

Have you reviewed the resistance to the 22 point acknowledgement?

Yes, I have.

And just to confirm, I read through all the posts again. I do not see this widespread "resistance" to the 22 point acknowledgement you perceive. Instead, I see widespread pushback to the idea of opening 2♣. Nevertheless, you continued with your attempt to convince everyone that 22 points and 4 LTC equated to a 2♣ opener. You may get agreement on that--sometimes.

But not always!

The posts closest to a "resistance to 22" were Yeti's posts #19: "22 with every possible addition is NOT a 2♣ opener" and #21: "A random 22 point hand is NOT a 2♣ opener for most people." Hardly resistance. Instead, he only states what others have opined, it's not a 2♣ opener.

And as I stated earlier, I believe this perceived "resistance" is due to your conflation with possession of a 22 point hand and no more than 4 LTC with some sort of "rule" to open 2♣. Based on the wording of your posts, that was my inference.

However, it seems as though you have come around. Somewhat. At least, your stance seems less strident since some of the outside information has come in.

In the end, what's most important, is as Vampyr stated, to "have whatever agreements you want with your partners."

[RedSpawn]

 masse24, on 2017-April-23, 12:00, said:

Once again, you are conflating a 22 point hand with a 2♣ opener. Can they be opened 2♣? Certainly. Must they? Heck no!

Also, your statement concerning "the collective's" understanding of length ("This is the resistence to new ideas....the length points!") is a strawman. Everyone understands it, but the resultant re-evaluation" of the hand does not push it over the 2♣ threshold.

Moreover, please recall your earlier, initial responses:

So, when you subsequently state, "If Marty's hand evaluation says 22 points, that makes it 2 club ELIGIBLE. Notice, I said eligible, not a victor. We need to see if other tools shed light on the hand's true nature before if it makes the final cut," you are contradicting yourself.

I see that, in the same paragraph highlighted in blue, I also said there are other tools to shed light on the hand's true nature to see if it makes the final cut, right? Here are a few:

Does the hand have more quick tricks than losers?
Does the hand have 8.5+ playing tricks (per my BBO profile)
Does the hand have at most 4 losers LTC<=4
Would I be upset if my partner passed this hand if I opened as 1 diamond? Some say not really, for me I say yes! That's personal opinion but this is asking do I have game aspirations. We need to answer these question before we determine if a 2 club open makes sense.

I mentioned a lot of these features in the entire string, so I don't see the contradiction. I did not say 22 total only, we talked LTC, I think I mentioned potential barn burner hand which translates to game aspirations.

For me, all of the answers are yes, so I feel 2 clubs is fine.

Also if opposition interferes or preempts over your 4th seat 1♦ open, your partner has no idea about where you are on your wide point range that you were going to sort out in subsequent rounds of bidding. You may have opened under rule of 15 in 4th seat. So your partner may rate you for a 11 good points and a potential spade fit or a lower 13 point open.

But we both agree that this hand is the functional equivalent of 22 points. And I am risk taker.

Now, a 2 clubs open more succinctly communicates your hands value should the opposition interfere. It says a whole lot more about your quick trick status and unbalanced state if your offense hand converts to defense. 1 diamond...not so much. Your partner may want to defend against any interference bid as the penalty double may be juicy if he knew you had a strong hand from your opening bid.

[Cyberyeti]

RedSpawn:

what you may not realise is that you have united a load of people some of whom who rarely agree on anything (MrAce at one point misguessed my age by around 30 years because he thought somebody who bid like like me could only be a student) into thinking your ideas are odd. There's nothing wrong with having agreements like yours with a like minded partner (god knows my partner and I have some pretty odd ones), but the problem is thinking they're mainstream and arguing they're normal.

[RedSpawn]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-23, 15:09, said:

RedSpawn:

what you may not realise is that you have united a load of people some of whom who rarely agree on anything (MrAce at one point misguessed my age by around 30 years because he thought somebody who bid like like me could only be a student) into thinking your ideas are odd. There's nothing wrong with having agreements like yours with a like minded partner (god knows my partner and I have some pretty odd ones), but the problem is thinking they're mainstream and arguing they're normal.

Yup, I see now that we are talking trends for bids. Thus, we poll votes to see what the majority says. If there is no clear 51%+ majority but two statistically significant minorities < 50%? Then what?

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 15:41, said:

Yup, I see now that we are talking trends for bids. Thus, we poll votes to see what the majority says. If there is no clear 51%+ majority but two statistically significant minorities < 50%? Then what?

Then we have a runoff election between the rather dull but sensible centrist and the more entertaining but scary far-right candidate.

[nige1]

I sympathise with RedSpawn's argument. We played a variant of Benjaminised Acol, where no hand with fewer than 5 losers was opened at the one-level. It worked quite well. On misfits, we could sometimes stop at the 2-level. We didn't lean over backwards to reply to 1-openers.

IMO, the OP hand will often make game but opening 2♣ consumes an uncomfortable quantity of bidding space. Thus, opening 2♣ makes some likely games hard to find. Admittedly, there's a slight danger that a 1♦ opener will be passed out. If you survive the first round of bidding, however, then the auction will normally develop more smoothly.

In the past, players paid more heed to what Culbertson called the Principle of Preparedness.

[Phil]

Red Spawn.

Many of us have been on the forums for a very long time. There are some excellent players that frequent the site. There are several Camrose players, and a few that have represented their countries in international competitions. There are many national championship winners, and there are many players that are competitive at a national level.

Personally, I have been doing this long enough that I can recognize someone from a far distance who has a reasonable amount of book knowledge, and as a result, an over-inflated sense of ability tends to creep in. You can generally tell those that *think* they know a lot about the game from those that *know* a lot about the game, just from the books they read. For instance, if you quoted Robson/Segal or Martens instead of Bergen, I would know that you have a deep insight about the game. But quoting Bergen, well, that means you are just an accomplished intermediate.

Sorry to disappoint, but there are a few bridge authors that write books for the masses and Marty Bergen is one of them. He has not been a competitive player in over 25 years. Is it possible there has been some changes in bidding theory over this time? The same goes for Frank Stewart. Good writer, but not near the top of anyone's list of people I want to kibitz.

The Bridge World is a great magazine. While the ACBL Bulletin has some good articles (Bird and Kantar's play problems are good), most of it is geared toward an intermediate level audience. Bergen and Larry Cohen direct their lectures and cruises toward this demographic, because this is where the money is. For bridge books, Marty Sez sells a lot of copies. "Guide Dog" by Martens has more valuable information in it for a serious partnership than a pile of Bergen books.

BridgeWinners is also a site frequented by great players, and just because you have not heard of them. does not invalidate this claim.

You seem to have a lot of energy toward the game, and that is a good thing. If you hang around and listen to some of the better players, you can improve and probably go back and read some of these posts and laugh at them.

Many good players visit the forums to keep their games in top form. They are successful and are open-minded to sensible ideas. The forums provide free knowledge and people freely shared. It is not a place to try to take on the big dogs, when you are an unproven commodity.

This post will make you angry, and your initial reaction will be to respond in some petty, hateful, and reactive way.

Instead, I would suggest you take a deep breath, put your laptop down for a few minutes and ask yourself what your own goals are in bridge and see if those are in line with your tone here.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 17:40, said:

Then we have a runoff election between the rather dull but sensible centrist and the more entertaining but scary far-right candidate.

Very tempting and potentially entertaining offer, but there comes a time to look at the Yarborough in front of me and click the PASS button. I will take the two statistically significant minorities as a pleasant surprise and keep it moving.

[RedSpawn]

Phil said:

This post will make you angry, and your initial reaction will be to respond in some petty, hateful, and reactive way.

Instead, I would suggest you take a deep breath, put your laptop down for a few minutes and ask yourself what your own goals are in bridge and see if those are in line with your tone here.

I am not seeing why this post would make me angry, petty, and reactive. You have a lot of good points here and no where in it was it immediately dismissive or included veiled language or innuendo about good players versus somebody or hijinx with snarky email signatures designed to annoy or intimidate.

Regarding your message about the laptop and tone...that timely message applies to everyone in this forum including me. Bidding language matters. Everyday Language matters. Conveniently placed omissions matter. Jokes in very poor taste matter. Email signatures matter. Condescending overtones matter.

I am not naive about the power of language to confer hidden meanings and status. And neither are the seasoned veterans here who push this language to its upper limits to maintain a central concentration of control and power. Remember they have seen others like me before and I am just a blip on the screen that will soon disappear....lol.

Respect is a two way street even if you are a proven commodity and I think that we must all remember that. You should not take certain liberties in the way you talk to and treat people. And if you make an error while debating ideas and get caught while doing so, fess up instead of avoiding acknowledgement and riding on the coattails of your established reputation.

I mean you in the collective sense not the individual, by the way.

[Phil]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 20:16, said:

I am not seeing why this post would make me angry, petty, and reactive. You have a lot of good points here and no where in it was it immediately dismissive or included veiled language or innuendo about good players versus somebody or hijinx with snarky email signatures designed to annoy or intimidate.

Then I look forward to your future participation.

[RedSpawn]

 nige1, on 2017-April-23, 18:32, said:

I sympathise with RedSpawn's argument. We played a variant of Benjaminised Acol, where no hand with fewer than 5 losers was opened at the one-level. It worked quite well. On misfits, we could sometimes stop at the 2-level. We didn't lean over backwards to reply to 1-openers.

IMO, the OP hand will often make game but opening 2♣ consumes an uncomfortable quantity of bidding space. Thus, opening 2♣ makes some likely games hard to find. Admittedly, there's a slight danger that a 1♦ opener will be passed out. If you survive the first round of bidding, however, then the auction will normally develop more smoothly.

In the past, players paid more heed to what Culbertson called the Principle of Preparedness.

Agreed. A 2♣ open doesn't come for free, and I lose a lot of bidding space. But I also put my partner on notice that we probably have game values. I also warn the opposition that all interference bids are subject to review and may come with a hefty, penalty double. Its a give and take here.

[Vampyr]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 23:44, said:

Agreed. A 2♣ open doesn't come for free, and I lose a lot of bidding space. But I also put my partner on notice that we probably have game values. I also warn the opposition that all interference bids are subject to review and may come with a hefty, penalty double. Its a give and take here.

Most people play that their 2♣ bid, if unbalanced, is game forcing. Once you have used all that space, you do not really have room to investigate whether game is on.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 09:35, said:

No one suggests that length and suit quality are unimportant. Experienced players do not, however, tend to assign numerical values to these things.

You might have a look at ACBL's system regulations to see how well they promote good bridge. I have heard that most events are subject to the GCC, which is laughable. They are decades behind other major NBOs, but I digress. The laws, by the way, are promulgated by the WBF. It says so on the first page.

People with signatures have had them pretty much forever. They are not intended as a comment on any person or group of people. They are just something the individual finds funny or interesting.

I think we both have points here about the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Please see the following attachment:

2016 Laws of Duplicate Bridge

On page 2, it says, 2016 Revised Authorized Edition
Laws of Duplicate Bridge North American Edition, As Promulgated in the
Western Hemisphere by the AMERICAN CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE
Effective September 8, 2008

Published by American Contract Bridge League
Distributed by Baron Barclay Bridge Supply

But as you stated the WBF also promulgates as well and that is true and discussed in the preface.

[Vampyr]

I find it amusing that the ACBL edition says that, especially since the other NBOs in the Western Hemisphere do not have to accept the ACBL elections, which I believe are printed in the text without any reference to their being elections.

In any case, I think that most people on these forums do not live in the Western Hemisphere.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2017-April-23, 18:32, said:

I sympathise with RedSpawn's argument. We played a variant of Benjaminised Acol, where no hand with fewer than 5 losers was opened at the one-level. It worked quite well. On misfits, we could sometimes stop at the 2-level. We didn't lean over backwards to reply to 1-openers.

I think that an important difference is that with Benjy, you know that the hands opened 2♣ (or for some 2♦) are not GF, and in the most popular variants you know exactly how many tricks short of game opener is.

[RedSpawn]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-24, 21:45, said:

I think that an important difference is that with Benjy, you know that the hands opened 2♣ (or for some 2♦) are not GF, and in the most popular variants you know exactly how many tricks short of game opener is.

I agree.

How about this one?

---

This hand should not be 2♣ eligible because it is a 3 suiter. You need as much space as possible to describe the shape to your partner since there are 3 different fit possibilities. Further, there are other bidding sequences such as reverses which can keep the auction open and demonstrate the hand's strength while you describe its shape.


I want feedback on this one. It is a trick short of game in the majors but if we didn't know partner's hand it would be questionable about the minors. I remember someone telling me a long time ago that voids create problems for describing 3 suited hands, but when I think about that now, that assertion may be going to file 13.

Thanks.

[Jinksy]

It would probably help you to get more feedback if you created a new thread for the new hand. Anyway, I'd open 1♥ for just the reason you give, and perhaps miss game/slam in clubs. But I've been told I'm hyperconservative in my 2♣ openings.