Happy New Year

[dwms]

Jan 1st. and the year starts out so peacfully and
with such good intentions ----

The party was over after this hand:

http://bridgebase.com/myhands/fetchlin.php?id=8974151&when_played=1324103168

Tuna held

KQJ1092, 3, 42, KJ84

3H on his right. Nobody vul. So he bid 3S.
Gerard had

A5, KJ98, AK73, Q97

Gerard bid 4NT and Tuna bid 5C. They play
1430. Gerard, having learned that they were
off two keycards, bid 6S anyway. This was
doubled and down one.

Gerard started out his year by blaming his partner
for his own shortcomings in classic style.

The following post mortem occurred:

starkist: abacus needs rebooting
GerardMC: I hate weak over weak
starkist: it wast weak
GerardMC: 3!H was weak
starkist: bid
GerardMC: 3!S should not be weak
starkist: you captain?
starkist: then nothing to say
GerardMC: right
starkist: sign off in 5s like supposed to and np
GerardMC: pass, and if I bid anything, then

contemplate 4!S contract
starkist: what did i just say
starkist: dont give me lessons
starkist: no player worth a pinch passes 3h, enough
Kib->Kibitzers: Bridge really IS a conversation, LOL.
Kib->Kibitzers: As a general rule for partnership
harmony, when you knowingly bid a slam off 2
keycards, it's best not to question partner's judgment.
GerardMC: Tony, let's not start with that.. please. I am
not giving you lessons, but if you say I should have
done something, I am entitled to tell you that the
problem came from your first ...
GerardMC: bid, not my misbidding
starkist: last hand thx all
starkist: WE'RE OFF 2 ACES
starkist: so i am telling you you should do something,
count
GerardMC: this agressivity is neither welcome nor
necessary
starkist: lets go
starkist: u started it motor mouth
Kib->Kibitzers: gee missed the count lesson!
GerardMC: no, I did not... read the chat back
Kib->Kibitzers: his motor was running
Kib->Kibitzers: GEE=Motor-mouth
Kib->Kibitzers: perhaps not welcome, but necessary
is a different question
starkist: you criticized my bidding
starkist: when you cost us a dozen imps
GerardMC: you started by saying abacus need
rebooting
starkist: lol
Kib->Kibitzers: only the most die hard gee
sympathizers would think he's right in this argument
GerardMC: and I answered to that
starkist: with silly comment on my bidding
starkist: so bad bid and bad comment
GerardMC: I am not gonna start the tyear on a bad note
Kib->Kibitzers: there are die hard gee sympathizers?
GerardMC: see you all sometimes later
starkist: another year of never apologizing np
GerardMC: I do not enjoy playing bridge any more
vitold: hmmmmmm
Kib->Kibitzers: Great way to start the New Year with a
pard!
Kib->Kibitzers: nice sportsmanship quitting in the
iddle of a hand
Kib->Kibitzers: how grown up
Kib->Kibitzers: perhaps start playing bridge before not
enjoying it?
Kib->Kibitzers: how old is he? 12/
vitold: ok - thx all, nice lesson

*vitold was one of the opponents during this display.

[Leona]

very enlightening...especially in the spirit of peace on earth...HNY to all
of you

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GerardCohenBridge" group.
> To post to this group, send email to gerar...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> gerardcohen...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/gerardcohen?hl=en.
>

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 138 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

[Mike Dorn Wiss]

A most interesting manner in which to start a new year. In the spirit of fair play and equal rights of partners and all that, I decided this would be a good exercise for Yoo Hoo - You (Who?) Be The Judge. So without anybody asking me, not any kibbers, not Tuna (whom I have known as a buddy for over thirty years), and certainly not our inimitable Geemeister, I have decided to climb the Bridge Soapbox and dribble (drivel) my not the most humble of opinions all over my shirtfront. 

On one point - namely "who 'started' this?" - I have to agree with Gerard. The first comment was made by the Starfish ("abacus needs rebooting") and his accusatory "u started it motor mouth" was not only in error, it was inflammatory. On this point I give Tuna 100% of the "blame" for being the first to flap his gums. 

On the other hand, Tuna's observation of the utilitarian function of an abacus is not without merit, although even missing two keycards Gerard's raise to slam was not hopeless. After all, one of the missing keys was the K of trumps. Therefore, if against all odds Tuna held a S suit seven long headed by the QJ, as well as a singleton H if his other ace were not the HA - as it figured not to be on the auction - then if the SK were doubleton onside a slam could still be made. Visualise Tuna's hand as QJTxxxx,x,Qx,AKx or similar. Of course should Tuna's hand hold a doubleton H then his LHO would have no H to lead, so from my perch, despite the fact that Gerard knew the partnership to be off two keys, there was still a chance of a slam making. That chance might be equivalent to one of pissing into a high wind with the intention of remaining dry (even if the SK were missing and onside it would likely be at least three or four long because of the opening preempt), but it was nevertheless a chance. Let's say....13%. So on this one point I arbitrarily give Gerard 87% of the "blame" for the result and for not hitching the horse up to the Binsky Hitching Post of 5S.

Tuna and Gerard were at odds over another theoretical point - that of bidding over opposition preempts. Tuna stated that "no player worth a pinch passes 3H' while Gerard stated that he "hates weak over weak".

I personally am of the school of "When I am preempted, I stay preempted". Of course one must define what "being preempted" means, because it definitely means something different in different cases. One thing most experts agree upon is that the higher the level of the opponent's preempt the more values one needs to enter the auction; one does, after all, have a partner, and the act of balancing is a major part of the cooperative game.

Having said that, in my opinion Tuna's hand is a classic weak two bid, albeit at the very top edge of its' parameters. The hand does not - in my opinion - qualify for a first or second seat opening: it lacks two defensive tricks, and even for those who will open the bidding with a hand that contains 1 1/2, this hand has a slow 1 1/2. Change that S suit to AJTxxx or AQTxxx and I would judge it a better 1 1/2 defensive trick holding.

Now that holds true for opening at the one level, but since I personally judge the hand to be a weak two bid, and since it is a well known fact of bridge that it is not good strategy to overcall a preempt with a preempt, I would certainly do on this hand what Gerard suggested (hard to believe, huh?), which is to pass the 3H opening preempt. Certainly if it were a 1H opening, I would overcall 1S (not 2S) as the hand is flexible and might be quite constructive if partner got active. Over a 2H opening I confess I am of two minds; probably I would choose to bid 2S with none vulnerable as in this instance. Over an opening 3H preempt, I lean 100% to the pass. I do not have the values to bid freely at the three level; I have been preempted.I. I would much rather take a "low" road now and feel free to bid very aggressively later than to overbid now and misdescribe my strength to partner, then try to apply brakes later.

Tuna did - in context - have a "weak over weak" hand, certainly at the three level, and if in this case I side with Gerard's opinion of Tuna's overcall, and I sit under Tuna's blanket statement that I (for one of many actually) am not "worth a pinch" simply because I would not bid 3S freely in that situation with that hand, then I simply shrug, light up a doob, and consider the source as I move on. 

In closing, I give Gerard 30% of the "blame" for his very anti-percentage (but not hopeless, remember) slam bid, and 5% for quitting in the middle of a hand, but I return 10% because all his comments to Tuna were not only reasonable (and generally as only replies to Tuna), they were polite. Tuna's comments, however, were in my opinion neither, and I assess him 25% for drivel, and 50% for the erroneous overcall.

I now relinquish the gavel.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gerardcohen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gerardcohen?hl=en.

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 138 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GerardCohenBridge" group.
To post to this group, send email to gerar...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gerardcohen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[noosance]

I agree this is a preempt over a preempt, but I give both players 100%
of the blame.

On Jan 3, 10:41 pm, Mike Dorn Wiss <mikedornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A most interesting manner in which to start a new year. In the spirit of
> fair play and equal rights of partners and all that, I decided this would
> be a good exercise for Yoo Hoo - You (Who?) Be The Judge. So without
> anybody asking me, not any kibbers, not Tuna (whom I have known as a buddy
> for over thirty years), and certainly not our inimitable Geemeister, I have
> decided to climb the Bridge Soapbox and dribble (drivel) my not the most
> humble of opinions all over my shirtfront.
>
> On one point - namely "who 'started' this?" - I have to agree with Gerard.

> The first comment* was* made by the Starfish ("abacus needs rebooting") and

> his accusatory "u started it motor mouth" was not only in error, it was
> inflammatory. On this point I give Tuna 100% of the "blame" for being the
> first to flap his gums.
>
> On the other hand, Tuna's observation of the utilitarian function of an
> abacus is not without merit, although even missing two keycards Gerard's
> raise to slam was not hopeless. After all, one of the missing keys was the
> K of trumps. Therefore, if against all odds Tuna held a S suit seven long
> headed by the QJ, as well as a singleton H if his other ace were not the HA
> - as it figured not to be on the auction - then if the SK were doubleton
> onside a slam could still be made. Visualise Tuna's hand as
> QJTxxxx,x,Qx,AKx or similar. Of course should Tuna's hand hold a doubleton
> H then his LHO would have no H to lead, so from my perch, despite the fact
> that Gerard knew the partnership to be off two keys, there was still a
> chance of a slam making. That chance might be equivalent to one of pissing
> into a high wind with the intention of remaining dry (even if the SK

> *were*missing
> *and* onside it would likely be at least three or four long because of the

> opening preempt), but it was nevertheless a chance. Let's say....13%. So on
> this one point I arbitrarily give Gerard 87% of the "blame" for the result
> and for not hitching the horse up to the Binsky Hitching Post of 5S.
>
> Tuna and Gerard were at odds over another theoretical point - that of
> bidding over opposition preempts. Tuna stated that "no player worth a pinch
> passes 3H' while Gerard stated that he "hates weak over weak".
>
> I personally am of the school of "When I am preempted, I stay preempted".
> Of course one must define what "being preempted" means, because it
> definitely means something different in different cases. One thing most
> experts agree upon is that the higher the level of the opponent's preempt
> the more values one needs to enter the auction; one does, after all, have a
> partner, and the act of balancing is a major part of the cooperative game.
>
> Having said that, in my opinion Tuna's hand is a classic weak two bid,
> albeit at the very top edge of its' parameters. The hand does not - in my
> opinion - qualify for a first or second seat opening: it lacks two
> defensive tricks, and even for those who will open the bidding with a hand

> that contains 1 1/2, this hand has a *slow* 1 1/2. Change that S suit to

> AJTxxx or AQTxxx and I would judge it a better 1 1/2 defensive trick
> holding.
>
> Now that holds true for opening at the one level, but since I personally
> judge the hand to be a weak two bid, and since it is a well known fact of
> bridge that it is not good strategy to overcall a preempt with a preempt, I

> would certainly do on this hand *what Gerard suggested *(hard to believe,

> huh?), which is to pass the 3H opening preempt. Certainly if it were a 1H
> opening, I would overcall 1S (not 2S) as the hand is flexible and might be
> quite constructive if partner got active. Over a 2H opening I confess I am
> of two minds; probably I would choose to bid 2S with none vulnerable as in
> this instance. Over an opening 3H preempt, I lean 100% to the pass. I do

> not have the* values* to bid freely at the three level; *I have been
> preempted.*I. I would much rather take a "low" road now and feel free to

> bid very aggressively later than to overbid now and misdescribe my strength
> to partner, then try to apply brakes later.
>
> Tuna did - in context - have a "weak over weak" hand, certainly at the
> three level, and if in this case I side with Gerard's opinion of Tuna's
> overcall, and I sit under Tuna's blanket statement that I (for one of many
> actually) am not "worth a pinch" simply because I would not bid 3S freely
> in that situation with that hand, then I simply shrug, light up a doob, and
> consider the source as I move on.
>
> In closing, I give Gerard 30% of the "blame" for his very anti-percentage
> (but not hopeless, remember) slam bid, and 5% for quitting in the middle of
> a hand, but I return 10% because all his comments to Tuna were not only

> reasonable (and generally as only *replies* to Tuna), they were *polite*.

> Tuna's comments, however, were in my opinion neither, and I assess him 25%
> for drivel, and 50% for the erroneous overcall.
>
> I now relinquish the gavel.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Leona <leon...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > very enlightening...especially in the spirit of peace on earth...HNY to
> > all of you
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "dwms" <der...@mail.org>
> > To: "GerardCohenBridge" <gerar...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:46 AM
> > Subject: Happy New Year
>
> >  Jan 1st.  and the year starts out so peacfully and
> >> with such good intentions ----
>
> >> The party was over after this hand:
>

> >>http://bridgebase.com/myhands/**fetchlin.php?id=8974151&when_**
> >> played=1324103168<http://bridgebase.com/myhands/fetchlin.php?id=8974151&when_played=132...>

> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gerardcohen+unsubscribe@**
> >> googlegroups.com <gerardcohen%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> >> group/gerardcohen?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/gerardcohen?hl=en>
> >> .

>
> > --
> > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
> > We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
> > SPAMfighter has removed 138 of my spam emails to date.
> > Get the free SPAMfighter here:http://www.spamfighter.com/len
>
> > The Professional version does not have this message
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "GerardCohenBridge" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to gerar...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gerardcohen+unsubscribe@**
> > googlegroups.com <gerardcohen%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
> > group/gerardcohen?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/gerardcohen?hl=en>
> > .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rthe...@hotmail.com]

Since it doesn't look like anyone else is going to try WWGD 253, I'll
post the results.

May 2012 bring as much excitement!

Roy

===========================================
Board 1: 2nd seat, non-v vs non-v

S: AK9
H: JT92
D: KT5
C: K62

p - 1NT* - p - p
2S - p - p - X
p - ?

*12-15

Craig: 3H - All doubles of partscores are for takeout.
Optimystic: If the double is for takeout, Gee passed.
If the double is for penalty, Gee bid 4H.

Answer: 2NT. Why guess and take a chance on getting it right, when you
can be wrong no matter what partner's double meant?
The contract should go down, but it made when RHO discarded
a winning spade, then cashed their last heart to set up G's jack.

The full hand:

S: 42
H: 8743
D: A42
C: AQ74
S: T85 S: QJ763
H: A6 H: KQ5
D: Q63 D: J987
C: T9853 C: J
S: AK9
H: JT92
D: KT5
C: K62

===========================================
Board 2: 4th seat, vul vs non-v

S: 986
H: QT3
D: AK653
C: AJ

p - 1C - 4D - ?

Craig: Double - negative
Optimystic: dbl, takeout!
If partner has a 3-3-2-5, it's obviously his fault we end up
declaring in a 3-3 fit!

Answer: pass, and wait for partner to double. +250.

The full hand:

S: 986
H: QT3
D: AK653
C: AJ
S: 4 S: KJT532
H: K9 H: J8764
D: QJT9842 D: -
C: Q73 C: 52
S: AQ7
H: A52
D: 7
C: KT9864

===========================================
Board 3: 3rd seat, non-v vs non-v

S: 53
H: JT983
D: QJ94
C: QT

p - 1NT - p - 2D
p - 2H - p - 3D
p - 3H - p - 4NT
p - 5H - p - 5NT
p - 6D - p - 7H
p - p - ?

Craig: Double - I can beat this for sure.
Optimystic: Goose on a string. Double, allowing opponents to run to
7NT making.

Answer: double. Lucky for G, 7NT didn't make either.

The full hand:

S: Q87
H: K74
D: K
C: AJ9762
S: JT942 S: 53
H: 2 H: JT985
D: T72 D: QJ94
C: K843 C: QT
S: AK6
H: AQ63
D: A8653
C: 5

===========================================
Board 4: 4th seat, non-v vs non-v

S: -
H: T9653
D: AQT
C: AKJ53

1S - p - 3C* - ?

*7-10hcp, 4 or more spades

Craig: Double - lead directing
Optimystic: Pass and hope opener will have forgotten about Bergen
raises and
passes too!

Answer: 3S. Did Gee actually intend to cuebid, or was this a
misclick?

The full hand:

S: QJT53
H: K82
D: J8
C: 872
S: K2 S: -
H: AJ4 H: T9653
D: 975432 D: AQT
C: T6 C: AKJ53
S: A98764
H: Q7
D: K6
C: Q94

===========================================
Board 5: 2nd seat, vul vs vul

S: Q9
H: KT83
D: T85
C: AQJ7

p - 1C - 2C* - 2H
2S - 3H - 4S - 5C
p - ?

*5-4 in the majors

Craig: 5H - We have a 5-4 H fit, and you just know my vul LHO was
fooling
around with his fake Michaels.
Optimystic: Well, obviously 2H was natural and not a cuebid supporting
clubs. And
5C shows first round club control (so a void) with a heart fit and
slem interest. Partner could have something like: Axxx AVxxx AKxx -.
But I really do not have that great a hand now, so I'll end the
auction in a pretty safe 5H.

Answer: 5H. Maybe LHO is fibbing.

The full hand:

S: KT74
H: 9654
D: 32
C: T62
S: J6 S: Q9
H: 7 H: KT83
D: A976 D: T85
C: K98543 C: AQJ7
S: A8532
H: AQJ2
D: KQJ4
C: -

Partner was cuebidding (or fibbing), and 6C went 4 down doubled.
Poor G - his partners are always letting him down.
===========================================
Board 6: 4th seat, non-v vs non-v

S: QT
H: K8632
D: A63
C: 874

1H - 1S - 2H - p
p - X - p - ?

Craig: Pass - I have 9 points and 5 trumps, they couldn't possibly
make this.
Optimystic: Partner has a strong hand with 5 spades and surely 0
hearts. Something
like AJxxx - KJxx KQx. So passing would give declarer a severe
headache.
The most ridiculous bid I can think of is 3NT, so I guess that's
what
Gee did, losing at least 4 heart tricks and another two or three in
the side suits.

Answer: Pass. It must be easier to make 6 tricks with five trumps
than 8 tricks with seven trumps.

The full hand:

S: A2
H: AQJ75
D: T72
C: Q53
S: QT S: KJ8764
H: K8632 H: -
D: A63 D: K95
C: 874 C: A962
S: 953
H: T94
D: QJ84
C: KJT

G did eventually make his king of trumps, but by then opps
already had an overtrick.
===========================================
Board 7: 2nd seat, vul vs vul

S: KJ94
H: 8753
D: 8
C: AQ97

1D - X - XX - p
p - ?

Craig: Pass - partner's pass of 1DXX is penalty.
Optimystic: Er... 2C?
Why play on the 1-level when we have a 4-card suit in a minor we can
bid on the 2-level?

Answer: pass. Maybe LHO is really fibbing this time.

The full hand:

S: A765
H: AT6
D: 75
C: K832
S: KJ94 S: QT3
H: 8753 H: 94
D: 8 D: KT9632
C: AQ97 C: J5
S: 82
H: KQJ2
D: AQJ4
C: T64

Despite the bad trump split, declarer has no difficulty and
trumps a spade with the four of diamonds for an overtrick.
===========================================
Board 8: 4th seat, vul vs non-v

S: J7
H: AK9
D: QJ5
C: AJ872

p - p - 1N - X*
XX - 2H - p - 2S
X - p - p - ?

*penalty

Craig: Pass - partner transferred to spades, who am I to overrule him?
Optimystic: Pass! Partner of course promised spades with his 2H-
transfer! We're
going to get rich!

Answer: pass. Partner's bid was definitely a transfer.
No doubt at all. Bidding 2NT or 3C would show a complete
lack of trust.

The full hand:

S: J7
H: AK9
D: QJ5
C: AJ872
S: A5 S: KQT98
H: QT62 H: J
D: K74 D: AT963
C: KQ43 C: T9
S: 6432
H: 87543
D: 82
C: 65

5 down. Some situations are too grim for words.
===========================================
Board 9: 2nd seat, vul vs vul

S: AT6543
H: 753
D: T
C: K42

1NT - p - 3NT - p
p - p

Your lead?

Craig: D 10 - Partner must have a lot of diamonds, and he couldn't
possibly
have Kxx of spades.
Optimystic: Please tell us he played a small spade...
On the other hand.... If partner has AQJxxx of clubs with absolutely
nothing else, it would make me look very smart if I played (or
switched to) a club. You know what... I'll just give up on the
chance
of making 5 spade tricks (partner having Kx of spades) and the club
king (behing behind the opener's ace) and table the spade ace! If
dummy shows with no club honour, I'll continue with the king of
clubs!

Answer: The seven of hearts stands out a mile.

The full hand:

S: J8
H: Q94
D: KJ75
C: QJ63
S: AT6543 S: Q7
H: 753 H: AT2
D: T D: Q6432
C: K42 C: 875
S: K92
H: KJ86
D: A98
C: AT9

Declarer is under no pressure, and even though both
minor suit finesses fail makes the contract with
2 hearts, 3 clubs, 1 spade and 3 diamonds, when
the seven of diamonds beats the six at trick thirteen.
At the other table, declarer misguessed on the low spade
lead and went three off.
===========================================
Board 10: 1st seat, vul vs non-v

S: JT9742
H: 64
D: A432
C: J

p - p - 1C - 2H
2S - p - 4S - p
p - p

LHO leads the queen of hearts, to the three, seven and four,
and switches to the three of clubs. You're looking at

S: KQ85
H: T98(3)
D: QT
C: AK5

S: JT9742
H: 6(4)
D: A432
C: J

Plan the play

Craig: Win the club and play a heart so I can ruff hearts in hand.
Optimystic: I want to ruff two diamonds in dummy and then hopefully
make 5 spade
tricks, two ruffs, two high clubs and the diamond ace. But if I am
going to lose a diamond trick, I cannot lose two heart tricks. So I
need to take the club king and discard my losing heart on the club
ace. Then I can simply play as I planned and collect the diamond ace
and then duck a diamond.
But Gee probably 'finessed' the club 5, losing to east's queen, who
then collected his heart ace. Result: two down because after this
south will likely lose one diamond trick and the spade ace.

Answer: run the club lead round to the jack, thus gaining
two discards on which to dispose of a heart and a diamond.
It's sheer bad luck that you can't reach them, and even worse
luck that RHO has the club queen and trumps didn't split 3-0.

The full hand:

S: KQ85
H: T983
D: QT
C: AK5
S: A S: 63
H: Q5 H: AKJ72
D: KJ876 D: 95
C: 96432 C: QT87
S: JT9742
H: 64
D: A432
C: J


Final score:
Craig 4
Optimystic 3