1m-1M rebid
#41
Posted 2015-February-26, 11:53
#42
Posted 2015-February-26, 13:22
Lovera, on 2015-February-26, 11:53, said:
I am willing to allow partner to bid her own hand. Lord knows, she usually does. And more.
#44
Posted 2015-February-27, 06:50
Other players agree that it shows, typically 14-15 HCP with a long good but not necessarily solid suit. For us, 3♦ is merely invitational. We argue that if partner has a poor hand, then opponents can probably make something and 2♦ is a lower entry level than 3♦. Detractors point out, however, that, when you rebid 3♦ with an aceless hand, then it's hard for partner to judge what to do
Notwithstanding, we're grateful to our expert critics for pointing out the counter-arguments to rebidding 3♦ (which we admit may well be a mistake); but please would they drop the patronising tone
#45
Posted 2015-February-28, 01:29
Lovera, on 2015-February-25, 11:06, said:
18 points? Preparing to get to 5? Are you kidding me? This hand sure is worth more than 14, but 18 is exaggerated. According to the K-R hand evaluator you get 16.15 and according to DK it's a 14- (more information). And sure, the average hand for partner will have at least 2 Aces and will cover another loser while ♣A will be onside 100% of the time... I think 3NT should be our aim, not 5♦.
Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".
In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).
So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.
#46
Posted 2015-February-28, 02:20
Free, on 2015-February-28, 01:29, said:
Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".
In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).
So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.
The Stayman counting comprends values at shortness and longness in aside suit (Goren) and fourthemore detraction for honors not protected and hand without Aces such as :..2) For every cards more 4th (and so on) in a solid or quasi-solid (AKQxx, KQJ10x, etc.) points 2 (pag.3). The eventually bidding of NT by partner sure that suits unbidding are covered (with A or K).
#47
Posted 2015-February-28, 12:15
Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 02:20, said:
If you read it in a book, it must be true.
#48
Posted 2015-February-28, 14:10
johnu, on 2015-February-28, 12:15, said:
The book in question is "THE COMPLETE STAYMAN SYSTEME OF CONTRACT BIDDING" by Samuel S.Stayman (I edition 1957, III edition 1972). About pointing the author said, in chapter I - VALUTATION OF THE HAND that " in spring of 1949, in an article titled "Comparation of vary systems of point counting" we get at the conclusion that a more precise system of valutation of points of high cards was this one: A= 4,5 p., K=3 p., Q=2 p., J=1 p., 10= 0,5 points." Infact we know now that Milton Work (4-3-2-1) is precise for balanced hands but less for the other unbalanced hands where insert Goren scale (void=3 p.,singleton=2 p., doubleton=1 point) helps. It exist other systems of valutation (Four Aces of Dallas have scale 3-2-1-0.5 and older also Bissel points A=3, K=2,Q=1, J and 10=0). If are interested i can indicate the "Tabel of valutation of the hand" from the book.
#49
Posted 2015-February-28, 17:30
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#50
Posted 2015-February-28, 19:02
Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 14:10, said:
Precise is a little strong. Adequate for most players. Every valuation system has a high standard deviation of error. Original estimates of value are NOT written in stone. Values are dynamic, not static. As the auction progresses one should constantly revalue the values of the hand. Think in terms of partnership tricks, not points for my hand.
#51
Posted 2015-March-01, 02:48
Lovera, on 2015-February-28, 14:10, said:
I'm sorry, you're so right. In the 60 year period between the writing of this book and today, bridge hasn't changed at all. There haven't been any new developments about hand evaluation (like counting your points for shortnesses only when there's a fit), everything is still the same. And when a book says it's more accurate, it's definitely true for an eternity. Thanks for this very valuable contribution!
Serious remark: on a point scale of 44+ (the more precise system) obviously you'll have a higher value than a point scale of 40 (HCP). This doesn't mean you can compare them.
#52
Posted 2015-March-01, 16:07
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#53
Posted 2015-March-02, 10:19
lmilne, on 2015-January-28, 23:14, said:
lmilne, on 2015-January-30, 05:14, said:
Have arguments presented here modified your opinion?
#54
Posted 2015-March-03, 10:03
#55
Posted 2015-March-03, 10:34
Lovera, on 2015-March-03, 10:03, said:
MrAce, on 2015-February-28, 17:30, said:
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#56
Posted 2015-March-03, 11:11
#57
Posted 2015-March-03, 11:37
Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-03, 11:11, said:
I wonder how partner will know to "pass it on many hands where it's right", when apparently this hand is not quite a minimum for your 3♦ rebid, and yet the top end is just below GF. Perhaps "GF" is also reduced; but even if partner knows that, he can't do anything about it.
#58
Posted 2015-March-03, 11:52
aguahombre, on 2015-March-03, 11:37, said:
This hand is closer to maximum than it is to minimum for 3♦ for us, tends to be about 6.75 - 7.75 or bad 8 playing tricks although this a a bad 7.5 tricks due to lack of aces.
We also have other system peculiarities available to deal with some of the other problematic hands.
#59
Posted 2015-March-03, 13:59
#60
Posted 2015-March-03, 15:10
helene_t, on 2015-March-03, 13:59, said:
The standard death hand is often rebid 3♦ for many people, we don't do that, we will not have 8.5 tricks or a decent 8 which some people will.
Two or three?
What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?