[mikeh]

Getting to the OP, I have some problem with the reopening decision, since I 'know' the hand now. I do think it is close.. I also think that the hand is an advertisement for an outdated approach in which one opens 1♣ and rebid spades (I play this in only one partnership).. now the reopening decision will be easier if the situation arose. Personally, I am happier with 1♠

I suspect that at the table I would reopen with double, intending, as do others, to pass 3♦ if need be.

As for responder, this is an auto pass of a reopening double... I have a clear lead, 3 probable trump tricks, short spades, some minor stuff that will (usually) be useful.. if not by taking tricks, then by protecting partner's holdings.

I hate letting them make a doubled partscore above 2♦, but if they never make one against you, you don't double enough... at least that is what I tell myself when chalking up -670 or -530 or so.

[hotShot]

microcap, on Dec 10 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you do?

1♠ - 2♥ - p - p
X - p - ?

What would 2NT show?

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Dec 10 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

microcap, on Dec 10 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

You hold:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 72 ♥ KJ106 ♦ J8654 ♣ Q9

What do you do?

1♠ - 2♥ - p - p
X - p - ?

What would 2NT show?

My preference is lebensohl (so I don't have to make so many offshape negative doubles on fair hands with a minor), but I'm sure standard is natural but a little too light for 2NT last round.

[Cascade]

2♠ is weird with a five-card suit.

[H_KARLUK]

Given sample partner has 7, he has 12. Obviously 21/19.

If righty had 15 maybe he would ask feature. Say 2H max 10 and his responder is 11.

Why I do not hope 10-11 at my p with side suit values? How will you feel when he has AQx-xxx-KQxx (or only Axxx) xx .
If lefty started with 1 hearts I wld bid 2 hearts when th others passed

or Axx-xxx-KJxx-Qxx and he has KJ1065-6-73-AKJ73.
Bad 3 spades? I do not think so. Partner would not pass with such holdings over weak 2 hearts?

I am always OK to catch best partscores, that's why worths to take some risks.

[han]

After 1H-2S-p-p-Dbl-p, my preference for 2NT is scrambling, with lebensohl second choice and natural third but still reasonable. Here scrambling is less useful (since responder can bid 2S on a doubleton) and I would prefer lebensohl.

[mikeh]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

After 1H-2S-p-p-Dbl-p, my preference for 2NT is scrambling, with lebensohl second choice and natural third but still reasonable. Here scrambling is less useful (since responder can bid 2S on a doubleton) and I would prefer lebensohl.

I agree

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Dec 10 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

brianshark, on Dec 10 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off.

What I meant to say was not so much that "X convention solves X problem." Rather, I personally like to keep tabs on recurring problems where some tool helps to resolve it. If the problem comes up frequently, then this is sometimes a motive for considering the convention. Obviously, there are losses to adding something. But, my reason for posting this was that perhaps someone reading this thread does not know about Roman 2-bids and would benefit from the suggestion that this tool does exist. Maybe in a different sequence (4th Seat opening?) they might like that idea.

If by this you mean that you track hands on which posters have had problems.. then your approach will erroneously validate your idiosyncratic methods. We rarely see hands on which normal bidding works well... certainly not posted by people who usually bid 'normally'. A hand will be posted (usually) precisely because standard methods don't afford an easy answer. Weird methods may or may not apply... but standard ones don't.. therefore we will get a disproportionate number of hands that seem to validate unorthodox methods.

This is analogous to one of the real dangers facing those who develop and espouse new treatments.. read virtually any book on unusual bidding methods and we find page after page of examples where the touted methods work wonderfully.. few authors are able to be sufficiently objective as to post pages and pages of examples where the touted methods lead to poor outcomes.. the forums operate to select hands on which unorthodox will work more commonly than standard and the non-objective author's mind will operate in a similar fashion.

Huh? That's a fairly conservative attitude.

"Don't even think about fixing it, because it ain't broke, except in this situation."

"Yeah, but what if you..."

"Nope. That's an idiosyncratic method that only solves this bizarre problem and causes other problems elsewhere. Take an objective looks at what you are proposing, and you will see this."

"Have you taken an objective look at what I am proposing?"

"I don't need to, because it ain't broke, except in this situation, and the other, and the other."

"That seems like a recurring problem, one that I see all of the time."

"So does the field, because they all play the Official System of Contract Bridge, too, with none of these silly bells-and-whistles, except perhaps those three pairs who came in first, second, and fourth last night."

"But, I did actually consider the situation, and it does not actually cause the obvious problem one might suspect, because of such-and-such. By the way, what is the problem you were thinking of, precisely?"

"Well, problems generally. But, you know that no one plays this idiosyncratic system, so they must have figured out what those problems are and rejected this already."

"Uh, OK. Actually, so-and-so do exactly what I am saying."

"Perhaps, but they are from Europe. No one sane plays that."

"Actually, this idea in this situation is one I am just considering."

"Don't even ask, child. Doubt is the root of all evil."

[mikeh]

Quote

Huh?  That's a fairly conservative attitude. 

No, it's not. It is a logical, sensible attitude, that welcomes innovation but requires that innovation add net benefit... it considers the costs of a change in method as well as the benefits.. and thus entails a review of auctions that are NOT currently problematic to see whether, and to what extent, they may become problematic when we adopt the new approach.

Quote

"Have you taken an objective look at what I am proposing?"

"I don't need to, because it ain't broke, except in this situation, and the other, and the other."

Where did I even hint at such a stupidity? You obviously know absolutely nothing about who I am, and my approach to the game. I am willing to bet that I have played more and more complex methods than you have ever dreamed of.. including many specialized gadgets to deal with perceived problems. The fact that I generally espouse relatively mainstream, and perhaps conservative, approaches in these forums is because I rarely post in the non-natural method part of the forums.. I am trying to give answers that accord with my understanding of 2/1 and SA... you may note that I never post in Big Club threads, and rarely in Acol, and so on.

Quote

"So does the field, because they all play the Official System of Contract Bridge, too, with none of these silly bells-and-whistles, except perhaps those three pairs who came in first, second, and fourth last night."

While I have two copies of the Official System book, I have never actually played it or played against it. I doubt that I would enjoy playing it. However, I suspect that I have come in 'first' in the events in which I do play more frequently than you have

Quote

"But, I did actually consider the situation, and it does not actually cause the obvious problem one might suspect, because of such-and-such.  By the way, what is the problem you were thinking of, precisely?"

I wasn't commenting on any particular gadget that you were espousing.. I was commenting on your description of your method of determining whether your gadget worked.. which I thought (and I invited you to correct me if I was wrong) was based exclusively on looking at hands where standard methods were inadequate. As someone with a strong propensity towards gadgets, in partnerships prepared to work on them, I have found through experience that every gadget carries a cost, sometimes primarily in memory load, but often in rendering previously simple hands more difficult to bid... adoption of a new gadget should only take place when there is a net improvement.


People with integrity do not attribute to others thoughts and ideas, expressed in quotation marks, that do not fairly represent what the others have expressed themselves. You belittle yourself, Ken.

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

2♠ is weird with a five-card suit.

Finally someone not biased by the full hand , I also think 2♠ is not gonna be my choice at the table.

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on Dec 10 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

2♠ is weird with a five-card suit.

Finally someone not biased by the full hand , I also think 2♠ is not gonna be my choice at the table.

Nobody was suggesting to rebid 2♠ as opener.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Dec 10 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

You belittle yourself, Ken.

Actually, I think quite the opposite. If I go through the discussion, here's what I see:

I answered the question with a response that I dislike myself. But, then I added, with a warning, an FYI note as a general interest observation.

I then added laterk, in response to a different observation from someone else, that I just added this note because perhaps some readers were not aware of the very old Roman 2♠ bid (not my invention but that of a very strong Italian team).

You then provided observations that insinuated, at least to me, that I am a random gadget man, basing my entire thinking on a solve-the-problem basis. You also insinuated that I am a cherry-picking apologist and hence unreliable.

I then responded with a mocking skit.

You then responded to that skit with hilarious jokes.

First, you claim to welcome innovation, if it is proven. Yet, you pounce on the mere mention of a convention, one that already exists, in a way that seems to suggest that even mentioning a convention requires a disclaimer curriculum vitae for the person mentioning the convention and field notes from lab testing. Very Leno.

Then, you add in your own curriculum vitae, claim offense (Don't you know who I am?!?!?"), and then stake claims of superiority as to bridge methods variation, despite not knowing anything about my history either. I found that joke particularly humorous. You claim offense at an implied ad hominem attack done without sufficient research into the person and react with an actual ad hominem attack without sufficient research into the other person. Great stuff!

The third joke is a non-sequitur, but I love it. You either miss the symbolism ("Official System" being a metaphor for authoritarian incompetence endorsed by committee) or feign ignorance in a brilliant manner. The doubt in the reader's mind is beautiful! You then switch to the classic attack, something along the lines of "I know more about this squizzle-business with the RM Transgronificator than you, because, um, my tool is bigger than yours. So there!"

You then, in the final act, do something I love. You pretend to assume one thing when you know something else. This is great comedy. Obviously, problem solving starts with noting a problem. Then, you find a proposed solution. Then, you conduct testing of that product to make sure that the cure is not worse than the ill. However, you pretend that the second step is the only step, pretend that the company does not do the third step, and then pretend that the failure to do the third step makes doing the now unnecessary first step dangerous. Brilliant! Ignore the problem because any solution will be untested and hence worse than the perceived problem! Gut-buster!

So, I think, rather, that you belittled me, by showing that your comedy is much better than mine. I must concede!!! You are a very funny man, indeed! Send us more!

[gnasher]

I don't think I've ever wanted to bid a natural 2NT facing my partner's reopening double (at least not when playing 2NT on the first round as natural). Can anyone give me an example of what it would look like?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Dec 11 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

I don't think I've ever wanted to bid a natural 2NT facing my partner's reopening double (at least not when playing 2NT on the first round as natural). Can anyone give me an example of what it would look like?

Well, I would suggest that this problem auction provides your answer. If Opener can redouble with a 5-5 two-suiter, then you typically would not want to bid 3♦ unilaterally, right? So, if you have a borderline 3♦ bid with stopper assistance in hearts, but not enough to convert for penalties, then you bid 2NT.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on Dec 11 2008, 02:38 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Dec 10 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

2♠ is weird with a five-card suit.

Finally someone not biased by the full hand , I also think 2♠ is not gonna be my choice at the table.

Nobody was suggesting to rebid 2♠ as opener.

5 card suit= 5 diamonds, we criticise the choice of bidding 2 spades with a 2452 after the reopening double.

[microcap]

It occurs to me that I didn't ever give the final disastrous result.

I passed at the table.....

Dummy hits with xxx Qx AKx 109xxx opposite declarer's AQx [over partner's KJ] A9xxxx Qxx x , the worst possible layout just about.

I think we tossed a trick on defense for -670, it always makes 3 for plus 570.