[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-18, 07:06, said:

Guessers are losers

OK I'll bite. How do you propose to remove the guesswork out of whether 5D is the limit?

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2016-May-16, 13:43, said:

Looking at all the controls in my hand, I can hardly believe that partner has jumped to 5♦ without a club control. So 6♦. I also like the 5♥ idea above.

Could partner hold ♠xxx ♥Jxx ♦QJT9xx ♣x or would you pass with that? I think we need to discuss the boundaries between Pass, 4♦ and 5♦ before working out the best course of action for Opener.

As an aside, am I the only one that plays transfers over 4♣, so that 4♦ would show hearts? Not that it makes a difference here whether the "strong" diamond response is 4♦ or 4♠, just mildly surprised that noone mentioned it so far.

[eagles123]

This was from a BBO random Challenge and The end result was preeemptor had KQ-8 clubs and p had Ax and 6 was just cold (7 not there) And my opponent passed 5d. I can't remember the exact hand my p had.
At the time I considered it something of a wtp to raise, but then again it's much easier to raise aggresively on challenges/knockabout tm's than in real life

cheers

Eagles

[eagles123]

Jinksy, on 2016-May-15, 13:15, said:

Not I. Presumably P's 4♦ would have been forcing, so given that he neither solicited cues nor blasted slam himself, and I have about the worst holding possible in the opps' suit, it feels too risky to push on.

Of course I mean this with the greatest respect Sasha and I don't mean it in respect to this hand particularly, but I never understand comments like "it feels too risky to push on" when surely it's just as risky to NOT push on.

[Phil]

eagles123, on 2016-May-18, 15:32, said:

...I never understand comments like "it feels too risky to push on" when surely it's just as risky to NOT push on.

This is an important concept.

If we were playing rubber bridge, we might just be content with taking our game and getting on to the next hand. From a game theory perspective this may be a bad idea but it's human nature sometimes to quit while your ahead.

IMPs is completely different and your outcome is dependent on the other table. There's nothing certain about what the other table is doing and we may have to bid 6D just to tie the board. All we can do is make the best choice possible and let things take care of themselves.

[PhilG007]

Phil, on 2016-May-18, 16:10, said:

This is an important concept.

If we were playing rubber bridge, we might just be content with taking our game and getting on to the next hand. From a game theory perspective this may be a bad idea but it's human nature sometimes to quit while your ahead.

IMPs is completely different and your outcome is dependent on the other table. There's nothing certain about what the other table is doing and we may have to bid 6D just to tie the board. All we can do is make the best choice possible and let things take care of themselves.

In IMPs there is also the matter of the sanctity of the contract. In MPs you can take risks for overtricks but in IMPS the first
priority is the fulfilment of the contract. Once that has been achieved,then overtricks are a bonus.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-18, 07:12, said:

OK I'll bite. How do you propose to remove the guesswork out of whether 5D is the limit?

Are you suggesting that there is a 'fail-safe' bidding method? If so,why not share it with
us here(?)

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 02:08, said:

Are you suggesting that there is a 'fail-safe' bidding method? If so,why not share it with us here(?)

You are the one that stated "Guessers are losers." Jack is saying precisely the opposite, that he is unaware of any bidding system that can remove the guesswork from decisions such as this one. Or were you just pointing out that you are a loser?

[Jinksy]

eagles123, on 2016-May-18, 15:32, said:

Of course I mean this with the greatest respect Sasha and I don't mean it in respect to this hand particularly, but I never understand comments like "it feels too risky to push on" when surely it's just as risky to NOT push on.

Sure (and no need to stand on ceremony ) - I just meant that as 'it looks to me as though slam is odds against', though it looks as though I'm in the minority.

What (still) gives me pause is that P knows we could have all sorts of hands with support and keycards, yet didn't try 4♦, which presumably we play as forcing, and costs almost nothing. To me that suggests a hand that's bidding 5♦ more as a two-way shot than with confidence that we'll be making even game - eg the hand Zelandakh gives above, or something like xx xx Jxxxxxx xx.

[billw55]

Jinksy, on 2016-May-19, 04:24, said:

What (still) gives me pause is that P knows we could have all sorts of hands with support and keycards, yet didn't try 4♦, which presumably we play as forcing, and costs almost nothing. To me that suggests a hand that's bidding 5♦ more as a two-way shot than with confidence that we'll be making even game - eg the hand Zelandakh gives above, or something like xx xx Jxxxxxx xx.

Yeah that is possible. Indeed while eagles did not give the full hand, it sounds like p may have been too good for 5♦. Still, opponents had not bid game, so a "two way shot" is not entirely applicable.

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-19, 03:09, said:

You are the one that stated "Guessers are losers." Jack is saying precisely the opposite, that he is unaware of any bidding system that can remove the guesswork from decisions such as this one. Or were you just pointing out that you are a loser?

I guess we are all losers...in our own unique way None of us are perfect But hubris is a powerful thing

[billw55]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 06:06, said:

hubris is a powerful thing

This is too funny for words.

[PhilG007]

billw55, on 2016-May-19, 06:09, said:

This is too funny for words.

That is entirely your opinion

[diana_eva]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 06:17, said:

That is entirely your opinion

Mine too

PhilG people posting here are pretty good, as I was hoping all those challenges you lost will have proved. You'd be better off trying to understand what they are saying and making constructive comments if you want to add something.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 06:06, said:

I guess we are all losers...in our own unique way None of us are perfect But hubris is a powerful thing

Given that I self-rate a level below you, I guess I have a funny way of showing my excessive arrogance. So what exactly did you mean by the phrase "Guessers are losers" with respect to a situation in which, by your own admission, a guess is unavoidable? This is sadly a classic case of mini-trolling. You made a stupid statement that you thought sounded like a clever put down. Someone asked about it and you then attibuted to them precisely the stupidity that your comment had displayed. And then you wonder why you get a negative reaction for such tactics.

Sorry, but it is just rubbish. Whether the original statement was a clever piece of trolling or plain stupidity I cannot say. I rather hope it was the latter. If you tell us that it was not stupidity then the community might well consider you "fair game" for the foreseeable future (those that do not already). So I am interested in your response to my earlier question. Are you capable of admitting the mistake?

[Phil]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 02:05, said:

In IMPs there is also the matter of the sanctity of the contract. In MPs you can take risks for overtricks but in IMPS the first
priority is the fulfilment of the contract. Once that has been achieved,then overtricks are a bonus.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Because your response has nothing to do with my post.

[PhilG007]

Phil, on 2016-May-19, 19:48, said:

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Because your response has nothing to do with my post.

Sure I read it. Is it a convention on these forums that we all have to be agreement?

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-19, 10:42, said:

Given that I self-rate a level below you, I guess I have a funny way of showing my excessive arrogance. So what exactly did you mean by the phrase "Guessers are losers" with respect to a situation in which, by your own admission, a guess is unavoidable? This is sadly a classic case of mini-trolling. You made a stupid statement that you thought sounded like a clever put down. Someone asked about it and you then attibuted to them precisely the stupidity that your comment had displayed. And then you wonder why you get a negative reaction for such tactics.

Sorry, but it is just rubbish. Whether the original statement was a clever piece of trolling or plain stupidity I cannot say. I rather hope it was the latter. If you tell us that it was not stupidity then the community might well consider you "fair game" for the foreseeable future (those that do not already). So I am interested in your response to my earlier question. Are you capable of admitting the mistake?

What I meant about "guessers are losers" is that it is one thing to take a finesse on a 50-50 chance as a palooka would do
or locate the critical card by means of deduction and card reading as a master would do. A master NEVER guesses!

[gwnn]

No, a master NEVER guesses because they follow the "queen lies over the jack" maxim.

[PhilG007]

gwnn, on 2016-May-20, 02:15, said:

No, a master NEVER guesses because they follow the "queen lies over the jack" maxim.

Even in "pre-dealt" hands(?)