From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Arggggh!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:11:09 -0000
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk
Keywords: true, ouch

In article <1993Jan7.142424.12316@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>> Well, if you've opened 1D, and 
>>it goes (4S) Pass (Pass), what does partner's pass mean now?
> 
>Once again, let me state: IT DEPENDS ON YOUR AGREEMENTS.
>
Let me try again. The bidding goes 1D (4S) Pass (Pass).

What do you think that partner's pass _should_ mean?

Is that clear enough?
> 
>What the _net_ thinks is (or should be) irrelevent. There are really only
>2 or 3 people who post regularly whose opinion I would respect on this matter.

Had you considered that there may not even be _that_ many who respect (or even
read) your opinion when you are unable to voice it without coming across
as a most overbearing and arrogant individual. Can you not respond to
people who are attempting to get a discussion of the merits/demerits of
particular approaches without claiming (to paraphrase) "I am right, so
shut up"?

>In any event, this hand is fairly simple: You reopen with a double, showing
>substantial extras and short spades. This is fairly standard. On most hands
>partner will sit and you will beat 4S a trick or 2. On a few hands partner
>will sit and 4S will make [when they have both red aces and one is in dummy
>and dummy has a trump to finesse your K]. On a few hands partner will hold
>a long weak suit when 4S makes and he will pull to 5 of that suit. On
>balance it is clear that a reopening double is correct.

Hold on. Shouldn't you really have 4 hearts for a double?
(for those of you still reading/interested, the hand was

Vul vs not          9
                    A x x
                    K Q 10 9 x
                    A K Q 10 x             or similar).

Aren't you asking for portner to try for that vulnerable heart game with
four hearts? If not, please tell me why.

>>>:How 'bout with:
>>>:
>>>:     K4
>>>:     A62
>>>:     A
>>>:     AKQJ743
>>>:
>>>Over 2C-4S-P-P, I bid a simple 5C. Why is this a problem? It's the
>>>value bid on the hand; you have a minimum. The next move is up
>>>to partner.
>>>
>>And go off when partner shows up with 
>>
>>xx
>>QJxx
>>KQJxx
>>xx
>>
>So? What's your point in constructing the 1 positive response hand
>out of many where 5C isn't cold?

None, just being petty :-)

>No game is cold above 3NT on this hand. You can't always make the right
>decision over preempts. That's what makes them effective. Yet everytime
>I post what the right thing to do is over a preempt, someone has to
>construct an inappropriate hand for partner.

However, you _can_ always make the _best_ decision (assuming you're
playing the _best_ methods).  Can we start discussing _why_ the methods
you are espousing are the best? If Dbl by opener here was for penalties, and
4NT for take out, then it would at least be open to opener to make the
judgement to take the penalty. I don't claim that this is best, but it is
a viable way to play, and I'd like some discussion on the matter.

>Exactly what do you expect the contract should be if partner holds
>this hand? Dummy has a good offensive hand and little defense against a
>spade contract. (secondary honors in long side suits are of dubious value
>when defending high-level preempts). Opener does not have a good defensive
>hand either, and opposite a partner who has shown a good hand via the
>forcing pass certainly does NOT want to defend.

That depends on your agreements :-)
Just how many defensive tricks _does_ opener have? If partner has a forcing
pass, is it likely that 4S can ever make?

>The 4S bid has robbed
>the strong side of the room needed to find out that dummy's strength is
>very concentrated in diamonds. The strong side does not have the information
>that will allow them to find a penalty double of 4S.
>I get a little tired of this. Everytime someone [not just me] presents a
>set of methods for dealing with a bidding situation, someone else has to
>point out that partner can have a hand that makes the final decision wrong.
>I say: SO WHAT?  You can ALWAYS do this. What matters is having a reasonable
>system that works MOST of the time. 
>
>One sign of weak players is that they always seem to expect the perfect
>result on every hand and that if you don't achieve this the methods must
>be defective. Sometimes it takes a series of bids to describe two hands to
>each other. Preempts rob you of the room to do this, so you wind up having
>to make decisions with imperfect information, and sometimes you will simply
>get it wrong. Expecting otherwise is hopelessly naiive.

Patronising will get you nowhere.

>Bob Silverman

Robin.