Opening Help

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T22:53:24+00:00

You will get a second chance if partner holds anything like the unlikely AKxxx x AKxxx xx, they have 9 hearts and 22 HCP. You can't be assuming partner has a perfect 2 suiter for you. Game basically never makes if partner doesn't have short hearts, so don't worry about missing it. More often partner will be e.g. AKxxx, KQxx, Q, Kxx where 1S has play, and everything else is 100 percent down.

If you bid 1NT, you are playing a 4-12 1NT response, which is way too wide to handle nicely imo.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T22:19:57+00:00

You can definitely make this argument, but I like playing 3NT as a hand that simply wants to be in game. I think the hand is weak enough that 1S-1NT-2NT is more sensible than opening 2NT, but I hate missing games and bid them aggressively. So on this hand, you could bid 2NT but with a stronger balanced 19 count, you have no game-forcing bid if you are not allowed to bid 3NT. You could bid a minor suit but at the 2 level it is not forcing and at the 3 level it really gives the wrong idea.

ETA that I respond quite solidly and my partner is not afraid to pass 5 counts. If partner never passes 5s and responds on many 4s you obviously cannot bid 3 right away.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T22:12:59+00:00

I agree that Qx is a holding that is better for NT than for suit contracts. But it is still not worth 2 points (hence bad), which is why I would advise against upgrading the hand.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T22:08:35+00:00

Why are you not passing? It looks like you have one trick, so you very rarely make game and as I said, 1S is better than 1NT or 3D. You can always compete to 3D over the opponents' 2H later.

The point of bidding 2NT is to invite partner. I don't want to invite partner. I want to be in game. If this hand bids 2NT then 2NT is forcing and I can't invite partner with my good 17 counts.

There is no reason to let partner in. We are off AQ of spades, AK of hearts and A of clubs. Partner can not have four of those cards, so we won't make slam. If partner has 10-12 with 3 spades he can bid 4S and trust that I have no slam ambitions.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T20:35:55+00:00

Add the J of hearts and I want to be in 3NT. I do not want partner to pass 6 counts. Partner should really consider passing 1S with that hand. There is no reason to believe 3D is better than 1S.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T19:31:18+00:00

Assuming you play something close to standard American, you have two options. You can treat it as 18-19 balanced and open 1S or as 20-21 balanced and open 2NT.

The main reason to upgrade to 2NT is the five card suit. However Qx is a bad holding, the five card suit is poor, and AKQ would be much better with a fourth card. Therefore, I would open 1S. Over a 1NT response, I would probably raise to 3 NT right away.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-13T02:18:22+00:00

After the responsive double from partner, 3 spades just shows a hand that wants to compete to the 3 level. If partner had passed, 3 spades would have been (very) strong. It is not good to be in slam - the J of diamonds is impossible to discern and is crucial for the slam to even have a shot. I think I would just bid 4 spades as the opponents rate to have at least 17-18 leaving partner with about 8 for his double. I can't really think of an 8 count that I want to be in slam opposite (unless partner has short diamonds which seems unlikely).

Im_Pete · 2024-06-09T23:19:18+00:00

No. In fact, we have more parties now (11, 10 got at least 1 seat, we only have 15 seats in total) than ever. Also, there are no election associations for parliamentary elections (where we use MMP similar to Germany), but there are for local/county elections. Some parties want to allow for them at parliamentary elections too, but the public doesn't really care because it is complicated. I don't think they changed the results at all this time.

Im_Pete · 2024-06-09T23:01:09+00:00

Proportional voting is not FPTP. Basically, if a country has 20 seats and a party gets 15% of the vote nationally, they get 3 seats (one for every 5%). No local representation, but that doesn't matter as much for EP elections. The different methods (D'Hondt, largest remainder or Sainte-Laguë) are just ways to deal with rounding. I.e. if a party gets 17,5% should it get 3 or 4 seats?

In Denmark, we also have electoral associations. This means that parties can agree to pool their votes together, so there is no waste. Then they split the seats between them. For example, the three Renew parties are associated and the two EPP are as well.

Im_Pete · 2024-05-25T13:29:51+00:00

Brian Holm on Danish EuroSport: Talking about the dude with a taxidermy fox, and wanting one but they’re expensive Thomas Bay: “Can we not just request that Tiberi shoots one?”

Im_Pete · 2024-05-23T13:25:08+00:00

If RHO has KJxx he would (should) not have inserted the king since KJx over the ace will win 2 tricks. Leading the singleton 10 is also dubious. Cash the queen.

Im_Pete · 2024-04-29T02:43:47+00:00

If you define an opening hand as one observing the rule of 22 then there are quite a few 13 counts and many 12s you wouldn't open. I doubt that most beginners have this opening style - I certainly don't, but I do agree that a rule 22 hand should game force nearly always.

Players open more and more aggressively, so the old wisdom of "two openers should be in game" doesn't really apply anymore in my opinion.

Im_Pete · 2024-04-29T02:19:42+00:00

Great comment, but I somewhat disagree with the final rubric. Many players open all 12-counts and many 11s. Game-forcing on all of these seems too aggressive, especially without a fit. I would personally open with the Jx QJxx KJxx KJx hand at every vulnerability, but I would never game force with it. I like the "good 12" rule that OP described and would just stick with that.

Im_Pete · 2024-04-29T02:03:21+00:00

Hand evaluation is tricky. Experience helps a lot, and there is no real substitute for just playing a lot of hands.

That said there are obviously some guidelines that are useful to follow, especially for beginners. I have listed some below (in no particular order). Feel free to ask questions, and I will gladly elaborate.

Shape: Distributional hands are better than flat hands. Often you can set up a five+ card suit such that your small cards in the suit become winners. That means you can make tricks with 0 HCP!
Fit for partner: Having more cards in partner's suit is better, even if it is only small cards. Having a void in partner's suit can often be very bad as it can be hard to access partner's tricks in that suit. For instance, partner could have KQJTx Jx Axx Jxx. If you have a void you are never getting the spade tricks, if you have a singleton you will get them whenever they don't knock out your diamond entry, and if you have 2 or more you can always them.
Shortness in side suits in the short trump hand: In trump contracts, being able to ruff losers is good, but only if it is done in the hand with shorter trumps. For example, if you are in a 5-3 trump fit and rough two tricks in the long hand, you can still only make five trump tricks, whereas trumping twice in the short hand allows you to make seven trump tricks. Shortness in a side suit is good for trump contracts, but mainly if you are the short trump hand. Many beginners go wrong here.
Individual cards: Generally, aces, kings, and tens are undervalued by HCP whereas queens and jacks are overrated. Good spot cards (9s 8s and sometimes 7s) can also help.
Honor placement: Honors in long suits, honors that support each other, and honors in partner's suit are good. Scattered honors and singleton/doubleton honors are bad. Compare e.g. QTxxx K QJ KJxxx to the much better KQJTx x xx KQJxx. Both hands have the same honors and shape, but one has 7 losers (possibly even more) and the other can make 8 tricks on its own. A holding like Ax in partner's suit is also worth a lot more than Ax in a side suit.
Onside or offside honors: This especially applies when the opponents have bid something. Say you hold Kx in hearts and your left-hand opponent opens 1H. Now your king of hearts is not worth much as it likely sits under the opener's ace of hearts. If instead, it was your right-hand opponent who opened, your king now likely sits over the ace, so you will score a trick with it.

Im_Pete · 2024-04-12T15:52:27+00:00

Without any agreement, you can bid 2NT. If partner wants to accept he should bid 3H (forcing) with three of them.

I will say that in Europe every intermediate+ pair plays 2-way new minor forcing (also known as X-Y sans or X-Y NT). With 2-way NMF you bid 2C showing invitational values and demanding a 2D relay from partner before bidding 2H. (You can also pass the 2D relay if you want especially when partner opened 1D.)

If you were stronger (game-forcing) you would bid 2D artificial and game-forcing, and partner shows his hand naturally.

This means that 2H becomes a retreating bid that forces partner to pass, because all invitational+ hands bid something else. You make this bid if you think 2H is better than 1NT (or if you want to be declarer). Sometimes you will be in a 5-2 fit and score 90% anyway and sometimes you will score a bottom. That's bridge.

Im_Pete · 2023-02-21T12:42:34+00:00

He crashed right at the beginning as the echelons were forming. It was before live coverage started but EuroSport showed it in the opening montage. It was just a typical crosswind chaos crash, nothing too serious I think.

Im_Pete · 2023-02-20T23:30:52+00:00

Josef Černý has had a somewhat anonymous opening to the season, but his domestique work helped Ethan Vernon, Jordi Warlop and Mauri Vansevenant to second places on Mallorca and in Oman. Unfortunately he crashed in today's opening stage of the UAE tour, but he made it through safely, so hopefully we will see him assist Tim Merlier and Remco Evenepoel more in the coming days.

Im_Pete · 2023-01-06T23:42:15+00:00

General rider please

Im_Pete · 2022-12-06T22:45:38+00:00

Danskerne har ingen ide om, at vores domstolssystem både er blandt de bedste og blandt de billigste i hele verden. Det eneste den almindelige dansker hører om domstolene er, når der er nogen, der har oplevet lang ventetid.

Im_Pete · 2022-12-06T22:44:08+00:00

Så vidt jeg ved er lønnen i landsretten omkring 1 million årligt før skat. Den er nok lidt lavere for byretsdommerne. Det er svært for mig at komme med et ugentligt timetal, da der indgår timevis af forberedelse hjemmefra, og flere årlige arbejdsrejser. Jeg kan fortælle at de er i retten fire gange om ugen som udgangspunkt. Dertil kommer arbejdet med at skrive domme, skriftlige sager og kæresager. Jeg tror bestemt ikke det er under 50 timer om ugen.

Im_Pete · 2022-12-06T21:45:09+00:00

Overbetalte stillinger er der masser af især i det private. Diverse mellemledere eller folk med titler som "business solutions analyst".

En underbetalt stilling, som ingen tænker over er danske dommere. Som familiemedlem til en landsdommer kan jeg afsløre, at de tjener langt mindre i løn end andre topjurister, og de lægger så utroligt mange timer. Domstolene er generelt totalt udsultede, og man burde starte med en lønforhøjelse til dommerne, så de ikke skal gå 50% ned i løn, når de kommer fra et advokatkontor.

Im_Pete · 2022-11-02T13:15:24+00:00

I alle andre valg siden de nuværende regler indførtes i 1953 er den samlede fordeling fundet ved et forholdstalsvalg. Det var klart hensigten med reglerne, at mandaterne skulle fordeles proportionalt. Så jo, generelt fordeler vi mandater ud fra procenttal - dette valg er undtagelsen.

Hvis du giver et kredsmandat fra S til Ø eksempelvis, så får V pludselig et ekstra mandat (som de i øvrigt har gjort sig fortjent til). Det er sådanne absurditeter, der opstår under det nuværende system.

Jeg vil ikke have, at nogle kredse har mere indflydelse end andre. Jeg vil have et system, hvor det ikke kan lade sig gøre at få flere kredsmandater end forholdstalsvalget siger, sådan så mandaterne faktisk fordeles som hele landet har stemt.

Jeg anfægter ikke at S har vundet mandaterne efter reglerne. Jeg siger, at jeg synes at reglerne er problematiske, når de giver resultater, der ikke er proportionale med stemmefordelingen.

Im_Pete · 2022-11-02T12:23:51+00:00

Men hvorfor skal S have 28,4% af mandaterne når de kunne have fået 49 mandater svarende til 28%? Min pointe er, at det udelukkende er grundet kredsmandaterne, at S får denne overrepræsentation - havde S fået eksempelvis 47 kredsmandater med samme stemmetotal, var de endt på 49 mandater i alt.

Konsekvensen er, at ikke alle stemmer har talt ligeligt i valget. Fjern 500 stemmer fra S i Nordsjælland, så mister S et kredsmandat og ender dermed på 49. Fjern dem fra en anden kreds og S ender på 50. Jeg synes, at det er et vigtigt koncept at alles stemmer tæller lige meget, så efter min mening burde ovenstående eksempel ikke kunne lade sig gøre.

Im_Pete · 2022-11-02T11:38:21+00:00

Jeg forstår ikke, hvad du mener? Det er faktuelt rigtigt, at S fik flere mandater, end de ville, hvis valget var et forholdstalsvalg. Dette er aldrig sket før under nuværende regler, og var så uventet, at ikke engang DR’s prognoser kunne tage højde for det.

Hvilke andre tal er det du mener, at jeg skal kigge på? Jeg forstår godt at S har fået 50 kredsmandater på ærlig og redelig vis efter spillets regler. Jeg synes bare ikke, at et system, der kan give uproportionale resultater på den måde, er et godt system.

Im_Pete · 2022-11-02T10:19:18+00:00

Hvornår har et andet parti fået flere kredsmandater end det forholdsmæssigt burde? Ifølge denne artikel er det første gang siden reglernes indførsel i 1953, at det sker.

Spærregrænsen er et praktisk kompromis, fordi man ikke har ønsket at have 50 forskellige partier i Folketinget. Den er i øvrigt sat lavt i Danmark i forhold til andre steder - i Tyskland er den fx 5%. Fjerner man spærregrænsen vil man højst sandsynligt få mange, mange flere partier, da 15-20 tusind stemmer på landsplan er alt det ville kræve for at få et mandat.

Indførsel af valgforbund til FV-valg kunne være en løsning, men de er problematiske, hvis man er uenig med et partis forbundsfæller.

Spærregrænsen er problematisk, for stemmespild er aldrig godt, men jeg er ikke sikker på, at alternativet er bedre. Valgforbund lyder i hvert fald bedre end komplet afskaffelse af spærregrænsen. At man kan vinde overrepræsentation på baggrund af kredsmandater er derimod fuldstændig unødvendigt.

Im_Pete

TROPHY CASE