736
The IAC Café / Re: A personal note
« on: May 17, 2018, 03:07:36 AM »
I'm a native, Ken. Born and raised. St. Cloud. Uff da!
News:
Please get stuck in and post messages in here.
You can also message other Forum users privately.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
737
The IAC Café / Re: A personal note
« on: May 15, 2018, 07:45:21 PM »
Ya, hey dere, Ken. Be shur you have yerself a good time back in Minnesooota. You betcha by golly!
Have yerself some hot dish, and Walleye, and maybe some Lefse, too!
You can wash it all down with a Grain Belt.
Don't forget to go "up north." Wave to Paul Bunyan when you drive by!
Have yerself some hot dish, and Walleye, and maybe some Lefse, too!
You can wash it all down with a Grain Belt.Don't forget to go "up north." Wave to Paul Bunyan when you drive by!
738
Sleight of Hand / Re: Enter the FIRESTORM :)
« on: May 14, 2018, 11:39:24 PM »
I will assume the question refers to opener and responder.
Assuming no interference, this would be my proposed auction:
P - P - 1
- P
1NT - P - 3
- P
3NT - all pass
Unlike Ken, for me it's worth a jump-shift. My threshold is roughly a "good" 18. This qualifies. I think the above would be a typical auction, and an even more typical resting place regardless of the route taken. You might find a few who, with responder's values, might rebid 3 (still forcing since 3 created a GF), which assuming "expert standard," is merely showing preference. I would not pull that out on an unsuspecting partner, being too afraid he may misinterpret it as a "slow arrival" three card limit raise.
I've already addressed the auction as shown.
Opener had all his bids, but might have passed over 3
. The 3 call, however, was eminently reasonable, and described the hand well.
Overcaller made a 2NT call (with 4-4 shape) I would not make at adverse vulnerability.
Advancer's Redouble was bizarre.*
Responder's final 3 was timid.
There are too many permutations to play "what if" at each turn in the contested auction.
*Interestingly, I was watching RFP (Pavlicek) last night. There was a redouble by one of his opponents that looked strange. The opponents were Dutch. A kibber remarked that in Dutch Standard (something like that) the Redouble means "you pick."
Assuming no interference, this would be my proposed auction:
P - P - 1
- P1NT - P - 3
- P3NT - all pass
Unlike Ken, for me it's worth a jump-shift. My threshold is roughly a "good" 18. This qualifies. I think the above would be a typical auction, and an even more typical resting place regardless of the route taken. You might find a few who, with responder's values, might rebid 3
(still forcing since 3 created a GF), which assuming "expert standard," is merely showing preference. I would not pull that out on an unsuspecting partner, being too afraid he may misinterpret it as a "slow arrival" three card limit raise. I've already addressed the auction as shown.
Opener had all his bids, but might have passed over 3
. The 3 call, however, was eminently reasonable, and described the hand well. Overcaller made a 2NT call (with 4-4 shape) I would not make at adverse vulnerability.
Advancer's Redouble was bizarre.*
Responder's final 3
was timid. There are too many permutations to play "what if" at each turn in the contested auction.
*Interestingly, I was watching RFP (Pavlicek) last night. There was a redouble by one of his opponents that looked strange. The opponents were Dutch. A kibber remarked that in Dutch Standard (something like that) the Redouble means "you pick."
739
Sleight of Hand / Re: Enter the FIRESTORM :)
« on: May 12, 2018, 10:42:16 PM »
White vs Red
P - P - 1 - P
1N - 2N - X - XX
P - 3 - 3 - P
3 - all pass
1 = Opener has his bid. Normal 1
1NT = Normal 1NT (Top of range).
2NT = Playing with fire with only 4-4 minors and vulnerable. Not a call I would ever make.
X = Normal. Extras. "They are in trouble!"
XX = No comment required. Bizarre. A psych? Or just telling partner to pick? Did I mention bizarre?
P = Partner wants blood? Okay, let's await developments. Good call.
3 = Presumably just showing the lowest minor, with "pass-or-correct" still in effect.
3 = Prefer Pass here. But I am okay with this, since partner may have four . A Pass would allow partner to whack it.
P = Relieved!
3 = 3NT best. Especially with those values.
Crazy bidding by Overcaller and Advancer. The auction after a Pass (rather than 3) by opener would get interesting. But that was not to be. The final 3 was timid. I think 3NT would be my choice. While, as Ken mentions, 6 makes, I can't imagine bidding it.
P - P - 1
- P1N - 2N - X - XX
P - 3
- 3 - P3
- all pass1
= Opener has his bid. Normal 1 1NT = Normal 1NT (Top of range).
2NT = Playing with fire with only 4-4 minors and vulnerable. Not a call I would ever make.
X = Normal. Extras. "They are in trouble!"
XX = No comment required. Bizarre. A psych? Or just telling partner to pick? Did I mention bizarre?
P = Partner wants blood? Okay, let's await developments. Good call.
3
= Presumably just showing the lowest minor, with "pass-or-correct" still in effect. 3
= Prefer Pass here. But I am okay with this, since partner may have four . A Pass would allow partner to whack it. P = Relieved!
3
= 3NT best. Especially with those values. Crazy bidding by Overcaller and Advancer. The auction after a Pass (rather than 3
) by opener would get interesting. But that was not to be. The final 3 was timid. I think 3NT would be my choice. While, as Ken mentions, 6 makes, I can't imagine bidding it. 740
Sleight of Hand / Re: Back to Basics
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:01:43 AM »
Agree with Ken. If I have to choose between 3 
and 2 , it's a clear 3 .
Also, I would saddle the blame for this result with responder. Blasting 6NT, off two Aces, without even a sniff at gaining more information, gets the blame.
I'll post a simple ATB poll. I'll dine on crow if shown to be wrong.
Stay tuned . . .
and 2 , it's a clear 3 . Also, I would saddle the blame for this result with responder. Blasting 6NT, off two Aces, without even a sniff at gaining more information, gets the blame.
I'll post a simple ATB poll. I'll dine on crow if shown to be wrong.
Stay tuned . . .
741
Sleight of Hand / Re: Back to Basics
« on: May 11, 2018, 05:21:58 PM »3Yup.
Agree with the auction so far? I guess I agree with my 1
742
Sleight of Hand / Re: Enter the FIRESTORM :)
« on: May 11, 2018, 02:43:27 PM »
XX is, as I mentioned above, puzzling. If I had no preference, I pass the double. Though I suppose this partnership may have a specialized agreement that redouble means "you pick." Lacking that, I think this is an "other." With 31 Flavors of doubles on the menu, I propose we add the "Throw-a-wrench-in-the-works" redouble to the menu; the Wrench Double! At these colors--a dangerous tactic.
Pass is nothing more than waiting--no descriptive call. It could be weak, could be anything up to a max pass.
On the auction as presented, I can't imagine anything more than a doubleton spade. 3 though, opposite a fairly strong opener, displays weakness.
The values of the hands (based on the auction) is, within a couple of HCP, fairly clear.
Difficult to comment further without seeing at least one hand.
Pass is nothing more than waiting--no descriptive call. It could be weak, could be anything up to a max pass.
On the auction as presented, I can't imagine anything more than a doubleton spade. 3
though, opposite a fairly strong opener, displays weakness.The values of the hands (based on the auction) is, within a couple of HCP, fairly clear.
Difficult to comment further without seeing at least one hand.
743
Sleight of Hand / Re: Enter the FIRESTORM :)
« on: May 11, 2018, 12:36:35 PM »
I am almost in lockstep with Ken here, but not quite.
2NT = Definitely Minors.
X = Extras. Maybe 16/17/18. At the time the double was made, it could be more. But the ultimate pass of 3 limits the hand to roughly 17.
XX = Puzzling. Very! "You pick" is my best guess.
P = Waiting. No descriptive bid. Probably a "thank goodness I don't have to bid" pass.
3 = Lowest of promised suits. "Pass or correct" still applies.
3 = Four . But could be very well be five. With five and moderate extras (better than complete trash), he bids them immediately.
3 = Preference. Two cards only. With three and weak, responder bids 2 at once. With three and a limit raise, some flavor of Drury. Since 3 could show 5=5 majors, this makes it far more likely that responder is 2=2 in the majors and very weak.
So my "vision" of the hand is as follows:
Declarer:
5=4 (22)(13) with 16-18 HCP (Edit: Another possible inference; declarer is very likely short in , else he allows the bidding to go 'round to partner to whack it!)
Responder:
2=2 (54)(36) weak. Minimum. 6-7 HCP
Overcaller:
(12) 5=5 around 10 HCP
Advancer:
(25)(34) 3=3 around 6-7 HCP
So I think it's clear that declarer has extras, and is likely 5=4 or 5=5 in the majors. Responder is very weak, with 2=2 majors. Overcaller has his 5=5 minors. Advancer has a long (5 cards) major with equal length minors.
Ken's penultimate paragraph is spot on, so I will quote it here:
"After two passes E opens 1, W is not doubling with that hand, N just barely has a 1NT bid, E has a 2NT bid, I can imagine S thinking 3 over 2NT might suggest more shape and less strength so he doubles, W has a good had so he redoubles, N is sorry he ever opened his mouth at all and passes, E says fine, 3 , S shows his hearts, W has done his bit and passes, N corrects to spades, nobody has anything more to say.
+ Attachments and other options
2NT = Definitely Minors.
X = Extras. Maybe 16/17/18. At the time the double was made, it could be more. But the ultimate pass of 3
limits the hand to roughly 17.XX = Puzzling. Very! "You pick" is my best guess.
P = Waiting. No descriptive bid. Probably a "thank goodness I don't have to bid" pass.
3
= Lowest of promised suits. "Pass or correct" still applies.3
= Four . But could be very well be five. With five and moderate extras (better than complete trash), he bids them immediately. 3
= Preference. Two cards only. With three and weak, responder bids 2 at once. With three and a limit raise, some flavor of Drury. Since 3 could show 5=5 majors, this makes it far more likely that responder is 2=2 in the majors and very weak.So my "vision" of the hand is as follows:
Declarer:
5=4 (22)(13) with 16-18 HCP (Edit: Another possible inference; declarer is very likely short in
, else he allows the bidding to go 'round to partner to whack it!)Responder:
2=2 (54)(36) weak. Minimum. 6-7 HCP
Overcaller:
(12) 5=5 around 10 HCP
Advancer:
(25)(34) 3=3 around 6-7 HCP
So I think it's clear that declarer has extras, and is likely 5=4 or 5=5 in the majors. Responder is very weak, with 2=2 majors. Overcaller has his 5=5 minors. Advancer has a long (5 cards) major with equal length minors.
Ken's penultimate paragraph is spot on, so I will quote it here:
"After two passes E opens 1
, W is not doubling with that hand, N just barely has a 1NT bid, E has a 2NT bid, I can imagine S thinking 3 over 2NT might suggest more shape and less strength so he doubles, W has a good had so he redoubles, N is sorry he ever opened his mouth at all and passes, E says fine, 3 , S shows his hearts, W has done his bit and passes, N corrects to spades, nobody has anything more to say. + Attachments and other options
744
Sleight of Hand / Re: My lead? Do I have to?
« on: May 02, 2018, 03:51:13 PM »
All of these thoughts entered my mind, Ken.
The Ace seems folly, and is likely to set up discards for declarer. So no lead. Easy choice.
I could smell the probable void with partner, so while passive, it gives nothing away. So no lead.
That leaves a minor. But which one? The thought of a "hero" lead of a occurred to me. And since this is a lead poll, the likelihood of a hero lead goes up considerably. So it's tempting.
But at the table, with a possible AQ on my right--I just can't pull the trigger on that hero lead.
Oh well, maybe I'll be a hero tomorrow.
The
Ace seems folly, and is likely to set up discards for declarer. So no lead. Easy choice.I could smell the probable
void with partner, so while passive, it gives nothing away. So no lead. That leaves a minor. But which one? The thought of a "hero" lead of a
occurred to me. And since this is a lead poll, the likelihood of a hero lead goes up considerably. So it's tempting. But at the table, with a possible
AQ on my right--I just can't pull the trigger on that hero lead. Oh well, maybe I'll be a hero tomorrow.
746
Sleight of Hand / Re: Can't please everyone - LTC
« on: April 25, 2018, 03:29:41 PM »
I, too, would open 1 .
I know a handful of players who open 2 on any hand with four losers or less. Ugh! I have seen it work wonderfully on one hand, and backfire horribly the next. The problem with using only "four or less losers" as your 2 threshold, is that opposite a partner with values, it is almost impossible to stay out of slam. Additionally, as the partner of such a bidder, how much trust can you put in subsequent 2 bids? There is a lot to be said for partnership trust.
Using LTC (only) as a metric to open (or not open) 2 is, in my opinion, flawed.
As an example: QJxxxx QJxxxxx is four losers. But I doubt any competent player would open it 2 .
If you polled this hand on Bridgewinners, my guess is that something around 85% to 90% open this 1.
. I know a handful of players who open 2
on any hand with four losers or less. Ugh! I have seen it work wonderfully on one hand, and backfire horribly the next. The problem with using only "four or less losers" as your 2 threshold, is that opposite a partner with values, it is almost impossible to stay out of slam. Additionally, as the partner of such a bidder, how much trust can you put in subsequent 2 bids? There is a lot to be said for partnership trust.Using LTC (only) as a metric to open (or not open) 2
is, in my opinion, flawed. As an example:
QJxxxx QJxxxxx is four losers. But I doubt any competent player would open it 2 . If you polled this hand on Bridgewinners, my guess is that something around 85% to 90% open this 1
.
747
BBO Matters / Re: web version of BBO
« on: April 12, 2018, 05:39:07 PM »
Ian, you can petition to join the "white list" you refer to.
Send an e-mail to BBO explaining your difficulty in seeing the cards on the web version, and that you would prefer to use the Windows version until it is finally, mercifully laid to rest.
Send an e-mail to BBO explaining your difficulty in seeing the cards on the web version, and that you would prefer to use the Windows version until it is finally, mercifully laid to rest.
748
Sleight of Hand / Re: A hand
« on: April 08, 2017, 10:05:24 AM »
[1] Point taken about the possibility of 3 being mistaken for a shape showing bid. The 4 control bid would be less likely to be misinterpreted and is a better choice.
[2] For Opener, with 4-card Spades to bid 1NT rather than taking the opportunity to show their Spades at the 1-level, is BWS if 4=3=3=3. Therefore, there are quite a few who suggest that it actually is a remotely sensible methodology. So much so, that they included it in BWS2017.
[3] As to Ken's suggestion of 2-way NMF. Yes, that would be preferred. My choice is XYZ, which is ostensibly the same animal other than the inclusion of a few more bidding sequences. If so, then over 1NT, a jump to 3 would be a slam try in s. Two-way NMF and XYZ though, are not common in the IAC.
being mistaken for a shape showing bid. The 4 control bid would be less likely to be misinterpreted and is a better choice. [2] For Opener, with 4-card Spades to bid 1NT rather than taking the opportunity to show their Spades at the 1-level, is BWS if 4=3=3=3. Therefore, there are quite a few who suggest that it actually is a remotely sensible methodology. So much so, that they included it in BWS2017.
[3] As to Ken's suggestion of 2-way NMF. Yes, that would be preferred. My choice is XYZ, which is ostensibly the same animal other than the inclusion of a few more bidding sequences. If so, then over 1NT, a jump to 3
would be a slam try in s. Two-way NMF and XYZ though, are not common in the IAC. 749
IAC Website / Time Stamp
« on: April 07, 2017, 09:47:44 PM »
Oliver,
There appears to be a time stamp on posts. However, it does not match my time zone.
Is there a way to change the time zone so time stamped posts reflect my own time? If so, I was unable to find it.
This is an extremely trivial matter, so no urgency.
There appears to be a time stamp on posts. However, it does not match my time zone.
Is there a way to change the time zone so time stamped posts reflect my own time? If so, I was unable to find it.
This is an extremely trivial matter, so no urgency.
750
The IAC Café / Great Idea!
« on: April 07, 2017, 09:34:35 PM »
I was going to reply to your "WELCOME" post, Oliver, but I see it is locked.
I think this forum is a great idea! And the occasional announcement (like we all received when we logged on today) about the forum will hopefully boost attendance and contributions. Well done!
I think this forum is a great idea! And the occasional announcement (like we all received when we logged on today) about the forum will hopefully boost attendance and contributions. Well done!