[foo]

jdonn, on Jul 4 2007, 01:54 AM, said:

So pretty much your doubles promise a 4 card major except for when you have 3, got it

Out of curiosity, since when is passing with a hand that does not meet your own criteria for bidding a "lie", as the fact you are looking for the least lie implies you think pass is one.

Stop being disingenuous. You well know that one often has to shoehorn bids into boxes that do not fit them exactly.

Please note that when I'm lying about shape in your derived examples I have significant extras in term of values as compensation.

Give me a borderline or minimum T/O double that is flawed as to shape and I'll pass, in tempo, every time.

=That's= when pass is the least lie IMHO.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jul 4 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 4 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

I guess this is an obvious 1N for Ken.

Har-dee-har!

That's not exactly balanced. I'd double, obviously.

[foo]

Robert, on Jul 4 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

Hi foo

You have very little idea of what SA methods contain.  Mike Lawrence writes about 2/1 methods, they are not SA "even if that is your opinion."

You post your "custom" methods and claim that they are SA.  They are not(repeat not SA)

Doubling and raising in 'competition' with 4 trumps is good bridge IMHO.  I can also double again to 'show' your extra value hand.  I have two ways to bid and your 'custom' methods have only one. 

Mike Lawrence writes 2/1 methods books.  He does not write SA books.

You are incorrect on both (or is it 3?) counts.

Mike Lawerence =does= write on 2/1, but his books on Balancing, Overcalls, Takeout X's, etc. Are !not! about 2/1. They are useful for any system where 2C is your forcing bid; and they were and are quite important books on SA.

In SA, w/o agreements to the contrary one does not take extra bids in competition just for the heck of it. Basic SA is not built around _To Bid or Not To Bid_ or any other book on the LOTT.

In SA, if you take extra action you do not have to, you have extras. Period. Those extras can take many forms, but you are supposed to have something that most would agree are extras. More trumps and less losers certainly qualifies just as much as more HCP.

[Robert]

Hi foo

I lost yet another post.

hrothgar tells it like it is. You have very little idea of bridge 'if' you think that Aces era Italians* used TO double methods that the Aces might tend to follow.

Fashion does dictate bids. KS makes 'shape' doubles with few HCP. The Italians make 'off shape' doubles with minimum hand types. Meckwell currently makes takeout doubles of 1C with 4423 and 1D with 4432 shapes. Your custom methods are not SA and they certainly are not followed by many very good players.

Before you try to adopt hrothgar, try something a tad easier like adopt a pride of man eating lions.

Back to your 'custom' method claim that a TO double promises four card support for an unbid major. jdonn rightly points out that you reply to the Jlall example
AKx x KQxx Qxxxx with double, however, you do not have the 'promised' four card support. For shame. Telling lies.

"...you have to provide good shape information." Unless you tell a lie and only provide 3 trumps when you promised four.

You are 'old fashioned', why did you want me to call you old fashioned? Telling a lie is bad, being old fashioned is not bad all of the time.

It is hard to trust someone that just told a lie and is about to make a 2NT for the minors jump overcall with a 3145 shape over a 1H opening. Why not double like they do in SA?

I will try to post this and see 'if' any more problems arise with your chosen 'custom' methods.

Regards,
Robert

[foo]

Robert, on Jul 4 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

Hi foo

Bidding has everything to do with 'fashion.'  The bids mean what the system dictates not the cards.  KS makes 'shape' doubles with 8+HCP.  The Italians* make off shape doubles to show an opening bid. 

Changing the subject a bit, just how do you explain the very wide difference in Goren era jump major raises as forcing and modern weak jump major raises?
It is the bidding system chosen and not the cards that dictate the bid.

Back again.   You might want to reconsider the losing trick area if you really think that a 4333 hand with for example four queens has the same number of losers as a 4333 hand with four Aces.

Back again foo   Given the example hand in this post, I would certainly at least invite opposite a Roth Stone raise of a major and I might even bid game opposite a KS style single raise 'if' vul.  The system suggests the bid.  The bidding style in 'fashion' suggests the bid.  The cards have little to do with the system methods chosen.

You are claiming that your own 'custom' methods are SA and they are not.  The methods of the Aces and the Italians* were not alike.  Your claims that they were alike simply does not mesh with the bridge played in that era.

As far as current era WC players, Meckwell doubles with 4432 over 1C and 4423 over 1D.  They are very good players, however, they have agreed to a style that doubles with less than Goren type shapes.

Will try to post this one and start over at page five.

Regards,
Robert

1= System is not "fashion". Give me many 04(54) hands over (1S), or 40(54) hands over (1H) with 8+ HCP and I'll be making a T/O X as well. Those hands evaluate to 13 playing points in support of any of the unbid suits.
Edgar Kaplan was innovative for his time, not suicidal.

2= Some Italians use T/O X's to show hands with values that are a problem for the rest of their System. They have a fine traditon of doing this that goes all the way back to the 1950's.
Any SA pair can do the same if they wish. There's even a checkbox on the ACBL CC for the purpose
However, that is not how mainstream T/O X's are taught on that side of The Atlantic.
If you look at The Italians 3 suited T/O X's, they would look quite similar to many other expert players 3 suited T/O X's.

3= In the Goren era, tools like PLOBs and systems like 2/1 GF were not as wide spread as they are now. I don't even think Goren wrote any book for the general public on 2/1 GF. Except for a book considered poor on Blue Team Club, his writing on bidding systems was all about basic SA of the time.

4= If you have been following my posts in these forums, you have seen that I say Qxx is 2 3/4 losers unless pd shows values and 2 1/2 losers unless pd specifically shows values in that suit.
In contrast, Axx is always only 2 losers.
You also should have seen plenty of posts by me regarding the concept of being control rich or not, and the related concept of Defensive AKA Quick AKA Honor tricks. "Bridge is the game of A's and K's".

5= OF COURSE Meckwell X's 1C w/ =4432 and 1D w/ =4423. We all do.
With hands of the appropriate playing strength.

6= The rest of your post I will treat as misc for now.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jul 4 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 4 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 06:10 PM, said:

Call me old fashioned, but to me (1M)-X =promises= 4+ cards in the other major or is guaranteed to be the "bid X then bid my real strain" hand.

Ditto (1m)-X promising 4+ in both Majors.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H?

I guess this is an obvious 1N for Ken.

Har-dee-har!

That's not exactly balanced. I'd double, obviously.

Some of these readers evidently think that "promising" 4cards in the unbid major means some sort of rigid legally binding guarantee rather than "I will do my utmost within the limits of Bridge to have as close as possible to the values and shape usually shown by my bid."

The experts having fun at our expense with regards to this topic should know better. Successful bidding simply doesn't and can't involve rigid promises.
Disciplined bidding means doing everything you can to stay as close as you can to whatever promises you do make; and it means making promises in the first place.

Said experts are !not! doing the rest of the readership any favors by being disingenous on this topic.
Even if they are having loads of giggles at the expense of those who are trying to explain concepts many developing players have difficulty with.

[kenberg]

Robert, on Jul 4 2007, 07:33 AM, said:

Hi kenberg  Ken is the boyfriend of Barbie.

Regards,
Robert

Yes, and she regularly explains to me what my bid should be when I hold such-and-such a number of high card points. Recently she opened 1D, I bid 2N (non-forcing) on my uninspiring twelve count, the defense was terrible, I made four for a good score, and she explained that with a 12 count I should bid 3NT.

With the current hand my original response was that I bid 1S and that I don't know if it's right. I do this because I expect that we will more often than not end up in the right contract. I intend to double 2H if they go there, I expect partner will usually convert to 2S, and if they move on to 3H I intend to double again and beat it. I realize that perhaps 1S will be passed out making 4, and I realize that Barbie will then explain to me why my bid was wrong. Oh well.

There are many situations such as this. Some will choose a pessimistic, some a more aggressive course. Each will be right part of the time. No doubt tight partnerships define these things narrowly but it is my understanding that, for example, Meckstroth is more apt than Rodwell to make an outside the system choice in a competitive situtation.

Tie original post expressed an interest in what people would do. Not surprisingly, responses vary even among very strong players. That's really the simple answer to this simple question.

Happy Birthday America,
Ken & Barbie

PS My wife Becky has made her peace with Ken and Barbie jokes.

[the hog]

Foo, according to my Oxford dictionary the word "promise" means "to say definitely that you will or will not do". If you therefore make a X on the example hand given by Josh, your statement that you "promise 4 cards in the other Major", is a nonsense. Further, you frequently make a statement that appears to be definitive and then when challenged back away and claim you were misinterpreted.

Quite frankly I find this petty arguing over semantics and the constant bickering tiresome and I believe that you have hijacked many of the threads in this forum simply to get a response. This is disappointing as I enjoy reading problems and responses to them. It is the one thing that entertains me while I am work in Laos. I do not want to label you as a troll, but seriously that is the way you are acting. Please stop it!

[foo]

In Bridge terms, I've always heard "promise" as "will do everything reasonably possible" and "guarantee" as "it doesn't matter how unreasonable it is, I will do this no matter what".

So, as a semi-contrived example, you'll notice books like Marty Bergen's on Negative X's saying the certain auctions =promise= 4 cards in the unbid Majors, while other auction =guarantee= certain lengths in the unbid Majors.

In the Bergen, Hardy, Lawrence, etc books you will often find hands that "fudge" a bit where "promise" was used with problem hands. There's no fudging where "guarantee" was used.

I'll be happy to use more precise teminology if shown it. I use now what I know now.

Trust me, I am as frustrated as anyone that some of these discussions seem to be bogged down in semantics rather than focusing more on Bridge.

It also appears that some people are arguing because they like to argue. I don't see that serving any useful purpose.

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

ALL 3244 hands and 13+ points (and many 12 pointers)
ALL 31(54) hands with 12+ points (and many 11 pointers, yes this includes xxx x Qxxx AKQJx)
ALL 32(53) hands with 12+ points (and some 11 pointers)
MANY 33(43) 13/14/15 point hands, and some 12 pointers

I didn't think of this before, but since you are gonna bid 1♠ with 5 cards, but not with 5c minor, I think spades become the suit with the shortest card expectancy after 1♥ Double

[Codo]

Fluffy, on Jul 5 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

I didn't think of this before, but since you are gonna bid 1♠ with 5 cards, but not with 5c minor, I think spades become the suit with the shortest card expectancy after 1♥ Double

Not really because when in doubt, you will more often double on marginal hands with 4153 4135 4234 and 4243 then with the same hands with a three card major....

[foo]

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

No foo, everyone is having loads of giggles at you for saying that a t/o X promises 4 of the other major. It is not like I'm saying a 1 in a million exception hand you would X with a 3 card major, it is a large part of the time.
... I would X 1H with

ALL 3244 hands and 13+ points (and many 12 pointers)
ALL 31(54) hands with 12+ points (and many 11 pointers, yes this includes xxx x Qxxx AKQJx)
ALL 32(53) hands with 12+ points (and some 11 pointers)
MANY 33(43) 13/14/15 point hands, and some 12 pointers

...I totally believe that if you asked the top 100 players in the world they would give you similar answers to this. You say bidding does not require rigid rules, but saying a t/o X promises 4 of the other major is ridiculously rigid and outdated. I would go so far as to say that no good bridge player uses this rule, it is simply unplayable.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not insult the expert posters that don't agree with you for not agreeing with you. Some of us actually post mainly to help others and learn ourselves, not just to say stupid things and see what happens. Most of us have been posting here a lot longer than you so I'm not sure what gives you the right to make a blanket statement like the one you did.

1= (and most important). Fair Enough. It looked liked some were having a bit of fun at Ken and I's expense. Having recently been reminded that "tone" in written communication can easily be misconstrued or misunderstood, I withdraw the comment and apologize for mentioning it in that manner.

2=
You and I have a very different view of this part of the game.
Most of your examples are not T/O X's I would teach to anyone.
(...and what WC contenders do when competing against other WC contenders is not normal Bridge nor is it something that most players could do w/o getting in lot's of trouble. Those folks are pushing many things to the absolute limit. They are not playing "up the middle" Bridge while in those competitions.)

I routinely pass 8+ loser hands. Especially if they have the 2nd & 3rd flaws of being flat and short in the other major. Flat hands have lower ODR. IOW, they are defensive.

With your examples that include xxx in the other major, I really don't like a T/O X because
a= The 43 does not rate to be a good place to play
b= The lead of the other major by pd rates to be a disaster for the defense.

With (xxx.x.)(Qxxx.AKQJx), I'm overcalling whichever minor has AKQJx for texture. I certainly "live" there! I certainly don't want any other lead.

4333 is the worst trick taking and most defensive shape in Bridge. I downgrade it heavily when We are the opening side. I downgrade just as heavily when We are the defending side. It doesn't magically become a higher ODR shape just because we are Defending. Quite the opposite IME.
This shape gets passed a lot by me except when is has exceptional concentration of values or is suitable for a natural 1N overcall.

YMMV, but I feel I am presenting sane and reasonable Bridge logic for the systemic choices I am advocating.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jul 5 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

1= (and most important). Fair Enough. It looked liked some were having a bit of fun at Ken and I's expense. Having recently been reminded that "tone" in written communication can easily be misconstrued or misunderstood, I withdraw the comment and apologize for mentioning it in that manner.

You accurate saw some of this, Foo. But, so what? That happens all the time here. Simply make your points, read and sometimes learn from the points of others, and take it like a man when some disagree with your conclusions, even with laughter. Sometimes the most hilarious and absurd theories I've held as to certain auctions and certain bids have had followers among unquestionably talented experts, to the shock of the nay-sayers. Sometimes I'm out there, and sometimes it is funny, in retrospect.

I'd much rather have this conversation:

"I think blah-blah-blah because twizzle and schizzle."
"What, are you nuts? Look at thus-and-such, and henceforth to whither!"
"Naw -- Expert X has recently discounted the whither problem with a sloopy badoopy call. I think that works."

Something like that, rather than:

"I think blah-blah-blah because twizzle and schizzle, but I understand and completely appreciate the alternative opinions of others."
"As one who would have a tendency to more strongly consider alternative opinions, I hear your fine words of counsel. However, I feel obliged to note that thus-and-such seems possibly relevant, as does henceforth to whither. Perhaps. An interesting conundrum, eh?"
"Very interesting point, my dear friend. I may not have given full weight to the thus-and-such problem. However, I have heard from the wise teachings of Expert X that one possible solution, if you be so inclined, dear Chap, is that a sloopy badoopy call may offer a satisfactory solution to the henceforth to whither problem. Just something to consider."

Bah! Call a dog a dog, if it seems to bark.

[Fluffy]

ken, you seem to assume I care about what Expert X has to say.

90% of the time I have no clue who Expert X is (but people seem to think it is a major authority on the matter), I have my own experts whose you haven't ever heard about as well, and I don't lose my time mentioning them.*

*: Not only because you don't know them, but also because I've seen many people missquoting them in real life, I could missqueote them as well, wich is not fair for them.


****auto-consored***

Sorry what I wrote here sound very unpoilite, it wasn't intended to but don't like missunderstandings.

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on Jul 5 2007, 08:08 AM, said:

ken, you seem to assume I care about what Expert X has to say.

You must be joking.

I cannot believe that an example discussion, one that is made up completely for the point of showing how a discussion might go, is being critiqued for content. The comment about an "Expert X" is not more relevant to the point than the "sloopy badoopy" call.

Just as I don't in any way assume that you care what Expert X in the hypo has to say, I make no assumptions, either, as to your opinion of the sloopy badoopy call, whether sloopy badoopy would remove any ability for your own quasi-badasi convention, if you prefer relay badoopy, or whatever.

The point was the tone.

[kenberg]

kenrexford, on Jul 5 2007, 07:35 AM, said:

Bah! Call a dog a dog, if it seems to bark.

Well, yes, but while on vacation I took a really nice picture of a grazing llama which, after discussion, we decided was a really nice picture of a grazing alpaca. Assertiveness is a useful and generally attractive trait, including strong assertions of uncertainty. I will refrain from political observations about the undesirable consequences of excessive assertions of slam-dunk certainty.

Of course, you, dear chap, may certainly and understandably differ with me and I will weigh your exquisite and most welcome views with the greatest attention.

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on Jul 5 2007, 08:34 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 5 2007, 07:35 AM, said:

Bah!  Call a dog a dog, if it seems to bark.

Well, yes, but while on vacation I took a really nice picture of a grazing llama which, after discussion, we decided was a really nice picture of a grazing alpaca. Assertiveness is a useful and generally attractive trait, including strong assertions of uncertainty. I will refrain from political observations about the undesirable consequences of excessive assertions of slam-dunk certainty.

Of course, you, dear chap, may certainly and understandably differ with me and I will weigh your exquisite and most welcome views with the greatest attention.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jul 5 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

YMMV, but I feel I am presenting sane and reasonable Bridge logic for the systemic choices I am advocating.

If you were advocating, fine. It's a reasonable thing to advocate.

But you're not. You're saying this is WHAT IT IS. Others are clearly pointing out that it IS NOT. You don't need to mention random experts to advocate.

While I refuse to believe that 33(43) is acceptable double of of 1 heart with any strength (and by refuse, I mean covering my ears and shouting "NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!" until the bad people go away), 3244 and 31(54) X's are so common these days that they wouldn't raise an eyebrow at my local club. 32(53) would depend on the HCP distribution.

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jul 5 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

While I refuse to believe that 33(43) is acceptable double of of 1 heart with any strength (and by refuse, I mean covering my ears and shouting "NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!" until the bad people go away), 3244 and 31(54) X's are so common these days that they wouldn't raise an eyebrow at my local club.  32(53) would depend on the HCP distribution.

I never said 3244 and 31(54) !never! make T/O X's of (1♥). I said

Quote

Most of your (jlall's) examples are not T/O X's I would teach to anyone.

I routinely pass 8+ loser hands. Especially if they have the 2nd & 3rd flaws of being flat and short in the other major. Flat hands have lower ODR. IOW, they are defensive.

With your examples that include xxx in the other major, I really don't like a T/O X because
a= The 43 does not rate to be a good place to play
b= The lead of the other major by pd rates to be a disaster for the defense.

Please note the provisions
1= 8+ loser hands
2= holdings like xxx in the unbid major
3= examples by justin that are IMHO better described by overcalls rather than T/O X's.

In stark contrast, after (1♥) AKx.x.(KQxx.Qxxxx) is, again IMHO, better described using a T/O rather than any other call.

I agree with you about 32(53)'s.

PS. Just because 8+ loser or other flawed "3244 and 31(54) X's are so common these days that they wouldn't raise an eyebrow at my local club.", that does not mean they are Good Bridge...
(As many mother's would say to us when we claimed "But all the other kids are doing it!" "...and if all the other kids were to run off cliffs, would you as well?")