[pilowsky]

I have always wondered what people mean when they say “bad bridge”. Ove was very clear that he was not presenting an algebra puzzle. If so, then perhaps some level of ‘objective purity’ could be anticipated.

Mike takes a very strong position. So do I. This entire thread was a very positive experience for me. I participate in the Forum to learn things. This thread inspired me to learn quite a few things including:

How to create and use .LIN files for practice on a bidding and teaching table in the Prime area.

How to play bridge a little bit better.

A bit more Swedish.

But what is “bad bridge”? Mike raises an interesting question. By addressing the idea of the humanity in bridge, it is similar in a way to the question raised by PK Dick in his story “Do androids dream of electric sheep?” I am often mocked on this Forum because, inter alia, I enjoy playing against robots. I consider this to be a worthwhile exercise. Even playing against the computer I am playing against myself and learning things about how I think. Now, as a result of this thread, I have discovered how to create a teaching table with all hands open populated by robots in the Prime area, I can import specific hands and really see what I am doing. This is a revelation. Many bad habits hit me in the face immediately.

Bridge is a game that is played against people. People behave in different ways. Their skill levels and understandings differ. Good, bad, stupid, clever, fatuous, moronic, terrible, ridiculous, none of these characterisations helps the next player make their bid when the call comes round to them. Your opposition may not be the ‘best’, but a crazy bid can easily change the course of your conversation with your partner. That’s all part of bridge.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2020-July-12, 19:24, said:

This entire thread has been a disappointment. Yes, you can make this, double dummy, but the winning line is frankly silly

As is the bidding.

I don’t find problems that require bad bridge to be very interesting.

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

[pilowsky]

 nullve, on 2020-July-13, 02:07, said:

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

You must be joking Ove, Mike is a lawyer I'm sure there are. Probably several.

[FelicityR]

 nullve, on 2020-July-13, 02:07, said:

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

Well, taking the ♠ suit in isolation, I believe many East's would have doubled a 6♠ contract with ♠KQx after partner has opened the bidding although, as said previously, an experienced one may decide against it as explained in post #15 on this thread.

But playing for a 1-2 break in ♠s with East holding two cards justifying the one no trump response on the first round of bidding works out at three-and-a-half times (39% (78/2) vs. 11% (22/2) better than East having ♠KQx so you were playing (at very favourable odds) for West to have a singleton.

I was a tad surprised with the actual layout expecting West to be weaker with less robust ♦s, but when partner supports them on the second round of bidding, West has enough, especially with 1471 shape, to justify bidding 5♦ even with a weaker hand, I feel.

So there would be a few hands, to my mind, that would automatically justify the bidding given the exceptional distribution.

[nullve]

In case some of you haven't noticed:

The winning line does not depend on West being 1471:

---

Nor does it depend on West having a stiff ♠K:

---

[mikeh]

I don’t understand the 1N, since opener could have a stronger hand and be misled by the 1N, unless by agreement (which would, I hope, be disclosed, 1N promised nothing. I don’t understand 2D by opener opposite a 1N when he has the hand you gave.

Maybe I’m out of touch, or maybe I’m being parochial in my thinking about the auction, but since 1N almost always has 3 or 4 diamonds, and since it implies a good chance of a heart honour, 2D seems, frankly, very weak unless opener was hoping to play a deep game. However, given that his spade king may be worthless, and the opps are marked with a 9 or 10 card spade ft and at most 1 diamond loser, bidding 2D strikes me as weird.

On the auction, leading the diamond A is, I suppose, ok, but I’d be seriously thinking of the spade K on this auction. However, that is easy to say knowing the hands, and I’m not at all sure I’d find it at the table. I am sure I would never have bid 2D. I think bidding 5diamonds immediately is an entirely reasonable shot. After all, surely no-one is defending the inevitable 4S with this hand? Edit: if one were worried about a slam, and I would not be, with this hand and a 1N bid, one might bid 4D intending to pass 4S, having made them guess.