[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-29, 07:58, said:

- It's virtually impossible to get the first one right.

I would leave out the "virtually", although I did get it right after seeing all four hands. And I don't think not bidding 5S is "right" because both contracts are off. With 22 total trumps, the reason why total tricks are 20 is that all four suits break 1-1 or 3-2. The combined chance of this seems around 11%, and it is more likely that both 5S and 5C will make.

[gnasher]

 jallerton, on 2011-September-03, 16:36, said:

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

"Probably at least two" doesn't mean the same as "typically only two". Opener will have four hearts here more often than two, because with length in both majors he needs less in high cards. For the same reason, his values are more likely to be in hearts than in diamonds.

And I didn't mean that opener should bid 5♠ solely because of his heart holding. He started off with one of the most offensive hands he could possibly have, and it's now become more offensive, partly because of the likely heart fit.

[jallerton]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-04, 01:59, said:

"Probably at least two" doesn't mean the same as "typically only two". Opener will have four hearts here more often than two, because with length in both majors he needs less in high cards. For the same reason, his values are more likely to be in hearts than in diamonds.

I disagree. As rhm correctly points out, on a hand with length with both majors and possibly less in high card strength, Responder should bid 4♥ (pass or correct) not 4♣.

Quote

And I didn't mean that opener should bid 5♠ solely because of his heart holding. He started off with one of the most offensive hands he could possibly have, and it's now become more offensive, partly because of the likely heart fit.

Are we looking at the same hand? 6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks.

Compare the offence/defence ratio with another super-maximum weak two such as ♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦QJ10x ♣x.

[gnasher]

 jallerton, on 2011-September-04, 15:50, said:

I disagree. As rhm correctly points out, on a hand with length with both majors and possibly less in high card strength, Responder should bid 4♥ (pass or correct) not 4♣.

Was that an option? I think it's normal to play 4♥ as natural, with 4♣ as "transfer to your suit" and 4♦ as "bid your suit".

In any case, I don't see why one would want to advertise weakness in this way. If you want to make life hard for the opponents, you should make the same bid on a hand where you don't want them to save as on one where you do.

Quote

Are we looking at the same hand? 6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks.

No, we're not looking at the same hand, or not if you think it's 6322, anyway. The one I'm looking at is AKJ10xx Qxx xxx x.

Quote

Compare the offence/defence ratio with another super-maximum weak two such as ♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦QJ10x ♣x.

Yes, OK, there are hands which started with more offence but weren't improved by the 4♣ bid. With that hand, however, I'd now be passing, because I'd expect my heart shortage to be opposite some values and length. But I realise that as you don't accept that partner has heart length, you won't agree with that conclusion either.

[jallerton]

Sorry yes, 6331. I should have said: "6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two and 6331 is not too far behind. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks."

I'm surprised you think it's normal to play a 4♥ response to a Multi as natural, as (i) I have played Multi with many partners, and I can't recall any even suggesting playing a 4♥ response as natural; and (ii) it would be a very poor treatment to do so, given the relative frequency of the two hand types.

[MrAce]

 jallerton, on 2011-September-05, 12:52, said:

Sorry yes, 6331. I should have said: "6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two and 6331 is not too far behind. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks."

I'm surprised you think it's normal to play a 4♥ response to a Multi as natural, as (i) I have played Multi with many partners, and I can't recall any even suggesting playing a 4♥ response as natural; and (ii) it would be a very poor treatment to do so, given the relative frequency of the two hand types.

It is very normal, if you play 4♣ = transfer your major to me and 4♦= bid your suit and play. And thats the situation he is talking about.

[rhm]

 MrAce, on 2011-September-05, 13:04, said:

It is very normal, if you play 4♣ = transfer your major to me and 4♦= bid your suit and play. And thats the situation he is talking about.

If you think bad Bridge is normal I agree with you.
But if you feel the urge to defend this poor status quo Bingo might be a better game for you

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-04, 17:13, said:

Was that an option? I think it's normal to play 4♥ as natural, with 4♣ as "transfer to your suit" and 4♦ as "bid your suit".

In any case, I don't see why one would want to advertise weakness in this way. If you want to make life hard for the opponents, you should make the same bid on a hand where you don't want them to save as on one where you do.

Bidding over 2♦--4♥ is not so easy for opponents.
Doubling 4♣ or 4♦ is risk free.
4♥ (pass or correct) will be my default action, when I do not care much, which side will play the hand (and it rarely matters in a suit contract).
I will choose this action in nine out of ten cases when I want to be in game in partner's major and the jump to 4♥ will often be a power raise. 3♣ over 2♦ shows an independent suit (e.g a ♥ suit) the way I play.

I will bid 4♣ or 4♦ only if I think

a) right-siding is likely to matter or more likely
b) I am interested in slam and will probably continue with a slam try.

I will never choose 4♣ or 4♦ if I think I have to fear a DBL. This does not mean when I bid 4♥ that I will fear a sacrifice, though all preemptive raises with both majors tend to go via 4♥.

At any vulnerability, but particularly red versus white, claiming you have to bid 4 of a minor over 2♦, when you are long in both majors is suicidal.
What happened here is not exceptional.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

 rhm, on 2011-September-06, 10:09, said:

If you think bad Bridge is normal I agree with you.
But if you feel the urge to defend this poor status quo Bingo might be a better game for you

Rainer Herrmann

You are assuming that 'normal' means good or bad neccesarilly. You are wrong as usual and i showed you how and why you are wrong so many times in the past topics which are yet to be replied but was not. So i will not waste my time on this one and just ignore you.

Lets talk about your habbit of suggesting people which game they should play instead of Bridge each time when they have different ideas than you;

While you think choosing the way you reply to a multi 2♦ is a good way to figure whether someone should play bridge or bingo, the facts are totally different. "Temper and emotions, and the way your personality can handle frustrations and deal with conflicts is more important. Of course being easy on partners is even more important " Does this sentence remind you something Rainer ? In another bridge site, you confessed that you are neither good at the first part nor good at being easy on partners. If you were telling the truth when you said this in public, then you have no chance at bridge, regardless of how good or bad conventions you choose to play. However Bingo game does not require any of these, perhaps more suitable for people like you ?

But i have good news for you. You dont have to neccesarilly play Bingo. Because BBO came up with this thing called "GIB" and it is fairly cheap. You and GIB has some similarities, both are great card players but has little clue when it comes to bidding imo. You should be fine in long run and GIB never gets offended by your comments.