Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Casselton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cheers, David

Ian C
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi again, David.

I'm perhaps missing something, but if you super-accept with 2NT after 1NT 2 with

QJx AKxx Axxx Kx, as per your example

but not

Qxx AKxxx Axx Kx, as in Richard's question

and making the delayed noise (if at all) with the latter - partner may Pass your 2 transfer completion - aren't you putting slam before game, which feels wrong?

Back to your suggestion, which is clearly workable, you have plenty of space, so possibly …

2NT: as you suggest
3: 4, great hand
3: 4, medium hand
3M: 4, poor hand
3OM*: as per 2NT, but additionally NAT, 4+
?

Losing the WK super-accept in spades is less of an issue than losing the WK super accept in hearts, i.e. 1NT 2 3 - which may have been implied in what you wrote above.

Ian C

* i.e. 2/3 over 2/2 respectively
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, David.

That makes sense.

If I could try and summarise - if one has had a previous chance to show a generally good hand (in this specific case, via a super-accept) then making a try later shows a source of tricks based try?

We couldn't implement as we currently play (as the super-accept shows 4) but worth considering.

Ian C
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David,

What you say is almost certainly superior to that which, I suspect, most people play by default (control bid according to the partnership style) - me included.

It is fairly easy to define a narrow usage of this principle (e.g. a strong 2 opener does not cue-bid opposite a non-positive) but clearly defining a wide-ranging application of the principle is more problematic.

In that light, have you and your partnership(s) considered a rule for its application, or do you just “know” in scenarios such as this?

Ian C
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gents,

Notwithstanding the relative success of Regres to its nearest brethren, do you really want to play a system with five (very) weak notrump openings?

Ian C
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Stefan.

Full detail immediately below.

To reiterate, (2) DBL = T/O of

Ian C
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Stefan.

If I understand you correctly, you are positing (2) 2 (P) P as an advantage as it avoids the three level.

In what I am advocating, (2) DBL (P) 2 achieves the same.

Ian C
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Stefan,

If you play (say) 2 as T/O of , you can't both {1} allow advancer a NF 2 advance (by passing) and {2} overcaller a forcing sequence if very strong with short(ish) hearts.

Ian C
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In short, Stefan.

Yes (or Pass, first time around at least, if you can't face it).

Remember, you wouldn't have been able to overcall 2 over a WK2!

Ian C
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Original moved to respond to Stefan above
Jan. 11
Ian Casselton edited this comment Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Stefan,

See my response below for more detail, but

(2) 2 as T/O of importantly allows a 2 advance (the loss versus a normal WK2 is the penalty pass by advancer). It further permits a forcing auction when overcaller is strong with short(ish) hearts.

(2) DBL as T/O of even more importantly allows a 2 advance (i.e. a gain over a normal WK2)

Hence, I think 2 as T/O of is fine.

The interesting auction, which few discuss (and I didn't even after playing the below for a couple of decades) is what does/should (2) DBL (P) 2 mean?

Ian C
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Selena.

For me, DBL = T/O of , 2 = T/O of

To show both minors (say 5+/5+)

{1} 4NT if FG
{2} 3 (then 4 if possible) if sound but < FG
{3} Pass (then minimum NT as “Unusual”) otherwise

Some other flesh on the bones

{4} 2NT NAT, system on
{5} 3 suit NAT (3 = Strong Jump Shift strength)
{6} 3NT “Gambling” style, i.e. based on tricks
{7} 4m Leaping Michaels with
{8} Pass (then 4m) Leaping Michaels with
{9} 4M NAT

After (2) P (2M) ?, as above but …
{10} DBL is two way, either pure penalty or pure take-out

This might seem dangerous, but if you think about what everyone is doing around the table, you will see it isn't. The only material problem scenario is when responder is WK with modest length and responds 2 - hence on the rare occasion advancer is truly in doubt, they should T/O - if “wrong”, it will most likely simply lead to 3NT making (as opposed to 2 DBL'd down a few). Not the end of the earth.

Finally, a personal twist. After (2) P (2M) P (P) ?

{11} DBL is a decent (good 12 to bad 15 hcp) WK NT with 3+/3+ M's - Lebensohl'ish responses

This avoids the missing of WK NT opposite WK NT type 3NT deals.

Ian C

PS There is an argument for

{12} (2) P (2) P (P) 3m to show 5+/5+ m/ - the reverse doesn't apply when responder bids 2, as (2) 2 was already available for a 5+/5+ /m type
Jan. 11
Ian Casselton edited this comment Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Philip.

If at the first opportunity, yes - but there is a sequencing consideration also.

There is a higher-ranking (over-riding) principle, IMO, that having had the opportunity to make a T/O of a specific suit once, that the second DBL means something else (typically penalty).

So

(1) DBL is T/O and (1) P (1NT/2/etc) DBL is T/O, which satisfies your principle

but

(1) DBL (1NT/2/etc) P (P) DBL is penalty, which satisfies mine

Ian C
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would hope, Andy.

That a T/O DBL would achieve a similar effect?

Ian C
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi John.

I agree both in practise (as you have outlined) and in principle - my/our partnership rule is that if DBL might reasonably be viewed as T/O, which it almost always can be, it is.

Ian C
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ray.

The thing about “BUM-RAP” and “Fifths” is they have the same 40 point deck as the Milton Work Point Count. Hence, you can express the net the same way, e.g. 15-17 hcp, or good 20 to 22 or whatever.

This is the reason I commented on the usability of the other scale - it doesn't - you would need to convert when asked. This would be fine for some people, but not for others.

Ian C
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kerry et al.

I've never seen the first scale before - and to be honest, I'm not convinced of its efficacy or usability.

The second scale I've first seen as BUM-RAP (by Alex Martelli) but if you ignore the 0.25 for the ten, the ratios are exactly as for the Four Aces point count.

If you're interested in this sort of stuff, I recommend starting here

http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/">http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/

You might want to look at the “Fifths” evaluation method if you drill down …

Ian C
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David.

Some preliminary thoughts - not all related.

World Championship statistics (compiled by Richard Pavlicek) suggest that opening 5332 but not 5332 is, on average, a winning strategy. I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is because it shuts out some spade overcalls.

The 5-3 versus 5-2 in the M's bit may be true (i.e. it is more dangerous on 5-2 as you may play a 5-3 fit in a 2-5 fit). However, if you make the decision to open 1NT with 5M332 you are likely to optimise your whole structure around that decision - so may have to live with this risk (or fudge it when you don't).

Similar argument to the above re weak doubletons.

Similar argument to the above re switching from strong to weak in 4th - I don't want to pervert an optimised response structure to handle it.

Two aces seems to rigid as a rule, but perhaps is reasonable as a guideline. Other factors must weigh in (fillers, 5 card side suit, honours with length etc).

If a six card minor looks like a six-card minor, treat it as one. If it looks like a five card suit, treat it as one of those as well. If 1m 1any 3m wouldn't feel right (perhaps suit not quite good enough) then consider 1NT if in value range.

Ian C
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, Max.

We now fall into this category.

That said, I would probably dredge up a raise to 2 on this one.

However, still no issue with what actually transpired.

Ian C
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bill,

Interesting idea (transferring into their suit shows shortage). For us, it is Stayman, but there is likely to be a reasonable amount of overlap between the two (just not sure how much).

{Mike} To elaborate slightly, it is first important to have a definition about what constitutes a “bid suit” from the opponents. This should be a system-wide definition, not scenario specific like this. For us, an opposition suit is defined having been bid if it shows at least 3+ (and if only 3+, loses it's having been bid status as soon as the oppo show a 4+ suit). Hence

(1[=3+) DBL is T/O of clubs, but

(1[=3+) P (1) DBL is T/O of spades only, not T/O of the blacks

Applying this same definition to the question at hand, if 1X is deemed a bid suit, then 4-suit transfers (3 -> diamonds), advancing both 1NT and 2NT overcalls, with the transfer to their suit as Stayman.

If 1X is not deemed a bid suit, then system on.

There is a quirk, of course, with a 2NT (as opposed to 1NT) overcall, clubs opened and deemed a bid suit - (1C) P (P) 2NT (P) 3 (P) ? is a rather awkward sequence. Here, it's best to play 3 as Stayman and 3 -> diamonds. Luckily, there are fewer and fewer natural 1 openings, so it's rarely an issue.

Ian C
Jan. 1
Ian Casselton edited this comment Jan. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top