How do you evaluate this hand ? (Do you deduct 1pt for the 4333 shape?) What is your opening bid ? Why ? Do you consider your choice obvious or would you hesitate between 1D and 1NT ?
> MP > You are the Dealer > You play strong NT (15-17)
> 1062 > KQ3 > AQ87 > A63
> How do you evaluate this hand ? (Do you deduct 1pt for the 4333 > shape?) > What is your opening bid ? Why ? > Do you consider your choice obvious or would you hesitate between 1D > and 1NT ?
> Vincit, Paris, France
I just count up to 15, ignoring the shape, the Ten and the 3.5 quick tricks and open it 1NT. If partner invites, I'll make a decision then.
> MP > You are the Dealer > You play strong NT (15-17)
> 1062 > KQ3 > AQ87 > A63
> How do you evaluate this hand ? (Do you deduct 1pt for the 4333 > shape?) > What is your opening bid ? Why ? > Do you consider your choice obvious or would you hesitate between 1D > and 1NT ?
> Vincit, Paris, France
I'm not big into upgrading or downgrading points for NT openings. I'm prepared to upgrade excellent 17 counts, but rarely downgrade.
The reason? I play imps a lot, and you really cannot afford to miss games.
By the way, downgrading opening choices for 4-3-3-3 shapes is stoopid.
(FYI, Kaplan rates the hand as 14.75 points: that's not a downgrade.)
vincit wrote: > MP > You are the Dealer > You play strong NT (15-17)
> 1062 > KQ3 > AQ87 > A63
Nobody mentioned "fifths count," I think, so I will. Add 2/5 for the S-T, subtract 1/5 each for H-K, H-Q, and D-Q, and get 14.9. I'd still open 1NT if playing 15-17 but not playing 15+ - 17+. As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote
> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > error.
That seems like common sense to me, since the fourth card in a suit gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve Willner wrote
> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > error.
> -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 > <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Mr Stevenson,
With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ? I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after having seen the four hands ... You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the hand immediately AS the most important factor The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of the shape in defense So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is NT oriented that is it ! A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a 324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT purposes when facing a balanced hand) Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a non sense.
Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the question ...
Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another matter Vincit
On Dec 18, 6:47 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > wrote:
> > Steve Willner wrote
> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > > error.
> That seems like common sense to me,
Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
> since the fourth card in a suit > gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having > two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just > one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks > on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's > really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. > It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the > *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. > I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I > think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
> -- Adam
If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
>> As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as > much as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for > a 4333 is an error.
It all depends. For example, it is much easier to get 4 tricks out of Axxxxx in the dummy with xxx in your hand than with xx in your hand.
>On Dec 18, 6:47 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote: >> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>> > Steve Willner wrote
>> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much >> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an >> > error.
>> That seems like common sense to me,
>Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
>> since the fourth card in a suit >> gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having >> two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just >> one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks >> on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's >> really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. >> It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the >> *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. >> I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I >> think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
>> -- Adam
>If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution >for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
>Thomas's conclusion (that 4-3-3-3 is slightly superior to other >balanced shapes for playing in NT) has been independently confirmed by >Kurt Schneider.
Proof, huh? No, thanks. I know that 4333 hands are worse based on forty plus years of results. I have little doubt I would merely find myself disagreeing with the premises, and I cannot be bothered with something not in RGB.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote
>> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much >> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an >> error.
>> -- >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways >> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 >> <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB >> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm >Mr Stevenson,
>With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your >statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ? >I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after >having seen the four hands ... >You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade >a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes >because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical >reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the >hand immediately AS the most important factor >The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of >the shape in defense >So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is >NT oriented that is it ! >A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a >324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT >purposes when facing a balanced hand) >Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when >deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a >non sense.
>Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and >downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the >question ...
>Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another >matter
Of course good players downgrade 4333 hands for no-trumps.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
> >On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Steve Willner wrote
> >> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> >> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > >> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > >> error.
> >With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your > >statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ? > >I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after > >having seen the four hands ... > >You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade > >a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes > >because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical > >reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the > >hand immediately AS the most important factor > >The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of > >the shape in defense > >So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is > >NT oriented that is it ! > >A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a > >324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT > >purposes when facing a balanced hand) > >Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when > >deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a > >non sense.
> >Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and > >downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the > >question ...
> >Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another > >matter
> Of course good players downgrade 4333 hands for no-trumps.
> -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 > <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
They do BUT not a priori when considering opening a strong NT ! Anyway even if you consider (based on your experience) that it is a minus factor there are other considerations that are more essential This is why all in all a priori they do not downgrade (and dowgrading one point is a non sense) vincit
> >On Dec 18, 6:47 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >> wrote:
> >> > Steve Willner wrote
> >> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> >> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > >> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > >> > error.
> >> That seems like common sense to me,
> >Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
> >> since the fourth card in a suit > >> gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having > >> two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just > >> one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks > >> on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's > >> really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. > >> It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the > >> *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. > >> I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I > >> think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
> >> -- Adam
> >If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution > >for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
> >Thomas's conclusion (that 4-3-3-3 is slightly superior to other > >balanced shapes for playing in NT) has been independently confirmed by > >Kurt Schneider.
> Proof, huh? No, thanks. I know that 4333 hands are worse based on > forty plus years of results. I have little doubt I would merely find > myself disagreeing with the premises, and I cannot be bothered with > something not in RGB.
> -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 > <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
You do not need proofs so you may be trapped with a cognitive illusion (LOL), this is indeed very common we all are ! vincit
>On Dec 21, 3:44 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> Andrew wrote
>> >On Dec 18, 6:47 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >> >> wrote:
>> >> > Steve Willner wrote
>> >> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>> >> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much >> >> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an >> >> > error.
>> >> That seems like common sense to me,
>> >Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
>> >> since the fourth card in a suit >> >> gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having >> >> two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just >> >> one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks >> >> on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's >> >> really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. >> >> It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the >> >> *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. >> >> I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I >> >> think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
>> >> -- Adam
>> >If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution >> >for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
>> >Thomas's conclusion (that 4-3-3-3 is slightly superior to other >> >balanced shapes for playing in NT) has been independently confirmed by >> >Kurt Schneider.
>> Proof, huh? No, thanks. I know that 4333 hands are worse based on >> forty plus years of results. I have little doubt I would merely find >> myself disagreeing with the premises, and I cannot be bothered with >> something not in RGB. >You do not need proofs so you may be trapped with a cognitive illusion >(LOL), this is indeed very common we all are !
Of course I could be. Not to mention my late friend, John Armstrong, who agreed with me over 4333s. But there again, perhaps I am correct.
My strength at bridge, and the reason I win so much at this game is not based on my judgement in slam bidding, which is dreadful. It is not based on my technical ability, which is poor. It is not based on my table feel, which is very poor. It is not based on my reading hands while playing dummies, which is dreadful.
So what is it based on? Well, I think my strongest ability is judgement of hands especially in low level competitive situations, and the knowledge of the basis for a good competitive approach. So, yes, you may be right, that I cannot tell a good opening from a bad one.
But I doubt it.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>On Dec 21, 3:46 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> vincit wrote
>> >On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >> >wrote: >> >> Steve Willner wrote
>> >> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>> >> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much >> >> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an >> >> error.
>> >With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your >> >statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ? >> >I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after >> >having seen the four hands ... >> >You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade >> >a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes >> >because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical >> >reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the >> >hand immediately AS the most important factor >> >The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of >> >the shape in defense >> >So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is >> >NT oriented that is it ! >> >A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a >> >324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT >> >purposes when facing a balanced hand) >> >Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when >> >deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a >> >non sense.
>> >Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and >> >downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the >> >question ...
>> >Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another >> >matter
>> Of course good players downgrade 4333 hands for no-trumps. >They do BUT not a priori when considering opening a strong NT ! >Anyway even if you consider (based on your experience) that it is a >minus factor there are other considerations that are more essential >This is why all in all a priori they do not downgrade (and dowgrading >one point is a non sense)
Oh, don't be silly. You only downgrade two points or more? What planet are you on?
Judgement is part of what separates the good players form the poor ones. Good players downgrade for poor features, of which 4333 is one, and upgrade for good features.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
> >On Dec 21, 3:44 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> Andrew wrote
> >> >On Dec 18, 6:47 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 18, 5:40 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Steve Willner wrote
> >> >> > >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> >> >> > I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > >> >> > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > >> >> > error.
> >> >> That seems like common sense to me,
> >> >Common sense is neither common, nor always sensical.
> >> >> since the fourth card in a suit > >> >> gives you a chance of setting up a long-suit trick there, and having > >> >> two four-card suits would give you a better chance than having just > >> >> one. But I have a vague recollection that one of the simulation wonks > >> >> on this newsgroup had reported, a number of years ago, that 4333's > >> >> really don't play worse than 4432's, or maybe are even a bit better. > >> >> It could be that having a doubleton increases the chance that the > >> >> *opponents* have a suit long enough that they can set up to beat you. > >> >> I'm not sure, and I don't think I'd be able to find the post that I > >> >> think I might have possibly vaguely remembered.
> >> >> -- Adam
> >> >If you want to see the proof that 4-3-3-3 is a superior distribution > >> >for the purpose of playing in NT go to Thomas Andrews' website:
> >> >Thomas's conclusion (that 4-3-3-3 is slightly superior to other > >> >balanced shapes for playing in NT) has been independently confirmed by > >> >Kurt Schneider.
> >> Proof, huh? No, thanks. I know that 4333 hands are worse based on > >> forty plus years of results. I have little doubt I would merely find > >> myself disagreeing with the premises, and I cannot be bothered with > >> something not in RGB. > >You do not need proofs so you may be trapped with a cognitive illusion > >(LOL), this is indeed very common we all are !
> Of course I could be. Not to mention my late friend, John Armstrong, > who agreed with me over 4333s. But there again, perhaps I am correct.
> My strength at bridge, and the reason I win so much at this game is > not based on my judgement in slam bidding, which is dreadful. It is not > based on my technical ability, which is poor. It is not based on my > table feel, which is very poor. It is not based on my reading hands > while playing dummies, which is dreadful.
> So what is it based on? Well, I think my strongest ability is > judgement of hands especially in low level competitive situations, and > the knowledge of the basis for a good competitive approach. So, yes, > you may be right, that I cannot tell a good opening from a bad one.
> But I doubt it.
Even if double-dummy analysis is correct about the trick-taking value of various patterns, it still doesn't mean that common bidding wisdom is inaccurate.
For example, experts suggest that you count values in your long suits as better than values in your short suits. Double dummy data suggests otherwise.
But even if the double dummy data is correct, , part of the point of bidding is to find the fit with partner, and if you open 1H with AKx- xxxxx-KJx-xx, partner will over-value Qxx in hearts and de-value shortness in hearts, because the odds are that you have high cards in the heart suit. So he's going to push to game with precisely the wrong sort of hands and avoid games with precisely the right sort of hand.
Also, let's recall, although the bid of 1NT is in the notrump denomination, we are suggesting that the hand has a certain playing strength in suits as well. This hand, double dummy, is about 14.6 points in suit contracts and almost exactly 15 points in NT contracts. I'd still open it 1NT because I have to round 14.6 somehow, and it's 15 points in NT. If partner makes any invite, though, I'm not accepting.
Finally, the double dummy notrump advantage of 4333 over 4432 over 5332 is so tiny, compared to the suit-taking advantage of the latter two shapes. The difference is about 1/6th a point in notrump, and about 1 point in suit contracts.
> >On Dec 21, 3:46 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> vincit wrote
> >> >On Dec 19, 2:40 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> Steve Willner wrote
> >> >> >As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> >> >> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > >> >> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > >> >> error.
> >> >With all due respect do you any datas and/or research to back up your > >> >statement (made in the context of the hand quoted) ? > >> >I remind you we are reasoning A PRIORI and not in general terms after > >> >having seen the four hands ... > >> >You would indeed agree with me that most experts would never downgrade > >> >a 4333 hand A PRORI for NT purposes > >> >because they consider the following : occupying space + tactical > >> >reasons + prempt-effect + conveying the structure and potential of the > >> >hand immediately AS the most important factor > >> >The reduced playing potential of the 4333 is offset by the safety of > >> >the shape in defense > >> >So the key factors are intermediaries and whether or not the hand is > >> >NT oriented that is it ! > >> >A 4333 ok when facing a 4432/4333/5332 and does much better than a > >> >324=4 facing a 324=4 (actually 4333 is one the best dist for NT > >> >purposes when facing a balanced hand) > >> >Now stating that you have to deduct a point for a 4333 a priori when > >> >deciding or not to open 1NT as some players keep advising is simply a > >> >non sense.
> >> >Would you deduct a point with a 4333 when playing a Strong NT and > >> >downgrade the hand to a 1m opening a priori ? That is the core of the > >> >question ...
> >> >Indeed at suit a 4333 is clearly a negative factor but this is another > >> >matter
> >> Of course good players downgrade 4333 hands for no-trumps. > >They do BUT not a priori when considering opening a strong NT ! > >Anyway even if you consider (based on your experience) that it is a > >minus factor there are other considerations that are more essential > >This is why all in all a priori they do not downgrade (and dowgrading > >one point is a non sense)
> Oh, don't be silly. You only downgrade two points or more? What > planet are you on?
> Judgement is part of what separates the good players form the poor > ones. Good players downgrade for poor features, of which 4333 is one, > and upgrade for good features.
> -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 > <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
I do not know of any good players downgrading one point a 4333 shape when considering opening a strong NT or not ! You seem to discard the fact that a 4333 is very good at stopping the defense to run a 5 card suit and is superior for instance to a 4432 in this context
So it seems to me that the good players I know focus would focus on the following factors: - Intermediaries - Right siding the contract -The combination of honors -The premptive effect of 1NT - The fact of giving key informations in one single bid
IMHO these are the relevant factors regarding the choice of their bids and tactics a priori ref to a 1NT strong opening, the shape is indeed totally irrelevant, you have time to adjust later
Should you bother to study how multi World and European Champions bid these hands you'll find out they do not give a hoot about the 4333 shape a priori especially some of your compatriots in the UK national team and all scandinavian players, the alternative, according to your statement is whether they are poor players or whether a priori evaluation is not what you think.
So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a 15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me, you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of experience, nothing to do with facts, period. Vincit
>So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a >15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me, >you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of >experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless gambits.
Or maybe not.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
> >So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a > >15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me, > >you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of > >experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
> Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good > players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless > gambits.
> Or maybe not.
> -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 > <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players ! So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori, in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong 1NT? I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened 1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions Please advise as finally you have never answered the question I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my mind .... Vincit
David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote >> As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much > as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an > error.
Just to be clear, are you[and your subsequent posts] just commenting on the sentence you quoted and not the actual hand[T62 KQ3 AQ87 A63] which would seem to me to have plenty of positive adjustments to balance out the 4333 negative adjustment[no jacks, all queens in combination]?
vincit wrote: > Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players ! > So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
It's time to stop this.
1) You continue to speak of devaluation in terms of "points". While books for learners may express things this way, this is not the way a good player describes hands. A good player may describe a hand as a "bad 5332 12-count", which means it has 12 HCP in a 5332 shape and with some poor features. Talk about adding or subtracting points is for children.
2) There is no such things as what a hand is worth "a priori". All evaluation is based on accumulation of experience "a posteriori", on the results of playing various contracts after various kinds of bidding. Anyone who talks of "a priori" evaluation is either grossly abusing the language or is hopelessly confused.
> in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong > 1NT?
This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently). Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross evaluation method.
> I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits > Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened > 1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions > Please advise as finally you have never answered the question > I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic > instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my > mind ....
I doubt it. You still write as if the crutches given to first-week players are magical.
> vincit wrote: > > Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players ! > > So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori,
> It's time to stop this.
> 1) You continue to speak of devaluation in terms of "points". While > books for learners may express things this way, this is not the way a > good player describes hands. A good player may describe a hand as a > "bad 5332 12-count", which means it has 12 HCP in a 5332 shape and with > some poor features. Talk about adding or subtracting points is for > children.
> 2) There is no such things as what a hand is worth "a priori". All > evaluation is based on accumulation of experience "a posteriori", on the > results of playing various contracts after various kinds of bidding. > Anyone who talks of "a priori" evaluation is either grossly abusing the > language or is hopelessly confused.
> > in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong > > 1NT?
> This is just another stupid abuse of the "points" language. There are > many evaluation factors (the term Marshall Miles used consistently). > Some of these may be positive and some of them are negative. They need > to be judged, and that judgment has never been captured by any gross > evaluation method.
> > I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits > > Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened > > 1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions > > Please advise as finally you have never answered the question > > I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic > > instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my > > mind ....
> I doubt it. You still write as if the crutches given to first-week > players are magical.
Hey Martin, I completely agree with you :). (and of course, Mr. Stevenson as well).
>On Dec 22, 1:54 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> vincit wrote
>> >So if you decide (based on your experience) to deduct or downgrade a >> >15HCP 4333 because of the shape, it sounds more like a "gambit" to me, >> >you decide it will be a negative factor based on your 40 years of >> >experience, nothing to do with facts, period.
>> Ok, you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about, the good >> players I know and play with have not a clue, we all just try pointless >> gambits.
>> Or maybe not. >Very funny indeed ! Obviously we do not know the same players ! >So am I to understand that you deduct one point with a 4333 a priori, >in other words that you will never open a 15HCP 4333 with a strong >1NT? >I am always interesting in learning new systems and good gambits >Obviously you did not check out the 4333 hands that were duly opened >1NT strong or weak by a "brochette" of World and European Champions >Please advise as finally you have never answered the question >I think you know perfectly what you are talking about, you are ironic >instead of backing up your opinion, maybe if you do I will change my >mind ....
I have said straight more than once, so do not pretend I have not.
Good players downgrade 4333 hands because they do not play well.
No, saying they do not open any 4333 15 count shows a lack of understanding for other factors: 4333 shape is not the *only* factor a good player ever looks at.
My experience is that this is the correct thing to do.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>David Stevenson wrote: >> Steve Willner wrote >>> As others have said, the 4333 shape is irrelevant for NT.
>> I rarely disagree with you so completely. At no-trump, just as much >> as at a suit, 4333s play worse, and not adjusting down for a 4333 is an >> error. >Just to be clear, are you[and your subsequent posts] just commenting on >the sentence you quoted and not the actual hand[T62 KQ3 AQ87 A63] which >would seem to me to have plenty of positive adjustments to balance out >the 4333 negative adjustment[no jacks, all queens in combination]?
I had not even looked at the actual hand, true. Yes, I think you are right. I merely reacted ot the word 'irrelevant'.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
