[mike777]

Looking at both hands this may be a bit too double dummy bidding but one could hope.......


2nt=3c
3s=4c
4d=5c
5d=7nt or 7clubs.

4d=rkc for clubs
5c=2 with Q
5d=grand slam try
7nt= MP bid, a bit double dummy perhaps with the hands in front of me? but I can really see reaching 7c or at least 6nt on this auction.

I guess you might even bid 5H over 5clubs showing the Heart K and a grand slam try but again seems easier looking at the hands. .

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 26 2006, 05:03 PM, said:

haha righhhhht, life was so easy on this hand, you just knew it was cold when you bid it 

In fact, it's always cold. Leftie has

JT9xxx
x
Tx
J98x

On 4 discards he has to let go 3 spades and a diamond (otherwise pard is subject to a spade/diam squeeze on the last club). After he lets go a diamond, you can run the diam jack, smothering the 10, and later finessing the 8. Some sort of compound guard squeeze of the second kind, I guess.

Naturally, I wouldn't have bid it if I didn't have the 8 of diamonds

[cherdano]

whereagles, on May 26 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

1. Hum... yeah I guess it's easy to come up with examples where you're an ace off. But how likely is it that pard holds a 66 or 76 with an ace out?

I still think my example of x QJ9xx Qx AQJxx is pretty realistic. (And unlike Josh's 76 hands, partner would be right in knowing that a grand is almost impossible.)

[mikeh]

whereagles, on May 26 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

2. I understand that, but I prefer to win at table than to win the post-mortem. I don't mind taking the blame if it goes wrong. I just feel it's right to bid 7 and I usually follow my feelings. It's nothing personal to pard.

.

You misunderstood my post; and that misunderstanding is central to why I so dislike your approach to the bidding of strong hands, as evidenced in this thread and many others.... please note that my dislike is NOT of you, but of your approach to this aspect of the game.

I do not advocate a 6♥ bid, and later discussion with partner should he have misbid and thus missed a grand, so as to win the post-mortem.

If partner has misbid this hand, then he will probably continue to misbid other complex hands in the future. Most often, in my experience, the misbidding of complex hands arises in part from a lack of knowledge, as to how to bid them, and in part from a lack of confidence, whether in oneself, in partner, or both.

If you, as the 2N bidder, consistently breach discipline, rescuing partner from his errors, two things will happen to him.

1. He will not learn to bid the complex hands correctly

2. There will inevitably be times when his bidding has been correct and your call will turn the good board into a disaster, and he will lose confidence in how he bid it (even tho it was correct) and in your reliability as a partner

If you bid 6♥ and miss a good grand, go over the auction without dumping on him.. give him the tools to bid more accurately, and the confidence that, as a partnership, you can get there without either partner masterminding.

Being a member of a partnership in which each player treats the other's bidding as if it were correct, without masterminding, is a very enjoyable experience. A strong partnership elevates the game of both partners. But trust and respect for partnership discipline are essential... in this auction, partner knows that you could hold the hand you held: indeed, you could hold an even better one.

Axx K10xx AKx KJx is not even a 2N opening, yet one would should be able to reach a grand on that hand. So to say that partner, bidding 6♣, could not reasonably expect you to hold your actual hand is nonsense. Yet he made no effort to investigate grand... either he made an error or he has a hand opposite which an average-plus hand offers little play for 13 winners.

The truth is that your partner bid poorly (on the actual hand), you guessed 'correctly', and you think that that represents an interesting hand, with (I assume) educational value for readers of BBF. I disagree. An interesting hand, or bidding problem, is one that offers reasonable choices based on partner not having made basic errors.

I doubt that showing 100 successful examples of masterminding will help any one play the game better... but it sure could hurt a lot of advancing players who begin to think that being superman is the way to win... rather than learning to work within a partnership.

[luke warm]

Echognome, on May 26 2006, 08:30 AM, said:

Count me for 6♥. Partner asked me to choose between 6♣ and 6♥, so I choose.

that's it in a nutshell... whether it's pickup or a long term p'ship, i'd bid 6♥ here and then deal the next board... later we can discuss this and similar hands to come to some sort of agreement as to how they should be bid

[hrothgar]

I really like 6N at MP

I have a double stop in Spades and Diamonds so there's no risk that the opponents can clear an off suit before I can establish one of partners.

6N looks to be the practical choice. I readily admit, this could work badly if partner needs to ruff a club to establish his second suit. Balanced against, I don't need to worry about multiple trump losers.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on May 26 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

1.
I so dislike your approach to the bidding of strong hands, as evidenced in this thread and many others.

2.
If partner has misbid this hand, then he will probably continue to misbid other complex hands in the future.

3.
If you, as the 2N bidder, consistently breach discipline, rescuing partner from his errors, two things will happen to him.
- He will not learn to bid the complex hands correctly
- There will inevitably be times when his bidding has been correct and your call will turn the good board into a disaster,

4.
and he will lose confidence in how he bid it (even tho it was correct) and in your reliability as a partner

5.
If you bid 6♥ and miss a good grand, go over the auction without dumping on him..

6.
give him the tools to bid more accurately, and the confidence that, as a partnership, you can get there without either partner masterminding.

7.
Being a member of a partnership in which each player treats the other's bidding as if it were correct, without masterminding, is a very enjoyable experience. A strong partnership elevates the game of both partners. But trust and respect for partnership discipline are essential...

8.
in this auction, partner knows that you could hold the hand you held: indeed, you could hold an even better one. So to say that partner, bidding 6♣, could not reasonably expect you to hold your actual hand is nonsense.

9.
Yet he made no effort to investigate grand... either he made an error or he has a hand opposite which an average-plus hand offers little play for 13 winners.

10.
The truth is that your partner bid poorly (on the actual hand), you guessed 'correctly', and you think that that represents an interesting hand, with (I assume) educational value for readers of BBF. I disagree. An interesting hand, or bidding problem, is one that offers reasonable choices based on partner not having made basic errors.

11.
I doubt that showing 100 successful examples of masterminding will help any one play the game better... but it sure could hurt a lot of advancing players who begin to think that being superman is the way to win... rather than learning to work within a partnership.

1. Your approach is that the unlimited hand should control the auction. Mine is different: to me, it is the strong hand, regardless of limited or not, that should be in charge. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but right now I don't think your arguments are compelling enough to make me change my mind.

2. Yes, but you know.. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple and let judgement do the rest. That's what happened here.

3. Some players don't want to learn how to "bid correctly". If you play one such player, you'll have to live with that and adapt. I stopped lecturing pard a long time ago because it will distract him from concentrating on the next hand. Now I only comment a thing or two and only if he insists on knowing my opinion. As for turning a plus into a minus.. well, that's the price to pay for standing up for your feelings and bidding what you think you can make. I'm willing to pay it, especially since I know I can match the bidding with good play.

4. Actually, people queue up to play with me It gets annoying at times.. lol.

5. Well.. that looks like unlucky expert talk to me

6. I don't think there's any way to bid this hand with science, especially with pards void (I would bid it differently, though). It's the '2NT slam killer' opener at work again. Sometime you just have to make a guess and I think a 20 hcp hand is qualified to make a guess. You won't see me 'mastermind' with a weak hand, regardless of who pard is.

7. Ok, maybe I should have made this clearer, but this isn't that kind of pard.

8. This where we very much disagree. There is no way a weakish hand can visualize a 20 hcp balanced hand and it's technically wrong to assume/demand pard can do it. The weakish hand will have to take some "average value" for the 2NT opener and bid accordingly. This is where I say judgement comes in: this particular hand may EASILY produce that extra trick that makes 7 a good gamble. Even two tricks, in case pard streched to bid 6 already. Of course, an ace may be out, but, as you know, bidding isn't an exact science.

9. I wouldn't say he make an error. I'd say he had a difficult hand to bid and took a practical shot, playing me for the regular 2NT opener. I just happened to have a much better than than he could possibly expect. As I said, strong hands are very independent, even if limited. Wouldn't you agree on this? C'mon, you're experienced enough to know I'm at least a little bit right

10. Well, I sure didn't come here looking for support for my actions. I just wanted to present a hand where one could eventually argue judgement might help reaching the top spot despite being in a standard sign-off situation.

11. Masterminding is part of the game. Just look at preemptive bidding.. eheh: "a unilateral shot at taking opps single-handedly", as Robson/Segal would say. Knowing about it helps understanding more about the game and human nature. Discipline is fine but you have to criticize stuff and think of other aspects of the game, so as to evolve. If nothing else, it will help you understand what OPPONENTS sometimes do. By the way.. being superman is the way to win with some partners. I don't recommend people to do it just like that because it takes a lot of experience to do it properly. Clumsiness is too telling an irritates pard. You have to do it with style

Cheers mikeh. I appreciate your comments, but it's just that we have a different philosophy.

[luke warm]

i think a couple of your comments help explain some things... for example, you say:

"Masterminding is part of the game. Just look at preemptive bidding..."

imo, the very fact that you don't seem to know the difference between the two is at the root of many of the opinions you post... and this quote,

"As for turning a plus into a minus.. well, that's the price to pay for standing up for your feelings and bidding what you think you can make. I'm willing to pay it, especially since I know I can match the bidding with good play."

... shows (again, imo) an attitude seen time and again in some of your posts - you give the impression that there is only you involved... the fact that *you're* willing to pay a certain price completely ignores whether or not your partner is... but i don't sense that you particularly care about pard's opinion

maybe your bridge skills and accomplishments warrant some of your opinions, i don't know you or them... but i do think that most people can see the difference between dogmaticism from a hamman or lawrence and you (or me)... in their cases, their skill and accomplishments add weight to their words.. their results, in some of the toughest events imaginable against some of the very best players, are there for the whole world to see... the same can't be said of you (or me)...

egocentric dogmaticism is rarely convincing

[whereagles]

Luke, with all due respect, I think you and others misinterpret what I say. I know exactly what I'm doing and what I say. My ideas sound strange because I disagree with some dogmas of mainstream bidding. I have a different way to look at things. Quite frankly, and not wanting to sound pretentious, I get more and more the feeling that I'm ahead of my time.

One day I'll have enough time to play. Then I'll prove that I'm right at the table.

[bid_em_up]

Aye yai yai.

[Free]

whereagles, on May 28 2006, 04:21 PM, said:

Luke, with all due respect, I think you and others misinterpret what I say. I know exactly what I'm doing and what I say. My ideas sound strange because I disagree with some dogmas of mainstream bidding. I have a different way to look at things. Quite frankly, and not wanting to sound pretentious, I get more and more the feeling that I'm ahead of my time.

One day I'll have enough time to play. Then I'll prove that I'm right at the table.

I really doubt if you really don't want to sound pretentious. We've all read your words from time to time, and you know what you write apparently. However, we haven't seen ANY accomplishment of you, not on BBO, not in the real world, nowhere. And yet you get a feeling you're ahead of your time. I sometimes think "wow, if I had these tools but lived in the past, I'd probably be rich tnx to bridge". If you're sooo ahead of your time, you should already be there! Unless it's all your partner's fault ofcourse...

When will we ever see your futuristic bidding approach online?

[whereagles]

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

Obviously people are not interested in what I have to say, so rest assured I won't bother you more with them. But I must say find it rather bad manners to try and refute my ideas by doing cheap psychology about my personality.

I had more to say, but I think I stop here.

[Blofeld]

whereagles, on May 28 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions (well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very successful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

For example, you claim that you find it better for the strong hand to captain rather than the unlimited one. There is a very obvious reason why the unlimited hand might make a better captain: it has a better idea of the partnership's combined assets. But perhaps there are reasons why the strong hand is better placed to take control? The only one that springs to mind is that it may be slightly easier for the weaker hand to describe all of its assets, but this must be a pretty small affair especially when the strong hand is fairly constrained. So could you explain what advantages you see, and why these outweigh the perspective of the weaker hand knowing the combined strength of the hands?

Counter-intuitive viewpoints always need to be explained fairly fully before they are accepted. You aren't explaining statements, so little wonder if they aren't taken seriously. Even if you don't sway everyone to your side, you'll get people to think more about the issues involved.

whereagles said:

Obviously people are not interested in what I have to say, so rest assured I won't bother you more with them.

Please don't sink into this narcissistic grandstanding. If you have arguments to make, people will certainly be interested. You haven't been making arguments, you've been making controversial statements. If that's all you have to offer, I'll be quite happy if you don't mention them again ; on the other hand if you have a case to make I'd love to hear it.

[luke warm]

Blofeld, on May 28 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 28 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

Look, through my experience I found that some mainstream principles of bidding need a rewriting. I wanted to share my ideas with the forum, so as to discuss the stuff.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions (well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very successful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

that's all i was trying to get across, that dogmaticism is acceptable (tho not necessarily adored) from someone who has the authority to be dogmatic, by virtue of known accomplishments... it's just like the flannery debate, imo... if i say "flannery sucks" then everyone would have a perfect right to know who i think i am to make such a statement

[pclayton]

My partners occasionally break discipline or take a view. Sometimes they are right, othertimes they aren't. But if they consistently override my judgement, hog the bids, or exclude me from the decision making, they join my list of ex-pards.

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener. Pard has asked you to choose a small slam. If you aren't comfortable relinquishing captaincy, open these hands with one of a suit.

7H or 6N might be right but they are total stabs. Stabs sometimes work, but to characterize this thinking as 'being ahead of ones time' shows a lot of verve.

[FrancesHinden]

Back to the actual hand, and the bidding problem presented.

The fact that partner has offered me a choice of slams but shown no interest in looking for a grand, or asked my opinion, makes it very likely, in my view, that he has a void in at least one of the side suits. Those are the hardest types of hand to bid opposite a strong opener for two reasons. First, you tend to be short of room to show partner a 6-5 or 5-5 in two suits _and_ a void and still offer a choice of contracts, and secondly because if you are slightly light for your slam drive, the last thing you want to do is tell the opponents which suit to lead.

Also, I have AK AK in the side suits opposite a hand which forced to slam. That makes a void extremely likely in one of them, or else where did the slam force come from?

So I don't think this is actually that good a hand. I might be able to construct a hand on which I'd bid 7 (Axx AK Axx AQxxx for example), but it would a very rare hand with lots of honours in partner's suits, not one where I know some of the honours will be wasted.

As for the choice between 6H and 6NT: I would choose 6H. First is that (again) partner's 'guessing' auction indicates he has a difficult hand to bid, so we should get a fair score for simply playing in the best spot - perhaps some of the field will be in game, or in a grand. Secondly, when we have a doubleton club 6H is likely a safer slam as there is the possibility of ruffing a club in our hand. The possible club ruff also makes 6H much more likely to make an overtrick than 6NT, and 1460 beats 1440. If 6NT is making an overtrick, partner has seriously misbid. If I think my cardplay is better than the average, so that (say) I will make 13 tricks when much of the field will not, my expected matchpoints are rather higher playing in 6H than 7H.

Give me a third club (to go with my third heart) and 6NT is much more tempting.

[whereagles]

Blofeld, on May 28 2006, 11:41 PM, said:

1.
I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions

2.
(well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very people will certainly be interested. You haven't been making arguments, you've been making controversial statements. If that's all you have to offer, I'll be quite happy if you don't mention them again ; on thesuccessful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well).

3.
For example, you claim that you find it better for the strong hand to captain rather than the unlimited one. There is a very obvious reason why the unlimited hand might make a better captain: it has a better idea of the partnership's combined assets.

4.
But perhaps there are reasons why the strong hand is better placed to take control?

5.
The only one that springs to mind is that it may be slightly easier for the weaker hand to describe all of its assets, but this must be a pretty small affair especially when the strong hand is fairly constrained.

6.
So could you explain what advantages you see, and why these outweigh the perspective of the weaker hand knowing the combined strength of the hands?

7.
Please don't sink into this narcissistic grandstanding. If you have arguments to make....

1.
False. I have presented a principle (strong hand leads the bidding, not the unlimited one) and I have backed it up on grounds that the strong hand is more independent. This is not a "blindly asserted opinion": it is a clear statement with argumentation.

I'm not going to give 100 examples for the obvious reason, but I'll leave you a nice one: relay precision. The strong hand asks questions, the unlimited hand answers them. A prefect application of the above principle, whose results are widely known to be outstanding.


2.
Sounds like following a religion to me.. Well, I'm not like that.


3.
This is true when the limited hand is relatively weak, like in 0-15 hcp or so. It stops being so clear when the limited hand grows in strength, especially if it's unbalanced. For instance, not all 16 hcp balanced hands are the same. There are good 16s and bad 16s. Now think of a 16 hcp 1- or 2-suited hand, whose playing strength can range from garbage to huge.


4.
Indeed. If you think about it, even textbooks say that a strong hand is allowed to do some occasional masterminding. Example:

2NT 3♥ (transfer)
4♠ (super accept)

This is a very simple case of what I'm saying: opener's hand has risen in playing strength knowing of the spade fit, and took immediate action. It is obviously masterminding, but we all accept it as "normal". My claim is, very simply, that you can extend this reasoning to other sequences. (So yeah, perhaps I'm not ahead of my time after all.) The reason the strong hand should lead is because it is more independent, meaning: it needs only a card or two to make its contract.


5.
Basically, the reason is that one, but seen the other way around: the strong hand would like to ask the weak one whether it has this card or that one, because those are the cards that it needs to close its suits. It is not a "pretty small affair" because the weak hand cannot possibly imagine what the strong one has. A weak hand has only a few combinations of high cards, whereas a strong one has zillions. An application of this:

2NT 3♥ (spades)
3♠ 4♣ (nat, 54 slam try)

now OPENER should be in charge, not responder. This auction can produce anything from 9 tricks in NT (oops) to 13 tricks in clubs or spades. The outcome will depend more on OPENER's hand, despite being a limited one!, than on what responder showed, and this is why opener should take charge now.


6.
The advantages are clear: the strong hand is more independent, so it knows better which high cards are needed. It should be given the chance to take charge whenever possible. Knowing the combined strength is fine, but it cannot be restricted to hcps. Fitting patterns also count and a strong hand can easily rise enough in value so as to take some unilateral action.


7. The first sentence doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph. You don't need excuses to express disdain. If you have something to say, say it.

[whereagles]

luke warm, on May 29 2006, 12:41 AM, said:

that dogmaticism is acceptable (tho not necessarily adored) from someone who has the authority to be dogmatic, by virtue of known accomplishments...

No form of dogmatism is acceptable. Dogmatism is the opposite of criticism and critical thinking. Following dogmas has led to some of the greatest tragedies in human history.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on May 29 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener.

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

On the original occasion I felt I had the right to bid 7 because pard didn't let me tell what was left to say about my hand.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 05:39 PM, said:

I'm not going to give 100 examples for the obvious reason,
but I'll leave you a nice one: relay precision. The strong hand
asks questions, the unlimited hand answers them. A prefect application of the above principle, whose results are widely
known to be outstanding.

Comment 1: I'd be hard pressed to make a definitive statement regarding standard practice when designing relay systems. I'd certainly steer away from anything as absolute as you seem to be claiming...

Comment 2: Many relay systems are deliberately designed to limit strength as quickly as possible. Case in point, consider the relay structure that MOSCITO uses following the auction 1♣ - 1♦ (where 1♣ = strong artificial and forcing and 1♦ = artificial game force) The strong club opener has the option of bidding 1♥ as a relay asking bid or 1♠+ and describe his hand. The structure is designed such that the decision to "show" rather than ask limits the strength of the strong club opener. In short: having the limited hand show rather than ask is a core principle in many relay structures.

Comment 3: If I had to identify a second core principle in designing relay structures it sure as hell wouldn't be "strong hand asks". I suspect that the most likely candidate would be "balanced hand asks", with "zoom to identify a misfit" following closely behind...