[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 9 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

the system we're playing gives 2C as the only invitational sequence after the bidding shown.. given that as true (if it is true), 3S can't be invitational, eh?

if 2 regular posters on the forum were playing bbo 2/1 advanced, the question is how would they view a 3S bid, knowing 2C is the invitational bid and 2D is the game force bid? in that context, i can see either 4S or 2C (with 2D a distant 3rd), but not 3S unless looking for a slam

given the constraints of the system, how is 3S invitational? what would *you* think is going on if partner bid 3S here?

Another way to look at this is "if 2D is a game force, how can a direct 3S be forcing?".

IMO, the invitational sequence of 2C shows a hand that needs a decent fit to become much value: K9xxxx, x, xx, AQxx whereas the direct jump shows a similar hand with a much better suit, playable opposite xx.

Winston

[pclayton]

I opted for 4♠ - what Meckstroth would bid

At least I don't have to engage myself in the whole NMF / 2-way / XYZ discussion

[fred]

Hannie, on Oct 9 2005, 06:04 PM, said:

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

I think you will find that, in most bidding contests, most panelists do not concern themselves very much with the system that they are forced to use. The questions we are asked to answer are "what would you bid using this system?", not "what do you think the system should be?".

As I have said before, BBO Advanced is not a well-defined system. I am hopeful that the process of creating "default convention cards" for the new BBO-FD facility will change this. Most likely either an existing well-defined system (like Bridge World Standard) will become BBO Advanced, or BBO Advanced will be defined at least partly as a function of what BBO Forums regular want it to be.

In my opinion, if you have 2 ways to invite with 6+ cards in responder's major, you should differentiate between hands that are willing to play in 3NT and those that are not.

I was kind of surprised that nobody mentioned the word 3NT in their answers (or answered 3NT for that matter!).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 9 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

IMO, the invitational sequence of 2C shows a hand that needs a decent fit to become much value: K9xxxx, x, xx, AQxx whereas the direct jump shows a similar hand with a much better suit, playable opposite xx.

Winston

i disagree... 1x/1y/1nt/2c/2d/3s shows this exactly, imo... therefore, 3s after 1nt can be either a slam try or a (semi)solid suit with an outside entry that's suitable for nt... anything actually, except an invite in spades

roland has an excellent article on 2 way ckback, maybe he'll post it somewhere...

[mikeh]

fred, on Oct 9 2005, 01:29 PM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 9 2005, 06:04 PM, said:

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

In my opinion, if you have 2 ways to invite with 6+ cards in responder's major, you should differentiate between hands that are willing to play in 3NT and those that are not.

In the version of 2-way checkback I posted earlier, the default meaning of 3♠ was slamming. However, in one partnership we play that 3♠ is invitational, but not interested in 3N while going through 2♣ then 3♠ involves 3N as a possible destination. I think that this is slightly superior to 3♠ slamming partly because games are more frequent than slams and partly because you will have more room on slam auctions than on game auctions.

[Walddk]

luke warm, on Oct 9 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

roland has an excellent article on 2 way ckback, maybe he'll post it somewhere...

Let's see if this works:

http://www.2over1.com/modules/wfsection/ar...hp?articleid=12

If not, you will have to go through

http://www.2over1.com/ and register. Click on "Lessons" and find the one on "2-way Checkback Stayman". Don't worry, no fee involved.

I am not claiming that I found the philosophers' stone, but it's one way of doing it. When I think about it, I am not sure how I managed to investigate before "XY-NT" was introduced. Can't remember, perhaps I guessed and punted more than necessary.

Roland

P.S.: I now realise that you must register as a user first. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

[luke warm]

i almost just posted the whole thing here, but roland has it formatted so nicely that it would lose something, i think... i think it's better if anyone interested just goes via his links above and views the article with the example hands he gives

i know i'm prejudiced, but i like this system much better than xyz

[JLOGIC]

Jlall, on 2005-October-07, 10:14, said:

I would take 3S as a 1 suited SLAM try playing 2 way NMF. Not sure if this is "standard" or even if its defined by the system.

cherdano, on 2005-October-07, 10:15, said:

I am not sure I understand this problem when we don't know the difference between a direct 3♠ (yes i know this is forcing in xyz but I doubt it is in standard 2-way nmf) and 2♣ followed by 3♠. I guess we agree that this is an invite.

Arend

We both really didn't know how to play 2 way NMF in 2005? haha