Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Casselton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite so, Ray.

If you read the whole original article again (rather than part) I was asking, not telling - and merely set broad parameters.

Ian C
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David.

To simplify, Frances logic appears to be that 4 is a “Last Train” type slam try because there is no other way to make a forcing bid supporting spades.

I would question this, as it is seemingly premised, amongst other things, on 4NT being natural. My view would be that the logic is applied the other way around, i.e. 4NT is natural in this (and similar auctions) when there is a known alternate way to force in the suit first, then potentially bid 4NT. Otherwise, it is something else (usually RKCB).

However, I am not insisting this is the case, here or elsewhere - merely observing that the prioritisation (and hence conclusion in this case) might be different.

Ian C
Oct. 21
Ian Casselton edited this comment Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In short, Richard.

2 does not promise 6 spades (or even a good five necessarily) in many, perhaps most, classic 2/1 methods.

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit.

Whilst I'm an either 1st/2nd round control guy (with Kickbo/Turbo to follow), I would expect 4 to show a control.

If you tried to formalise it into a rule, how would you describe that 4 doesn't say anything about clubs, e.g. “new suit above game is a slam try in the last bid suit”?

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jeff.

For your second point, do you mean 1 2 2 3 3 5/5?

If so, what would you be intending by each of the two options?

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard.

Frances' 3 suggestion was in a different context. She may have bid it in anyway, but that is unclear.

I quite like the idea of a 3 preference from opener on the 3rd round, but they would nevertheless be worried about never having got the spade quality across (with the method in use).

I like it even more after 1 2 2NT{=6} 3 ?, where at least the spade length is across.

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David.

I must say that this view seems alien to me - in terms of both general principles and pragmatism (see Ian G's take above).

Why do you believe it so?

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Andy.

Do you think responder might be worried about trumps?

But, I agree of course, if responder ventured 4, there is a much stronger chance of getting to slam (and the best slam).

As a side question, should responder venture 4 in an auction such as this, is opener compelled to cue if he can below game, or does doing so express a further opinion, in your view?

Ian C
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Frances.

I think the agreement that a 2NT rebid, showing a 6 card suit (which has gained some currency in recent times) works well here.

It might also lead to 3 over 2NT from South, after which 3 would be a more forward going action than in the sequence at our table.

The side question then becomes is the (predominantly positional) loss of 2NT natural, historically showing 12-14 or 18-20, material? Hard to say - opinions will be somewhat anecdotal.

Ian C
Oct. 21
Ian Casselton edited this comment Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi All.

It seems to me that “no Kickback in a shown suit” is a pretty easy agreement to implement - and would have worked here.

The only thing that really needs discussing is the addendum to the rule - after minor suit agreement, do you go up the line until you hit a non-shown suit (4 here) or 4NT, or do you jump straight to 4NT if your Kickback suit has been shown? In any case, once again, fairly easy to agree and implement.

Ian C
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Eric.

My advice (which is not a direct answer to your question) is if you can get a solution which blends elegantly with your current/preferred methods, then go for it, but don't bend them too much to do so. Strong 2NT openings, whatever the range, are infrequent - most of the money is elsewhere.

All other things being equal, you'd prefer not to open 2NT, and you'd prefer to right side contracts to the 2NT opener most of the time when you do, or so one would think. We open it with 19-20 BAL (for system convenience reasons). Then you have a set like the below

http://www.tgrsbridge.com/Super%20League%20Spring%202017%20files/Division%201/Round%203%20results.htm

On Board 9, you open 2NT as East, South stretches to 3, partner makes a negative DBL and North pushes to 4. Partner, aided by a reasonable view of the hand DBL's, which gains 11 IMP's versus 3-2 the other way.

Shortly after on Board 12, partner opens 2NT and you give South a problem with a direct 5 bid. He passes, leads the A, and you quickly wrap up plus one - another 11 IMPs versus 3 making the other way.

I suspect our views are all very anecdotal on this - mine (I hope) are based on frequency and core system, rather than these two somewhat atypical/fortunate results.

Ian C
Oct. 11
Ian Casselton edited this comment Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes and no, Frances.

I refer you to Kit's various comments about trick one signalling to get a flavour, but let's say you play odd encourage, even suit preference in some arbitrary situation.

It would be my advice in the above context to play a high odd card card as less encouraging than a low one, and a middling even card as less desirous of a switch than an extreme one.

If holding three even pips but wishing to encourage, you play the middle one. If holding all odd pips but wishing to switch, you playing the highest one (you can afford). In both cases, you trust that partner can see enough pips elsewhere to work it out (perhaps on balance of probability).

Which card to play in a given situation is straightforward - the only thing you have figure out is which message you want to give. That is an issue with ALL qualitative signal types.

Expressed more simply, the HOW is simple, it is the WHAT that was (and remains) the problem.

Ian C

PS Expressed another way, by playing Odd/Even showing anything, all you are really doing, of substance, is reordering how small cards should be interpreted, perhaps with the design goal of being able to impart the best signal with the smallest possible (actual) pip. To see a discussion of this, look at the scanned PDF linked to below, in particular from p30

http://pikier.com/bridgewars/sind/Systems%20in%20Defence.pdf
Oct. 11
Ian Casselton edited this comment Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard.

I suspect it is exactly for odd-even anything played properly (though the parity could be the other way around than I describe below)

(1) Odd encourages the original suit led
(2) Even discourages the original suit led
(3) Within those parities, there is an order or strength of signal, e.g. 2 is stronger discouragement than an 8, if one holds the “wrong” pips, 3 is stronger encouragement than the 9

Having the clearest signal with the lowest card within the parity probably makes sense, for the reason Amnon alludes to - but I'm only speculating.

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

The first time you come across such a thing, fair enough perhaps.

But after that, it is (or it at least can be, if you let it) pretty straight forward. I've almost certainly said something like this before on here, but a generic defence like

DBL: 12+ hcp BAL or the suit opened
Other one level openings: Natural, Acol style
1NT/2/2: 12+ hcp transfers to the non-opened suit, strong jump shift strength if they were available at the one level
2/2: Three suited short in the suit opened, 12-15 hcp and 16+ hcp respectively
2NT: Some sort of 5+/5+ (to taste)
etc

can be applied, quickly and well, to any such method. The main things to agree are what the force is over the transfers (either Step+1 or 2NT usually) and the continuations over the DBL (where 2 and 2 are typically Staymanic in nature, the latter FG).

Ian C
Oct. 10
Ian Casselton edited this comment Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David.

Firstly, Forcing Pass players are no slower on average than natural pairs. To take one of Ben's points, most of their methods, by definition, are internally consistent, so the relay phase of auctions tends to go quite quickly. The better ones are perhaps slightly faster.

As someone who is still allowed to play something like this (though not strictly Forcing Pass) in a more enlightened part of the UK, I can vouch for the fact we do not typically finish late.

Similarly, I would advise people to use substantively generic defences against most “unfamiliar” methods, which, perhaps after defined initial action, put them back in the land of the familiar asap. For example, against any form of Multi 2 or similar (one of two weak equal possibilities) I prefer DBL=T/O of , 2 = T/O of - once one of those two specifically defined bids are made, a partnership should be on very familiar ground (Lebensohl or whatever).

Conversely, some of the natural players are the most slow of all - some of you will know one of my teammates with respect to this :)

Ian
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances,

Because the use of Odd-even Discards has been similarly regarded as questionable, for analogous reasons, to the Smith Echo. Demonic squared, so to speak.

Unless you were enquiring about the analogy, for which I refer you to Barrett's Classification of Demons.

Ian C
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Odd-even Smith signals, Amnon!

It may be a mere titivation to the underlying concept, but the composite name itself is sure to get the signal gendarmes excited ;)

Sort of the bridge equivalent of naming something Asmodeus Belial (though perhaps less tautologic).

Ian C
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard.

Any qualitative (rather than quantitative, e.g. count) signal has a similar risk profile typically attributed to the Smith Echo (and, as it happens, Odd/Even discards).

Further, Sartaj Hans in “Battling the Best”, described both the desirability of in-tempo play but the practical problems in achieving it - around about p150 from memory.

Finally, I know of few long term partnerships who, in the pub afterwards, won't acknowledge they on occasion knew something extra about partners hand from his mannerisms, either in bidding or play.

In the end, a partnership should aspire to bid and play in tempo but be as careful as practical to avoid taking advantage of any break thereof. Misguided attempts to ban/demonise methods only marginally different, if at all, from others regarded as acceptable do not help, IMO.

Ian C
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Zach.

I agree with you both on Non-Serious 3NT (as opposed to Serious 3NT) and playing 2NT as “good” in a good/bad complex.

Originally, we tried to optimise in which scenarios 2NT should be “good” and which it should be “bad”, but we could never quite lock it down. Hence, forced to standardise to ensure understanding, we went 2NT “good” (or more accurately, via 2NT “bad” in clubs or “good” otherwise, reversed with direct bids).

What was your thought process to a similar point?

Ian C
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi All,

I first read this as described in a book by Pavlicek, though its origins may be considerably older (back to Ingberman as described).

In short, after a reverse

Repeat Responder's Major: 5+M, F1, in principle weak
Cheaper of 4th suit/2NT: 4M, F1, in principle weak
Others: NAT, FG

I don't regard myself as an authority on the continuations after the two F1 sequences, but IIRC, return to a naturally shown suit was NF thereafter (4th suit could be used to force).

Ian C
Sept. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top