[Free]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-17, 20:52, said:

I believe that this is commonly played even if the 2m is 10+.

Yeah, obviously

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-17, 09:22, said:

Voluntarily taking the last guess in a preempted auction is rarely a good idea when there is an easy way of avoiding it. I have told my partner that if I bid this way I am hoping to get doubled - are you?

The short answer: No.
The long answer: No, but I am expecting it.

Players are like forever designing news systems, new conventions, fixing holes in the system which only came to light at the table, etc. This is our current agreements. Only once we have sufficient hard evidence that something is failing do we change it. On this particular hand IT WAS ME WHO FAILED the system by looking at a partial agreement in isolation and not our system seen as a whole. WHEN THE SYSTEM FAILS then we change whatever is failing. Needless to say that there is a major difference between the two.

We quite like our double edged sword. Should you ever decide to experiment with this, at least acknowledge where the idea came from.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-May-18, 23:24, said:

We quite like our double edged sword. Should you ever decide to experiment with this, at least acknowledge where the idea came from.

I wouldn't worry too much about that!

I think that systems tinkering is great, and it is what has provided us with the systems and conventions that are popular today. But there is something to be said for not wasting time and energy trying to reinvent the wheel.

If something so simple as giving up a raise from 3♦ to 4♦ had any merit, someone would have thought of it before now.

[32519]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-19, 00:25, said:

If something so simple as giving up a raise from 3♦ to 4♦ had any merit, someone would have thought of it before now.

Guess what? The majority is not always right. A classic example (not known by many) where the majority was wrong, can be found in Acts.

Acts 27:9-13

9 When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."
11 But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a moderate south wind came up, supposing that they had attained their purpose, they weighed anchor and began sailing along Crete, close inshore.

If you don’t know what happened to the ship and its cargo you can look up the rest of the story yourself.

[mike777]

32519, on 2013-May-19, 00:59, said:

Guess what? The majority is not always right. A classic example (not known by many) where the majority was wrong, can be found in Acts.

Acts 27:9-13

9 When considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous, since even the fast was already over, Paul began to admonish them, 10 and said to them, "Men, I perceive that the voyage will certainly be with damage and great loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."
11 But the centurion was more persuaded by the pilot and the captain of the ship than by what was being said by Paul. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a moderate south wind came up, supposing that they had attained their purpose, they weighed anchor and began sailing along Crete, close inshore.

If you don’t know what happened to the ship and its cargo you can look up the rest of the story yourself.

side note the management and workers said to sail but what did the owner of the ship and owners of the cargo say? I mean those that had real money at risk?

[PhilKing]

The reason the world plays:

3♦-X-4♦, and
3♦-3♠-4♦

as competitive, is not because they like "pushing the opponents into game." Bidding 4♦ takes away LHO's option to cue bid or jump to 4M or 5♣ or bid 3NT. It's true that they can double 4♦ instead, but that is not really the same thing, since it will end the auction about a third of the time, and it can never cover all the hands they want to describe. We can bid 4♦ on absolute trash, on hands where we think we can beat 4M, on hands where we can beat one major-suit game but not the other and on hands with GOOD diamond support where we are worried that jumping to FIVE Diamonds will push them into slam. It does not push them into game - they were either going to do so or not, and our bid will encourage them to do so very rarely.

At a rough guess, being able to compete with 4♦ is about 1000 times more important than being able to bid "Minorwood" in these sequences.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-May-19, 00:59, said:

Guess what? The majority is not always right. A classic example (not known by many) where the majority was wrong, can be found in Acts.

If that is the last time the majority was wrong, I should take the majority's viewpoint as, er, gospel.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-May-17, 10:48, said:

Minus 100 versus minus 140 is obviously a better result.

It's minus 200 by the way, when you are vulnerable.

PhilKing, on 2013-May-19, 05:43, said:

[4♦]does not push them into game - they were either going to do so or not, and our bid will encourage them to do so very rarely.

And anyway some of the games they bid will be the wrong one, or will simply not be making.

[cherdano]

32519, on 2013-May-18, 23:24, said:

We quite like our double edged sword. Should you ever decide to experiment with this, at least acknowledge where the idea came from.

I almost missed this, this was the best part of the thread.

[32519]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-19, 11:51, said:

It's minus 200 by the way, when you are vulnerable.

If you are going to bid like this then you deserve every bottom board you get. My reference was clearly NV.

[32519]

This was the hand where I screwed up the bidding by looking at a partial agreement in isolation instead of looking at the system as a whole: This is how the bidding could have gone:

---

The hand records here indicated that from East's side, 4♥ makes. However when played from West's side, only 3♥ makes.
Sure E/W may have sacrificed in 6♥ if either had shown the ♥ fit. Fact is it never happened. So we don't know if they would have.

[manudude03]

As someone else mentioned, if you need to do RKC over a preempt, bid 4C (whether you play it as optional RKC or mandatory RKC is up to you), the auction would probably end up being the same. And please don't call it a double edged sword, it doesn't have a second edge.

BTW did West just forget to bid 4H with a 6 card suit?

[PhilKing]

Presumably 3♦-X-6♦ and 3♦-X-4NT have been reserved for some other purpose, rendering the problem insoluble to mortals.

[32519]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-20, 04:52, said:

Presumably 3♦-X-6♦ and 3♦-X-4NT have been reserved for some other purpose, rendering the problem insoluble to mortals.

Is this how you normally bid? If so, what is your top board/bottom board ratio? It’s easy to make a comment like this when you can see both hands. At the table, you can only see one. For the record, west held the remaining 3 ♦. Move the ♦K into the west hand and give north anything else (excluding the ♥A) to garner enough points for the pre-empt, then 6♦ goes down. Doubled you will look even sillier.

On the other hand, if your partnership has a legitimate method to inquire about keycards, then do so. You top board/bottom board ratio will significantly improve.

[PhilKing]

32519, on 2013-May-20, 05:18, said:

Is this how you normally bid? If so, what is your top board/bottom board ratio?

Of course not - jumping to 6♦, which rates to make at least 80% of the time, would just be plain silly! Playing in "Minorwood" is far preferable.

I was merely demonstrating a point. Imagine a world where we took away all your favourite bidding toys and you just had to use judgment. You would just raise to 6♦, right? Now obviously 4NT is better, but even when you are missing the diamond king, you will sometimes get lucky.

[Vampyr]

manudude03, on 2013-May-20, 03:18, said:

And please don't call it a double edged sword, it doesn't have a second edge.

Sure it does. On the down side, you can't raise preemptively to 4♦, while on the up side, ummm... I'll get back to you.

[steve2005]

clarification of terminology
3♣-4♦ and 3♦-4♥(assuming ♥ not in play as trump) as Keycard is called Redwood (because it uses the red suits as a minor suit keycard ask) and your using 4N as KC/1430 for the majors

of course, if your also using 4♠ as KC for ♥ then everything is referred to as Kickback

[32519]

A new hand from a club match:

---

After the t/o X, how many HCP do you think South can have? Even if N/S were nv versus v, and North with something to bid over 6♣, he will go for a number if he does. The t/o X gives the show away regarding any needed finesses.

[aguahombre]

And so, East asks a question of West, to which he already knows the answer...and this is supposed to prove something? All East had to do was look at the vulnerability and bid 6C.

[manudude03]

That example is kinda funny, East gets the best possible response, and still doesn't bid the slam. Well, ok, it is on 2 finesses, but there is no point in asking if you're just going to play in 4NT. If East decides to play in NT, just bid 3NT (note that even 4NT is on a finesse if you get a diamond lead).