From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Arggggh!
Keywords: true, ouch
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:42:27 GMT

In article <1ihrntINN2eo@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk> mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
: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?
:> 
In standard or in YOUR system?  What it means in standard depends on
how high you play negative doubles. I already discussed this.
We don't know enough about 1D in your system to discuss the issue.
 
I said:


:>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?
 
No. You need not have 4 hearts. That is too restrictive a requirement.
It only need show reasonable support for the other suits, spade
shortness and substantial extras. It is, in essence, a TAKEOUT double.

Note that the requirements for the bid also depend upon whether partner
is a passed hand.

:Vul vs not          9
:                    A x x
:                    K Q 10 9 x
:                    A K Q 10 x             or similar).
 
Now this hand has 14 Cards. I will assume the 10 clubs is in error.
If the extra card is a small heart, so you ARE 5-5, then the rebid
is a non-issue. You open 1D and rebid 5C over 4S.


:Aren't you asking for portner to try for that vulnerable heart game with
:four hearts? If not, please tell me why.
 
You aren't telling partner to try for anything in particular. 
You are simply making a descriptive bid and letting him decide what
to do. I said above what the bid should show. The next move is partner's.

Also, as an irrelevent remark, let me point out that there is nothing
wrong with a Moyseian fit when the short hand takes the taps.

stuff deleted......

I said:

:>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

There is no such thing as the BEST decision. For a detailed discussion
of this I suggest you read Woolsey's book on Matchpoints. There are
only reasonable decisions [which make or may not work out] and
unreasonable decisions.  You may have a choice between two equally
reasonable actions, each of which might work out and neither can
be called "best".

:playing the _best_ methods).  Can we start discussing _why_ the methods
 
There is no such thing as the _best_ methods. Not all methods succeed
all the time. You just have to work out what is best for you in the
context of your system.

What is best for me, playing Roth-Stoneish type 1-level openings
and very sound 2C openings in a 2/1 GF system is NOT what will be
best for everyone else.  Light opening systems will have to have
different methods.


:you are espousing are the best? If Dbl by opener here was for penalties, and
						  ^^^^

I am assuming we are discussing the methods I espoused over 2C, not what
we do over 1D 4S P.

I  NEVER said they were the best. I said they were what I play. They
work for me. They allow me to cover the most frequent situations;

-partner has junk (or spades)
-partner has scattered offensive values with some support [essentially
a negative double type bid]
-partner has a good hand
-partner has a weak hand with a good suit

What else do you need?

: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
 
It is definitely NOT best. Opener is sitting  UNDER, not OVER the preempter.
The one best suited to make a penalty decision is partner because after
your reopening action [whatever it is] he generally knows more about
the hand than you do. [but not always]. Especially in a forcing pass
situation.

Playing 4NT for takeout is useless. If you want to take out, you
can just bid your suit at the five level. Strong 2-suiters should
not be opened 2C for reasons I have discussed many times. I won't
do it here again. I think 4NT should be  generic (non-RKC) Blackwood.
Remember partner has made a forcing pass to show a good hand.

more stuff deleted.....

:Just how many defensive tricks _does_ opener have? If partner has a forcing
:pass, is it likely that 4S can ever make?
 
Impossible. The 4S bidder would need AKQ tenth of spades. One of us would
be short. We would declare, not defend.

Finally in reply to the presentation of a "results merchant" type hand, I
said:

:>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.
:
What patronising?  Exactly how am I being patronising?
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"