[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on 2014-April-07, 09:05, said:

5 coughs is the standard for 2 shortness, but then it is hard to tell which ones.

True, but there have been some innovations on this, I believe. The Neuer Deutscher school suggests following up the coughs with 0 sniffs for two stiffs of the same color, one sniff for two of the same rank, and two sniffs for two of the same shape. Hence, five coughs and two sniffs should work.

[billw55]

I wouldn't do it, but I have seen plenty of worse shots than this.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on 2014-April-08, 05:42, said:

It is my belief that non leaping Michaels is a convention that exists in these Fora and not in real life (at least in North America). I have never even heard it mentioned anywhere but in these Fora.

I've never understood why some posters want to advertise their ignorance like that...

[larlar]

At least Art added the "at least not in North America" bit. It is very uncommon to see anyone in NA playing NLM, even top players. Of course, it is very common elsewhere, especially The Netherlands, and probably Art should realize that the reason he hears about it on the forums but not elsewhere in his "real life" is because he probably only talks to non NA players on here.

[ArtK78]

cherdano, on 2014-April-08, 16:20, said:

I've never understood why some posters want to advertise their ignorance like that...

Yes. I have always wondered the same thing.

[the hog]

So why did you make post number 16?

[billw55]

"I have never even heard it mentioned anywhere but in these Fora."

Sounds like a simple statement of fact to me. But haters gotta hate, what can you say.

[dake50]

I agree with the sentiments listed above. And, had I held this hand, I would have passed.
Fortunately for our result in the tournament, my partner did not pass. He bid 4NT, found me with one key card, and bid 6♥. The two hands:
Everything behaved, and 6H rolled (By the way, no coughing was involved - and, if it were, how do you show 2 singletons?).
Just goes to show that sometimes you have to do the wrong thing at the right time.
As I mentioned above, this hand was played against one of the better pairs in the event. This was the second board of the round (fourth of the event). On the preceding board, my partner opened 3♣ at favorable vul. My RHO bid 3♠, and my LHO, with a huge hand, key carded and settled for 6♠. Turned out that the 3♠ bid was based on a somewhat mediocre 6-5 in the majors, and slam depended upon favorable lies of the cards in both majors. When they were both foul, the result was down 2. -- ArtK78

*** Is 1-6-1-5 an unusual enough distribution to reserve another (not T/O Dbl) for big 2-suiters?
I bid so. 4D= H+C and S-short. Now fitting honors in the highlighted suits and a control in Dia is easy to try up.
The very point of passes is to guard against a medium bal hand T/O Dbl getting overheated.
That danger is responder's responsibility.
But pay out when a big/concentrated 2-suiter hits a fit. Pay out this hand. WHY??

[the hog]

billw55, on 2014-April-09, 06:44, said:

"I have never even heard it mentioned anywhere but in these Fora."

Sounds like a simple statement of fact to me. But haters gotta hate, what can you say.

Another poster who has difficulty in using Google and in reading.

[MrAce]

Ron, I used google too about NLM. Did not find much about it except than mostly convention card entries, most of which are posted by you already. Except than 1-2 names on these convention cards, I haven't seen names which are familiar to me.

So I started searching big names, to see if they use it or ignore it. Most NA players seems as "guilty" as Art. But looking at their overwhelming achievements, maybe...just maybe ignoring NLM is not such a huge deal as much as some of you here make of it.

Note that neither Art nor me are talking about LM but NLM.

When the country that seems to ignore this convention also happens to be one of the 2 giant names in bridge, perhaps it is not as vital convention as we make of it ?

[the hog]

MrAce, on 2014-April-09, 19:03, said:

Ron, I used google too about NLM. Did not find much about it except than mostly convention card entries, most of which are posted by you already. Except than 1-2 names on these convention cards, I haven't seen names which are familiar to me.

So I started searching big names, to see if they use it or ignore it. Most NA players seems as "guilty" as Art. But looking at their overwhelming achievements, maybe...just maybe ignoring NLM is not such a huge deal as much as some of you here make of it.

Note that neither Art nor me are talking about LM but NLM.

When the country that seems to ignore this convention also happens to be one of the 2 giant names in bridge, perhaps it is not as vital convention as we make of it ?

Timo, I don't think it is a big deal and to be honest I don't think this is one of the "must have" conventions at all. It is also true, of course as with every convention, that if you play something, you lose out on something else; in this case a natural 4m bid. Whether one thinks this is a great loss is up to the partnership to decide. Obviously there are hands, such as Art's posted hand, where nlm is great. I am sure that you will agree that if 4C shows C+H, then it is much easier to reach 6H than over just a 4H bid. In fact, bidding on after (3S) 4H is an error of judgement in my view as the 4H bid can be made on such a variety of hands.
Anyway my point was that I was really surprise, (seriously!), by Art's comment. It is not as if nlm is a strange convention and there are lots of people who play it. To say, as Art did, that it exists only on these fora was a bit of a silly comment, as that is clearly not the case.

One point you made that I do wish to comment on is "maybe...just maybe ignoring NLM is not such a huge deal as." I may be wrong about this, but I believe that in this day and age most bidding innovations seem to come from places outside NA. Poland, NZ, the UK to some extent - look at some of Phil King's ideas - and a few other countries spring to mind. This is understandable due to a variety of factors which have been discussed here many times. Obviously there are exceptions eg Meckwell, Fred G, Woolsey, etc etc. This comment has deviated some way from the original topic of discussion, nlm, but it is an interesting one. By the way, where are you based, USA or Turkey?

[neilkaz]

ArtK78, on 2014-April-07, 16:09, said:

I prefer aggressive. Now, if the slam had failed, he would have been nuts.

Your PD key carded and then bid slam missing an ace when he had three losers in their preempt suit! Had they cashed two ♠ tricks to set slam, his bidding would belong as an ATB in a novice forum.

With this being an expert forum, I hope you and PD have meanings for ways to look for slam with 4♠ and 5♥ here.

[ArtK78]

neilkaz, on 2014-April-09, 21:22, said:

Your PD key carded and then bid slam missing an ace when he had three losers in their preempt suit! Had they cashed two ♠ tricks to set slam, his bidding would belong as an ATB in a novice forum.

With this being an expert forum, I hope you and PD have meanings for ways to look for slam with 4♠ and 5♥ here.

So your point, which everyone has agreed with, is that acting over 4♥ may not be the best choice on his cards.

I posted this here because, whether you like it or not, my partner is an expert, as were most of the players in this event. This hand occurred in the finals of a regional open pairs. It was not the strongest event I have ever played in, but the players were not duffers. My partner took the position that the preempt combined with my direct action over the preempt made it extremely likely that I had a solid hand with spade shortness. I don't really disagree with this, although it could have been very wrong. He said as much when he put down the dummy. But he hit gold in my hand.

The fact is that we are not a partnership with extensive agreements. You seem to imply that any "expert" partnership would have detailed methods to explore for slam on this auction. I suggest that you may be wrong on that point. If you were to poll 100 experts on the meanings of 5♥ and 4♠ on this auction, you might get many different opinions. Even in "expert" partnerships there are sequences that come up that are undiscussed.

[dake50]

I posted this here because, whether you like it or not, my partner is an expert, as were most of the players in this event. This hand occurred in the finals of a regional open pairs. It was not the strongest event I have ever played in, but the players were not duffers. My partner took the position that the preempt combined with my direct action over the preempt made it extremely likely that I had a solid hand with spade shortness. I don't really disagree with this, although it could have been very wrong. He said as much when he put down the dummy. But he hit gold in my hand.
The fact is that we are not a partnership with extensive agreements. You seem to imply that any "expert" partnership would have detailed methods to explore for slam on this auction. I suggest that you may be wrong on that point. If you were to poll 100 experts on the meanings of 5♥ and 4♠ on this auction, you might get many different opinions. Even in "expert" partnerships there are sequences that come up that are undiscussed. -- ArtK78

*** So is it posted to see comments from other "experts" or not?
Even to other "expert" methods?

[MrAce]

the hog, on 2014-April-09, 20:16, said:

. By the way, where are you based, USA or Turkey?

Houston, TX, USA

[the hog]

"You seem to imply that any "expert" partnership would have detailed methods to explore for slam on this auction. I suggest that you may be wrong on that point."

I would certainly expect an expert partnership, or even just a good regular one, that spends a couple of hours a week discussing Bridge bidding/carding etc to have an agreement on this and similar auctions.

[billw55]

the hog, on 2014-April-09, 18:13, said:

Another poster who has difficulty in using Google and in reading.

Another poster who is routinely belligerent.

[ArtK78]

the hog, on 2014-April-10, 05:06, said:

"You seem to imply that any "expert" partnership would have detailed methods to explore for slam on this auction. I suggest that you may be wrong on that point."

I would certainly expect an expert partnership, or even just a good regular one, that spends a couple of hours a week discussing Bridge bidding/carding etc to have an agreement on this and similar auctions.

No doubt. But some of us have lives outside of bridge and do not spend several hours a week discussing Bridge bidding/carding etc. We are lucky just to get a chance to play in a tournament now and then.

I suspect that many players who play occasionally, even those who play at a high level, have agreements similar to the agreements that form the basis of the Masters' Solvers Club in The Bridge World - a basic bidding structure - in the case of MSC, Bridge World Standard - and an understanding of basic agreements on carding, competitive bidding methods and slam bidding methods employed by players at an expert level. Unfortunately, agreements in high level compressed auctions are not always very refined in these occasional partnerships. My partner (who is also a tax attorney) and I have been playing more frequently recently, with some success - in our last three Regional tournaments, we have two wins - the Sunday Swiss Teams at the Lancaster PA Regional last November, and this Open Pairs at the Wilmington DE Regional last Saturday. The third event was the Saturday-Sunday KO in Lancaster, in which we we lost Saturday night (allowing us to enter the Swiss Teams on Sunday, which we won). This just shows that even without detailed agreements a partnership can still have success. We have also had some success in local Sectionals.

That is not to say that it is not better to have detailed agreements. But there are only 24 hours in a day. We do not spend several hours a week discussing our bidding and carding agreements.

[the hog]

I could not play like that as it would be frustrating. We played at least 2 x a week and spent 2 hours on the weekend to discuss hands and sequences.