[inquiry]

The first four hands were prepared by Pclayton, the last one by Reisig, and the next to last one from a recent Vugraph event.

As always, send your votes by private message to pigpenz here on the forum. The contest closes on Friday of this week. The winner of this contest will be invited to participate in BPO-007. The bidding is by "bridgebase online Advanced"... for details, see... http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=7822

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

BPO-006A
Pard opens 1♠, 1N by you, 2♥ by pard.

---

[Blofeld]

I haven't had this problem before, but what should I do if my bids would be different at IMPs or MP when the scoring is unknown? Pick the one I feel I'm happiest with overall? Assume IMPs?

[inquiry]

Blofeld, on Oct 2 2005, 05:59 PM, said:

I haven't had this problem before, but what should I do if my bids would be different at IMPs or MP when the scoring is unknown? Pick the one I feel I'm happiest with overall? Assume IMPs?

I would assume imps....I overlooked that detail in the problem... sorry

[inquiry]

Shaping up to be an exciting contest this time. A lot of different ideas from the panelist, and a couple new panelist taking part. The problems also have controversy with some panelist commenting that it was a "good problem set", others quite angry at the randomness of some of the problems.
Even some non-panelist have written in to "complain" a few of the problem. So there should be some heated debates not only on the right answers but on the appropriateness of the questions for such a panel (and indeed if a "right answer" exist for some. HAve you sent in your answers yet? IF not, voted soon!!!

Ben

[Walddk]

I would like to know what

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid

means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to

2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid?

The wording as it is now does not make sense to me.

Roland

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Oct 5 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Shaping up to be an exciting contest this time. A lot of different ideas from the panelist, and a couple new panelist taking part. The problems also have controversy with some panelist commenting that it was a "good problem set", others quite angry at the randomness of some of the problems.
Even some non-panelist have written in to "complain" a few of the problem. So there should be some heated debates not only on the right answers but on the appropriateness of the questions for such a panel (and indeed if a "right answer" exist for some. HAve you sent in your answers yet? IF not, voted soon!!!

Ben

I thought that most of the questions were good...
I especially liked #2

Number six seems completely pointless

[inquiry]

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

I would like to know what

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid

means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to

2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid?

The wording as it is now does not make sense to me.

Roland

Hi roland,

Reading the notes on BBO advanced, I take this to be the "xyz Convention", where 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦ either as a signoff in ♦ or some kind of game invite. And where 2♦ is game force. But what is there, is what came from the online description of BBO Advanced, and I have been known to mis-intepret. We will surely see what the panel thinks on this quiz.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Oct 5 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

I would like to know what

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid

means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to

2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid?

The wording as it is now does not make sense to me.

Roland

Hi roland,

Reading the notes on BBO advanced, I take this to be the "xyz Convention", where 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦ either as a signoff in ♦ or some kind of game invite. And where 2♦ is game force. But what is there, is what came from the online description of BBO Advanced, and I have been known to mis-intepret. We will surely see what the panel thinks on this quiz.

New minor forcing is pretty simple... Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦.

Lets assume an auction like

1♦ - 1♠
1N

A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further. Partner should show (in order of priority)

1. A 4 card Hearts suit
2. 3 card support for Spades
3. A club stopper for NT

Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦

2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids.
2♦ promises game forcing values
2♣ shows game invitational values

[Elianna]

hrothgar, on Oct 5 2005, 09:49 AM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 5 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

I would like to know what

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid

means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to

2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid?

The wording as it is now does not make sense to me.

Roland

Hi roland,

Reading the notes on BBO advanced, I take this to be the "xyz Convention", where 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦ either as a signoff in ♦ or some kind of game invite. And where 2♦ is game force. But what is there, is what came from the online description of BBO Advanced, and I have been known to mis-intepret. We will surely see what the panel thinks on this quiz.

New minor forcing is pretty simple... Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦.

Lets assume an auction like

1♦ - 1♠
1N

A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further. Partner should show (in order of priority)

1. A 4 card Hearts suit
2. 3 card support for Spades
3. A club stopper for NT

Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦

2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids.
2♦ promises game forcing values
2♣ shows game invitational values

That is what regular, NMF is. But Ben is absolutely correct on what 2-way NMF is.

Adam and I play 2-way, and not xyz (ie, we only play it on over a 1NT rebid by opener).

Basically, the structure is: (no opps bidding)

1m-1M-1NT-2♣: forces 2♦ and...
1m-1M-1NT-2♣-2♦

responder can pass 2♦; or bid 2♥ to either check for four hearts or three spades (if original 1M=1♠) or check for three hearts; bid 2♠ to look for 3 spades, bid 2NT to invite to game (and usually people discuss differences of what it means to bid 2NT directly). Of course, all of these except passing 2♦ have game invite values.

1m-1M-1NT-2♦ is game forcing, and opener is expected to either bid a four card heart suit (if 1M=1♠) and second choice to show three card support for partner's major, and barring either of those being an option, to bid naturally.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Oct 5 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 5 2005, 07:13 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

I would like to know what

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid

means. Perhaps it should be rephrased to

2-way check back Stayman over 1N rebid?

The wording as it is now does not make sense to me.

Roland

Hi roland,

Reading the notes on BBO advanced, I take this to be the "xyz Convention", where 2♣ forces opener to bid 2♦ either as a signoff in ♦ or some kind of game invite. And where 2♦ is game force. But what is there, is what came from the online description of BBO Advanced, and I have been known to mis-intepret. We will surely see what the panel thinks on this quiz.

New minor forcing is pretty simple... Its also most emphatically does not include a puppet from 2♣ to 2♦.

Lets assume an auction like

1♦ - 1♠
1N

A 2♣ checkback bid asks partner to describe his hand further. Partner should show (in order of priority)

1. A 4 card Hearts suit
2. 3 card support for Spades
3. A club stopper for NT

Lacking any of these, partner will rebid 2♦

2-way checkback uses both 2♣ and 2♦ as checkback bids.
2♦ promises game forcing values
2♣ shows game invitational values

I know all that Richard; my question is which is the one we use in BBO Advanced.

2-way new minor forcing over 1N rebid as stated in the notes makes no sense. Do we play nmf or 2-way check Stayman is what it's all about. The reason for my question might be that it's important for me to know before I vote.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Elianna, on Oct 5 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

That is what regular, NMF is. But Ben is absolutely correct on what 2-way NMF is.

I stand corrected

I consulted some of the suual sources... Looks like 2 way NMF now includes using 2♣ as a puppet. Probably makes MORE sense than the way I'm used to...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Oct 5 2005, 09:04 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 5 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

That is what regular, NMF is.  But Ben is absolutely correct on what 2-way NMF is.

I stand corrected

I consulted some of the suual sources... Looks like 2 way NMF now includes using 2♣ as a puppet. Probably makes MORE sense than the way I'm used to...

It does *not* make sense because 2♣ and 2♦ respectively are not always a new minor.

1♣ - 1♥
1N - 2♣

1♦ - 1♠
1N - 2♦

They are not new minors, so it's wrong to include the term "nmf" in this context.

Roland

[mike777]

GEEz, I never considered any use of checkback, nmf, etc on any of these hands. Now that I think about it maybe I better worry about it on one hand before I send in my choices and see how BBO advanced plays that.
BTW is it really standard that a 4 card heart suit is shown before 3 card spade support?
BTW2 even using 2c as puppet to 2D, some players play version where this will deny 3 card support, so puppet is not auto.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Oct 5 2005, 09:13 PM, said:

BTW is it really standard that a 4 card heart suit is shown before 3 card spade support?
BTW2 even using 2c as puppet to 2D, some players play version where this will deny 3 card support, so puppet is not auto.

It is to me, playing 2-way check back Stayman. 2♦ is an artificial game force, asking for cheapest information not yet conveyed. So it has higher priority to show 4 hearts before 3 spades. Example:

1♦ - 1♠
1N - 2♦
2♥

Opener has 4 hearts and perhaps also 3 spades. If responder is not interested in 4 hearts opposite, but has 5 spades, he will just proceed with 2♠ to see if opener has 3-card support. Remember, 2♦ is game forcing, so you can take it step by step from there.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 09:07 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 5 2005, 09:04 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 5 2005, 08:37 PM, said:

That is what regular, NMF is.  But Ben is absolutely correct on what 2-way NMF is.

I stand corrected

I consulted some of the suual sources... Looks like 2 way NMF now includes using 2♣ as a puppet. Probably makes MORE sense than the way I'm used to...

It does *not* make sense because 2♣ and 2♦ respectively are not always a new minor.

1♣ - 1♥
1N - 2♣

1♦ - 1♠
1N - 2♦

They are not new minors, so it's wrong to include the term "nmf" in this context.

Roland

Welcome to the English language. Yes, the term 2-way new minor forcing doesn't make sense. Neither does grand slam force, semi-forcing, broken sequence, etc.
(More bridge oxymorons to be found in http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...6ca75a1cced487)

[fifee]

Walddk, on Oct 5 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 5 2005, 09:13 PM, said:

BTW is it really standard that a 4 card heart suit is shown before 3 card spade support?
BTW2 even using 2c as puppet to 2D, some players play version where this will deny 3 card support, so puppet is not auto.

It is to me, playing 2-way check back Stayman. 2♦ is an artificial game force, asking for cheapest information not yet conveyed. So it has higher priority to show 4 hearts before 3 spades. Example:

1♦ - 1♠
1N - 2♦
2♥

Opener has 4 hearts and perhaps also 3 spades. If responder is not interested in 4 hearts opposite, but has 5 spades, he will just proceed with 2♠ to see if opener has 3-card support. Remember, 2♦ is game forcing, so you can take it step by step from there.

Roland

In the version of 2 way checkback developed by Goldway, priorities after 2C or 2D are:
1st show 3 card support for partner's suit
2nd show 4 cards in other minor
etc

They did not use a puppet to 2D after 2C. All hands with 10 or more points would go through 2C or 2D with 13+ and therefore 2H or 2S rebid by responder would show weak distributional hands. This makes it easy to show a hand with less than 10 points.

Fairly simple and straight forward and extremely useful.

[kgr]

Ben,

Thanks for adding the link to the bidding system.
Two more suggestions:
- Post questions before the Weekend. So more people get the time to answer.
- Add link to pm of pigpenz.

Thanks,
Koen

[pclayton]

I enjoyed this set. Not just the problems I submitted, but also E anf F.

I hope that the poll will continue on a regular basis.

Who's going to step up for the next set of problems?