Bill: I characterized as greedy, but maybe that was a bit unfair. White does seem to be following the idea of invading just in the nick of time. But that raises questions about earlier play.
Herman Hiddema: I don't know about that. Seems to me that at this moment invading at or invading at 3-3 are still pretty much equivalent options. There is no single move for black to turn the left into territory, so an invasion is not urgent. I would probably play a in this position.
Bill: Agreed. I was trying to get into White's mindset.
iff: What would happen if black ignores Herman's a and plays at 9 himself. Is that ok for white because black is too low on the left side?
Bill: Maybe should have been from this side. True, White is slightly cramped, but Black's resulting framework on the bottom side is not so close to territory yet.
Herman Hiddema: I would not prefer this approach, I like the other side better exactly because of the equivalent options given above.
Bill: I think I would actually prefer a, at this point in the game.
Bill: To avoid getting cramped, maybe White should tenuki with , approaching with .
Herman Hiddema: Yes, this seems like a good idea, especially in a handicap game. I would consider a move like a to build influence against the black handicap stones.
Bill: To prevent that, perhaps Black should start to build a framework right away, with an extension to .
Herman Hiddema: Agreed
Bill: And so to prevent that, should White play an immediate pincer?
Herman Hiddema: This seems like a good approach, given that this is a handicap game.
iff: What would be the proper way for white to handle a double approach at a or b (and which one would be better for black)?
Bill: I am old fashioned enough to think that an attachment on top (b or c) is good. These positions can become complex. For Black I like the 3-3 invasion instead. It's simple.