BBO Discussion Forums: Bidding on misfitting hands - BBO Discussion Forums

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 12:23, said:

Mr. Ace, why would you consider changing your e-mail signature after I mentioned that Jennifer could have potentially been offended by it.

Are you really thinking of changing your signature after I shared with you how I thought she could have conceivably been offended by it?

Interesting timing for considering a change. Less than 3 hours. Maybe it's just coincidental, maybe its not. Hmmmmm.

I will just make a mental note of this one.

By the way, this is the fraternity brother "hi-fiving" I was referring to and the atta boy mentality.

But of course, I am completely making this up about the "atta boys" and the "hi-fiving". Did you vote a "Like" or "Thumbs up" on this one too?

"Get him eagles123!"

Gee fellas, you are proving my points without me having to bust a sweat.

And please disclose the votes by each level of heart bid versus pass. Thanks.
Thanks.

redspawn please take a deep breath and calm down. Make an effort to read and respond to the arguments other posters are making, and stop trying to force people to talk about what YOU choose.

Stay on topic, and by this I mean bridge topic, not hijacking bridge discussions with your quest to defend self-proclaimed expert young females born on valentines day, nor with ridiculous stuff about why people use certain signatures. We're talking bridge here, not signatures or white horse knighting.

*bro-fists Diana*

masse24, on 2017-April-21, 14:07, said:

I don't find it entertaining anymore; RedSpawn's posts are too numerous, too long and too repetitive. Please can we all stop feeding the troll.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 15:49, said:

http://bridgewinners...m-2-f08os2cof9/

1♦ =54
2♣=2

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 13:03, said:

You are confusing e-mail messages with messages in BBO. I have no idea what your e-mail address is. But even if I did, you asking me this after a long time in an attempt to hijack this topic is at best laughable.

Anyway back to this topic. As for now

1♦ =60
2♣=2

Enjoy!

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 20:44, said:

Tyvm

And please supply the break out of the 1098765532♥ votes by each ♥ bid level and pass. DO NOT supply any aggregation of the heart bids. Thanks.

We should present the results the exact same way you presented the 2 ♣ data to remain consistent and allow each voting block a chance to be presented individually in the final results.

The last presentation said hearts were 68 and pass were 34

I will ask this again on the correct ♥ post. I will then answer each one in the correct forum post.

Spawn,
You have totally ignored my previous post. If you wish to open 2C, well of the 2 people out of 62 who did, one is an excellent player.
I disagree with 2C. What I think is really poor is your bidding after 2C 3C. You opened 2C because of the D suit; now you are hiding it. I asked what you would bid with a strong 4441 hand and you ignored that. IF by any chance a partner passed with this 6-5 shape you would miss your 5-4 S fit. Furthermore no West who is any sort of a bridge player would pass. You do realise that you have an excellent play for slam opposite AKxx xxxx Axxx K. Now this is a 14 count, not a 2C opening and yet slam is great. Why would west pass a 2C opening?
Please keep posting however, because I find this the most amusing thread in years.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-21, 21:22, said:

Ywc! Latest update!

1♦=62
2♣= 2
Pass = 1

Do you need a statistical guru for these numbers?

Nabooba, on 2017-April-21, 22:13, said:

No need. I concede and accept the 2 club results poll.

I do not however concede on the 1098765432♥ poll. 33% voted pass and 49% voted 4 ♥. Both groups are poll forerunners out of 108 people but the data was not originally presented that way on this forum. The author wanted to aggregate 2♥,3♥,4♥,& 5♥ heart bids to compete against pass and that is not democratic, rational, or consistent with how the question was asked.

The string will show that almost all of my discussion was about 4 hearts versus pass and this is no where near the butt whipping I was led to believe it initially was. 4♥ did not get the full majority of votes which technically is 51%.

A 33% voting block is too large to cast aside when the winning category is less than 51%.

We need to find out why so many people are voting pass without attaching a personal rating to them.

Keep the voting results in five separate categories please. Let's remain intellectually honest about the results without manipulating or further skewing (or aggregating) data to illustrate a point. This makes so much more sense now. Thanks all.

Question: How would you open the following hand in 2nd seat: X♠,1098765432♥,QX♦,X♣, both teams vulnerable, and 1st seat has passed.

Results:

Nabooba, on 2017-April-21, 22:23, said:

All,

As stated before, I accept the results of the Bridgewinners poll for 1♦, but I wanted to clarify a few things about East's hand value with a more reputable source (ACBL).

What was stated was that this 18 point hand was no where near 2♣. And what I said was we should add 3 points for a 7 card suit when we do our initial hand evaluation.

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-18, 10:57, said:

It was suggested as per the post from Felicity below that you should not do such a thing until a fit is confirmed.

FelicityR, on 2017-April-18, 22:14, said:

Please click the ACBL link below to clear this matter up. Thanks.

ACBL Hand Valuation

Under "Hand Valuation" even the ACBL says add 3 points for 7 card suits to come up for your total points for an opening bid.

So, if we have an 18 HCP hand with a 7 card suit, we should add 3 points to it per ACBL.

This puts the hand at a total 21 points which still qualifies for a 1♦ open. I will refrain from adding the 1 point for suit quality.

21 points is a fair stopping point, but again, the suggestion that this hand is no where near 22 total points for 2 club open is just not valid. 21 total points is near 22 total points. We can (and should) open 1♦ and I understand how that creates bidding space. I respect that, but let's not kid ourselves about the 3 point addition to the intial hand value.

If you disagree with ACBL's statement regarding point additions for 5-6-7 card suits for initial hand valuation, please let me know. I might consider asking ACBL to revise their website since that kind of hand valuation is not winning bridge. And yes, I am serious.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 07:56, said:

LOL

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 07:56, said:

The ACBL site is a wonderful primer to teach fledgling students of the game on day-one. Important matters such as--you know--how many cards you are dealt, and the fact you have a partner. Meanwhile, for those who stick it out to day-two . . .

masse24, on 2017-April-22, 08:44, said:

It's a website for fledgling students, and also a great organization from which a very distinguished bridge world champion will be inducted into the ACBL Hall of Fame this year.

ACBL Hall of Fame

I find your viewpoint very interesting and paradoxical.

I find your e-mail signature pathetic and infantile.

Now, if we can only get you to act your age instead of your shoe size.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 09:04, said:

And I'm sure Jeff Meckstroth still rides around with the training wheels attached to his bike. And finds it really funny that Lance Armstrong doesn't know to use them.

masse24, on 2017-April-22, 08:44, said:

I guess counting suit length is too primitive for us fledgling students, right?

Let's try an upgrade to Marty Bergen's method of hand evaluation from "Slam Bidding Made Easier"


Marty Bergen Points
Marty Bergen Points (Hand Evaluation)
Marty Bergen Slammin' Pick Your Poison

The Initial Hand Evaluation. Marty calls this “Adjust 3”, but you will notice that I have managed to divide the adjustments into 4 steps so we will call this first step “Adjust 4.” Adjust 4 applies to both partners and is applied before the auction. Start with your high card count and then:

• Add your Aces and tens (positive undervalued honors), and Subtract the number of Queens and Jacks (negative overvalued honors). You ignore Kings since they are properly valued at 3 hcps. If the result is at least 3 or more positive add a point and if at least 3 or more negative subtract a point. If the difference is 0-2 no adjustment is necessary. (This is the “honor quality” adjustment).
  
• Subtract 1 hcp for any dubious doubleton and/or singleton honor combinations like KQ, KJ, QJ, Qx, Jx, K, Q, and J. (the “wasted honor” adjustment).
  
• Add a point if you have a 4+ card suit with 3 of the top 5 honors. (The “suit quality” adjustment).
  
• Add another point for every 5 card suit and one additional point for each extra card beyond (The “suit length” adjustment).
  
  This is only a start --- In addition you have to consider Dummy/Support Points and Bergen Points
  to reach the correct contract level.

Wait a minute, if we follow these attachments based on Marty Bergen's book we get 22 total points (18+0+0+1+3=22). He says I should add 3 length points for a 7 card ♦ suit and 1 suit quality point for ♦ suit having 3 of 5 honors. This gets the total value of my hand before I find a fit with partner.

Marty Bergen must be mistaken. There is no way that we can use Bergen raises but discount this hand evaluation method too.

Can someone please review any one of the attachments and apply his formula to East's hand and double check my math please?

If I misapplied the formula I am willing to run with open arms to the altar for forgiveness.

This presents an unexpected dilemma.

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 23:25, said:

I'm not at all surprised at this result for the hand on bridgewinners.com, a site aimed toward and frequented by real experts.

The really key feature of the hand in question is that the long suit is ♦. So, in terms of game, the target is an 11 trick minor suit game. The tendency then is to reserve 2 ♣ as an opening bid with such minor suit hands to approximately 3 loser hands.

By basic LTC, the hand is a 4 loser hand. However, a seven card suit headed by AQ isn't exactly the same as one headed by AK. So in terms of "real" losers, you might think of it as a 4+ loser hand. IMO, that's enough to disqualify the hand as a 2 ♣ opener for most experts.

If the red suits were transposed, so the hand were --

♠ AJ
♥ AQ10xxxx
♦ AK9
♣ x

I'd expect a significant difference in the results of a poll about whether the hand was a 1 ♥ or 2 ♣ opener. That's because the target game is a 10 major game. The tendency is with major suit hands to open 2 ♣ with 4 loser hands. If the results weren't the exact opposite (62 2 ♣, 2 1 ♥), I'd think it would be down to the evaluation of the long suit losers.

MrAce, on 2017-April-21, 23:25, said:

No sir, I don't need a guru.

I accept that the masses believe that 1♦ is best description and that this hand is no where near a 2♣ open (allegedly).

Just remember, ACBL says this hand is worth at least 21 points. The collective says it is no where near 22 points and the ACBL website is for fledgling students.

I say it is 22 points, and the collective responds, so, who the heck are you?

I then show that K&R rates the hand at 22 points and I tell you how. The collective responds, you can't trust K&R and I doubt Kaplan would open this hand as 2 clubs. And still despite the growing amount of evidence showing otherwise, the collective maintains that this is either not a 22 point Hand or a RANDOM 22 point hand.

I then show the collective that Marty Bergen's hand evaluation places this hand at 22 HCP. The collective responds, never heard of his Bergen Points and refuse to even consider, acknowledge, verify, or validate his hand evaluation.

Riddle me this, why does Bergen Points from Marty Bergen (you know the Bergen Raises guy) say if we use his method of hand evaluation we should come up with 22 total points?

http://bridge-tips.c...Bridge-Hand.pdf

Apply HIS (not mine) formula to East hand and tell me if you come up with just 18 points.

Are we to use Bergen Raises but avoid his hand evaluation method like the plague?

Enjoy!

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-22, 11:18, said:

I never used bergen raises. So I am not the person who can answer your question.
I strongly doubt he himself uses it.
Although I promised you that I will not make comments about the level of voters, I have to admit both 2 voters of 2♣ are great players, one of them being a true world class player, if that makes you feel better.

rmnka447, on 2017-April-22, 11:03, said:

Hi, fwiw, a very good player commented that if his ♦ suit started with AQJT instead of AQT he would prefer opening 3 NT in 4th seat. Obviously not a weak gambling hand in 4th seat.