[skjaeran]

han, on Sep 25 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

Disagree that partner will reopen on a minimal 2533.

Agree, that's an automatic pass in balancing seat.

[TimG]

Will opener always have at least 3 clubs? Or, does he reopen with a double with shapes such as 4522 and 3622?

It seems to me that even if opener is near minimum (~13-15 HCP), when he has 3 clubs they are an overwhelming favorite to go down. When opener has only 2 clubs, they will still go down often, maybe not enough to make the double worthwhile, especially since they're doubled into game this time.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Are you serious?? Where do you get that from?

[SlickRicky]

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 25 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

when partner reopened 2D he either had extra values or decent spade length so I doubt spades is their best fit.

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Hi Sathya,

You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge.

In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make.

Ricky

[cherdano]

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 25 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

when partner reopened 2D he either had extra values or decent spade length so I doubt spades is their best fit.

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Oh ok, you meant something different than what you wrote (You wrote partner doesn't need extras, but you meant partner doesn't need "extras or spade length"). In this case I strongly disagree with your claim, any minimum balanced hand with 3 diamonds is an automatic pass, and 2524 will often pass, too.

[pclayton]

This bidding is strange, to say the least.

I honestly can't figure out what is going on in the spade suit. I have four. Pard has at least three (OR extras; sorry, I feel a need to emphasize this). LHO should have at least 4 for the xx, and probably 5. RHO should have at least three for taking preference, although I suspect he would bid the same with a 2=5=5=1 pattern.

I wouldn't have doubled 2♠, but I would not be the least bit surprised if pard would have doubled it when it comes back to him.

3♣ just baffles me. RHO is bidding as if he has 15 cards.

I feel as though I'm getting played here. What a neat trick RHO is pulling if he had a hand like: x Axx, KQJxx, AQxx. Someone is going to double 2♠, so lets 'run' to 3♣ and hope to get doubled.

I pass.

[OleBerg]

SlickRicky, on Sep 25 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 25 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

when partner reopened 2D he either had extra values or decent spade length so I doubt spades is their best fit.

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Hi Sathya,

You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge.

In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make.

Ricky

I dont think he should be hostile, even if he was clearly right.

[sathyab]

OleBerg, on Sep 26 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

SlickRicky, on Sep 25 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 25 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

when partner reopened 2D he either had extra values or decent spade length so I doubt spades is their best fit.

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Hi Sathya,

You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge.

In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make.

Ricky

I dont think he should be hostile, even if he was clearly right.

It's funny you should think I was being offensive. You don't think it's offensive when someone asks you what part of "or" you don't understand in response to a post that simply asked what their requirements for a reopening double were ?

[cherdano]

Come on Sathyab, Frances wrote "Partner needs spade length or extra strength to reopen", and you ask "why does partner need extra strength to reopen". I could have used different words, or maybe I should have guessed what you meant (but then, nobody plays the way you assumed), but at least you should admit that what you wrote didn't express what you meant.

[jdonn]

Speaking as someone who has flamed and been flamed by cherdano many times, it seems to me he has actually been quite controlled in this thread. Your original post looked like you had stopped reading the post you were replying to after about half a sentence, what did you expect someone to say? When you so viciously clarified, you changed the meaning of what you wrote so it at least made sense, but just showed you didn't understand the bridge situation. And now you have changed to 'he started it'? Other than pure morbid entertainment value, I don't even know what your purpose here is any more.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

This bidding is strange, to say the least.

I honestly can't figure out what is going on in the spade suit.

It's funny. Gnasher, I assume deliberately, did not say anything about the opponents. I think it's relevant that RHO is a strong player, and LHO an extremely weak player because it affects our perception of what sort of hand RHO has, and who is more likely to be bidding bizarrely.

[OleBerg]

sathyab, on Sep 26 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Sep 26 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

SlickRicky, on Sep 25 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 25 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

when partner reopened 2D he either had extra values or decent spade length so I doubt spades is their best fit.

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post.

What part of "or" do you not understand?

The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double.

Hi Sathya,

You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge.

In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make.

Ricky

I dont think he should be hostile, even if he was clearly right.

It's funny you should think I was being offensive. You don't think it's offensive when someone asks you what part of "or" you don't understand in response to a post that simply asked what their requirements for a reopening double were ?

I didn't say you were offensive.

In fact my comment wasn't aimed at you, but at Rickys assumption, that people who believe they are right, have the right to be offensive

[TimG]

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

I feel as though I'm getting played here. What a neat trick RHO is pulling if he had a hand like: x Axx, KQJxx, AQxx. Someone is going to double 2♠, so lets 'run' to 3♣ and hope to get doubled.

I wouldn't hope to get doubled with that hand.

I did a quick and simple simulation, dealing this hand to east and the hand that started this thread to south. I have north 3-4 spades, 5-6 hearts, 0-2 diamonds and at least 2 clubs along with 13-15 HCP (meaning that the intervening side has 20-22 HCP between them).

Double dummy result for 3C was down 83/100. For comparison, 2D was down 65/100. Running from 2D, especially in a manner in which you are encouraging the opponents to double on momentum, seems wrong.

Of course, if by pretending to want the opponents to double you, you convince them not to double you, I guess that's a good thing.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Sep 26 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

I did a quick and simple simulation, dealing this hand to east and the hand that started this thread to south.  I have north 3-4 spades, 5-6 hearts, 0-2 diamonds and at least 2 clubs along with 13-15 HCP (meaning that the intervening side has 20-22 HCP between them).

Double dummy result for 3C was down 83/100.  For comparison, 2D was down 65/100.  Running from 2D, especially in a manner in which you are encouraging the opponents to double on momentum, seems wrong.

Of course, if by pretending to want the opponents to double you, you convince them not to double you, I guess that's a good thing.

where did you find the hand you gave to south? I must have missed that thread

[pclayton]

TimG, on Sep 26 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

I feel as though I'm getting played here. What a neat trick RHO is pulling if he had a hand like: x Axx, KQJxx, AQxx. Someone is going to double 2♠, so lets 'run' to 3♣ and hope to get doubled.

I wouldn't hope to get doubled with that hand.

I did a quick and simple simulation, dealing this hand to east and the hand that started this thread to south. I have north 3-4 spades, 5-6 hearts, 0-2 diamonds and at least 2 clubs along with 13-15 HCP (meaning that the intervening side has 20-22 HCP between them).

Double dummy result for 3C was down 83/100. For comparison, 2D was down 65/100. Running from 2D, especially in a manner in which you are encouraging the opponents to double on momentum, seems wrong.

Of course, if by pretending to want the opponents to double you, you convince them not to double you, I guess that's a good thing.

Tim:

I normally encourage the use of sims, but you are misapplying them here.

What I think you need to do is put the hand from East's perspective with the hand I suggested. Give RHO the same pattern constraints you did (except 11+), but give the redoubler 4-6 spades, 4-6 clubs, and 0-1 diamonds. Give LHO 5-6 diamonds to the Ace-ten. Randomize the rest of the honors in the three unseen hands.

Then lets see what we get.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

where did you find the hand you gave to south? I must have missed that thread

South got: 1098x x A1076x J8x (the hand gnasher gave in the first post of the thread)
East got: x Axx KQJxx AQxx (pclayton's example of hand intervenor could hold when hoping to get doubled in 3C)

Actually, these are the spots I used:

south ST984, H4, DAT763, CJ84
east S7, HA76, DKQJ85, CAQ76

[pclayton]

TimG, on Sep 26 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 26 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

where did you find the hand you gave to south? I must have missed that thread

South got: 1098x x A1076x J8x (the hand gnasher gave in the first post of the thread)
East got: x Axx KQJxx AQxx (pclayton's example of hand intervenor could hold when hoping to get doubled in 3C)

Actually, these are the spots I used:

south ST984, H4, DAT763, CJ84
east S7, HA76, DKQJ85, CAQ76

Please read what I said before. RHO doesn't know anything about our hand, although it does fit neatly into the sim constraints.

Try it again with the redoubler's hand constrained.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

give the redoubler 4-6 spades, 4-6 clubs, and 0-1 diamonds.

I see your point that intervenor is looking at a different problem.

In the 29 sim cases where opener had exactly 2 clubs, 3C made 16 times.

Perhaps you are right that responder should guess that opener is approximately 4522.

[pclayton]

TimG, on Sep 26 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

give the redoubler 4-6 spades, 4-6 clubs, and 0-1 diamonds.

I see your point that intervenor is looking at a different problem.

In the 29 sim cases where opener had exactly 2 clubs, 3C made 16 times.

Perhaps you are right that responder should guess that opener is approximately 4522.

Well, I'm not implying opener should have only two clubs, although its possible.

I am implying the redoubler should have at least four.

Just re-read Frances' comment above and paid closer attention to the punctuation.

It seems there is even a better chance RHO is playing a deep game here.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

TimG, on Sep 26 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 26 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

give the redoubler 4-6 spades, 4-6 clubs, and 0-1 diamonds.

I see your point that intervenor is looking at a different problem.

In the 29 sim cases where opener had exactly 2 clubs, 3C made 16 times.

Perhaps you are right that responder should guess that opener is approximately 4522.

Well, I'm not implying opener should have only two clubs, although its possible.

I'm looking at the construction from responder's point of view. If you assign the redoubler 4+ clubs and give intervenor your hand, then opener can have at most 2 clubs. My point being that as responder, the constructed danger hand for intervenor ought to be consistent with the hand we have.