[han]

helene_t, on Jan 27 2006, 06:03 AM, said:

Wow, this time my comment was just as useful as Han's, I'm improving I guess :-)

Some might disagree with that logic Helene.


Feeling bad about my earlier useless info I am determined to say something useful now. As I see it there are at least three ways to show a clubs-single suiter: by bidding 5C directly, bidding 3S followed by 4C and bidding 3S followed by 5C. It is clear that the direct 5C is to play (even though partner might bid 6C on some unusual hands), and that 3S followed by 5C is less encouraging than 3C followed by 4C.

As the 3S-5C route suggests no interest in cuebids, perhaps it should focus on the club suit only, asking partner to bid slam with good club support. That agreement would work out well with this hand (even though partner would probably not think that Axx is good enough?).

Another possible interpretation is that 3S followed by 5C shows a great club suit, but not much outside of clubs. In that case partner would probably bid 6C with Kxx Kxx AKQJx Ax, something we definitely do not want.

Without an agreement I think that 3S-4C is best, but if you are confident that 3S-5C asks for club support then that would be best.

[hrothgar]

With all due respect to a number of my friends who are voting in favor of 4♣, this bid should get a zero.

As I already noted, the only way assigning a "natural" meaning to 4♣ makes sense is if the bid is non-forcing and there is NO way in hell you can consider a non-forcing 4♣ rebid with this hand.

If 4♣ is defined as natural and forcing, than we need to change the system. The advantage of right siding a 5m or 6m contract is overwhelming and a simple 5♣/5♦ inversion is the obvious fix.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2006, 01:04 AM, said:

With all due respect to a number of my friends who are voting in favor of 4♣, this bid should get a zero. 

As I already noted, the only way assigning a "natural" meaning to 4♣ makes sense is if the bid is non-forcing and there is NO way in hell you can consider a non-forcing 4♣ rebid with this hand.

If 4♣ is defined as natural and forcing, than we need to change the system.  The advantage of right siding a 5m or 6m contract is overwhelming and a simple 5♣/5♦ inversion is the obvious fix.

Let me quote from the BBO advanced notes:

Quote

After 3♠ forcing 3N, 4♣ = Single suited Clubs, 4♦ = Single suited Diamonds,
4♥/♠ = shortness with 5-5 in minors.

I think it's you who gets the zero, my friend (And please don't tell me Fred intended these bids as non-forcing.)

Arend

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jan 28 2006, 02:29 AM, said:

I think it's you who gets the zero, my friend (And please don't tell me Fred intended these bids as non-forcing.)

I'm well aware what the BBO Advanced notes say, however, playing these bids as natural and forcing is incomprehensible to me...

I know that Fred and tend to differ about artificial systems. However, it incomprehensible to assume that players are capable of recalling that 3♠ is a puppet to 3N, but using 4♣ to show Diamonds and 4♦ to show clubs is suddenly too complex?

Be real.

BTW, I'm well aware the 4♣ = clubs and 4♦ = diamonds ensure equal amounts of bidding space for each response. I still think that rightsiding the contract is an overwhelming advantage.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Jan 27 2006, 06:04 PM, said:

With all due respect to a number of my friends who are voting in favor of 4♣, this bid should get a zero. 

As I already noted, the only way assigning a "natural" meaning to 4♣ makes sense is if the bid is non-forcing and there is NO way in hell you can consider a non-forcing 4♣ rebid with this hand.

If 4♣ is defined as natural and forcing, than we need to change the system.  The advantage of right siding a 5m or 6m contract is overwhelming and a simple 5♣/5♦ inversion is the obvious fix.

As Luis pointed out concerning another of the hands, it is essential to remember that this is a poll about what one would bid given the constraints of the poll. In Luis' case, the point was that the auction was undiscussed in the system notes, while here, to the contrary, the system defines what 4♣ means. Thus complaining that it is a poor system and that it wrongsides the contract is all well and good but utterly off the point.

While it is true that usually one wants the stronger hand protected against the opening lead, this actual hand is an exception. I have Aces.... see them? The only suit in which my partner might have a meaningful tenace to protect is trump, and it doesn't matter who declarer is in terms of protecting the trump suit.

Give partner QJ10 in one of my Ace suits and I'd enjoy being declarer on a lead of that suit twice as often as my partner would

As for the idea that one would force to 3N and then bid a non-forcing 4♣(which I think another poster suggested, not Hrothgar): the idea is absurd, to put it as mildly as I can manage.

[hrothgar]

>While it is true that usually one wants the stronger hand protected against
>the opening lead, this actual hand is an exception. I have Aces.... see them?

>The only suit in which my partner might have a meaningful tenace to protect
>is trump, and it doesn't matter who declarer is in terms of protecting the trump suit.

Irrelevant. Systems are rarely defined by the need to cater to a specific hand. Rather, the 2NT response structure needs to cater to typical 2NT openings...

>As Luis pointed out concerning another of the hands, it is essential to remember
>that this is a poll about what one would bid given the constraints of the poll.
>In Luis' case, the point was that the auction was undiscussed in the system
>notes, while here, to the contrary, the system defines what 4♣ means

4♣ means that I have clubs... Fine and dandy. NONE of the followups are defined. We don't even have meta-agreements.

Rolands solution on hand F was to blast to 6H because bidding in the absence of partnership agreement is a meaningless exercise. In a similar fashion, the only thing that makes sense here is bidding 6♣ and praying... Lord knows why I even bothered to bid 3♠. I guess I feel sorry for the opps and want to give them a chance to make a lead directing double.

>As for the idea that one would force to 3N and then bid a non-forcing 4♣
>(which I think another poster suggested, not Hrothgar): the idea is absurd,
>to put it as mildly as I can manage.

So is the idea that 4♣ should be used to show clubs. We simply disagree about what the greater idiocy is... Take away my two Aces and I'd certainly prefer to declare clubs at the 4 level than NT at the two level. I don't think that the hand type is frequent enough to cater to. Someone else might.

Regardless, my understanding is that BPO is in part designed to help extend BBO advanced. This is primarily intended to add definition to missing sequences. However, I think its reasonable to correct "obvious" flaws. This looks to be one.

As I have noted MANY times in the past, I think its a major mistake for us to be working on BBO Advanced rather than adopting a well defined system like BWS or Washington Standard. If Fred were commited to extending the system it would be one thing. I doubt that we're going to generate an exceptional brilliancies re-inventing the wheel one more time.

I think that the discussions surround this hand and hand F illustrate some of the issues that I was alluding to...

[Dwingo]

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

With all due respect to a number of my friends who are voting in favor of 4♣, this bid should get a zero. 

As I already noted, the only way assigning a "natural" meaning to 4♣ makes sense is if the bid is non-forcing and there is NO way in hell you can consider a non-forcing 4♣ rebid with this hand.

If 4♣ is defined as natural and forcing, than we need to change the system.  The advantage of right siding a 5m or 6m contract is overwhelming and a simple 5♣/5♦ inversion is the obvious fix.

These discussions are great. The BBO Advanced Notes available is only a framework. There are no continuations and hopefully these discussions will help BBO Advanced evolve.

My only plea to Fred,Uday,Ben,Cascade is that if there is any agreement among panel members about a treatment, they update the BBO Advanced Notes immediately. If this is not done, all the gems that we get out these discussions will get lost.

Right siding the contract has its merit, but in the scheme of things where you have used a lot of bidding space by opening at 2NT, there is nothing much you can do to play a non forcing 4♣ and that too by right siding it.

You need the extra bid space to explore slam so 4 level bids will have to be slam tries. So if you believe that right siding the contract has the potential of giving you an added trick on lead, then the only way to do it as the 5 level.

If ♣'s is your suit and if your hand is weak, either you pass 2NT or play in 5♣. You have no methods to stop the bidding at the 3♣ or 4♣ level.

Right siding is a possibilty at the 5 level as most systems do not have any use for the 4♠ bid over 2NT ( ie if you are playing Texas transfers). You can now use 4♠ as a transfer to 5♣ and 5♣ as transfer to 5♦ for the weakish hands.

[pclayton]

By the way, an agreement that compliments the 3♠---> 3N puppet is to play 2N - 3N as a minor suit runout. The example hand without the 2 bullets would be a nice example.

Of course, this requires the players to be at least semi-awake.

[whereagles]

Why not..

2NT 3♠
3NT 4m/M = sign-off/slam try in the linked minor

[HeartA]

pclayton, on Jan 28 2006, 02:51 AM, said:

By the way, an agreement that compliments the 3♠---> 3N puppet is to play 2N - 3N as a minor suit runout. The example hand without the 2 bullets would be a nice example.

Of course, this requires the players to be at least semi-awake.

IMO, 4m as run-out after pd opens 2NT doesn't make sense to me. with a long minor, respond should leave 2N or try 5m.

After 2NT opening, 4m must be gf.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Jan 28 2006, 02:28 AM, said:

4♣ means that I have clubs...  Fine and dandy.  NONE of the followups are defined.    We don't even have meta-agreements.

Richard, sometimes one wonders which planet are you from... What else do you expect from a system like BBO adv except the obvious that 4-level bids are now cue-bids, showing first or second round control? (Yes, the latter IS a meta agreement of BBO adv.)

About 4♣/4♦: I don't think right-siding is as important here as you think. Anyway, it would be idiotic to invert these bids in a system for pickup partners. If these were inverted, I would expect
a) a gain on 8.3% of the hands because you have right-sided
b) a loss on 3.4% of the hands because you have wrong-sided
c) a loss on 2.8% of the hands because you couldn't check for a ♦ control when responder had long clubs
d) a loss on 37.4% of the hands where exactly one of the players forgot the inversion. (Your comparison with the 3♠ puppet is non-sense because 1. it is an impossible bid, and 2. it is standard.)

Arend

[inquiry]

BBO Advanced uses 3♠ as a transfer to 3NT with a minor suit slam try. That is all the notes say about this bid. So I had some questions of my own. Like what would the follow up be. Would you "smolen-like" bid the minor you didn't hold? Would bidding 4 of your minor just set trumps and start cue-bidding or would someone play that as minorwood. On this hand in the Vugraph, one player forced to slam after 2NT opening, the other invited. Inviting worked best.

Here we had our first (I think) unanomious vote. So the rules are now clear for BBO Advanced. You bid your minor over 3NT as a slam try.

ng 4♣. Club one suiter and slam interest. After 4D cue my next bid will be 4H.

Joker_Gib 4♣ I suppose that 3♠ was minor suit stayman so now 4♣ should show a slam try with long clubs. 7 cards suit + shape + 2 aces : I have to do something even with that suit !

Reisig 4♣

Frances and Jeffrey. 4♣ We are slightly puzzled by the inclusion of this hand. The system defines the continuations after this start, and 4C shows a single-suited club slam try which is what we have. We are far too good for 5C over 3NT, as well as the slight problem that it's currently undefined. For us the real source of uncertainty is whether we are going to pass 4NT by opener or remove to 5C.

By the way, if we're discussing what methods ought to be, then it seems inefficient to have 3S force 3NT. We don't play these methods, so have no practical experience with this auction, but with a constraint of having responder bid 3S on all minor-suited slam tries, Frances would suggest playing the following 'natural' continuations by opener:

• 3NT : unsuitable for slam in either minor. Can be passed (allows responder to look for slam on marginal hands).
  
• 4C: suitable for slam in clubs, unsuitable in diamonds,
  
• 4D: suitable in diamonds, unsuitable in clubs

You could get a lot more sophisticated than this, but this is very simple and has the mild advantage of having the strong hand declarer more often.


Fred 4♣ - It would be nice to know what my 3S meant and what sort of hand partner suggests with 3NT. Regardless of the meanings of these calls, I cannot imagine passing 3NT here. If I had to guess at a final contract I would bid 6C, but I will give partner a chance to express his opinion. If he makes an encouraging noise we will play in at least 6C. If he signs off in 4NT I will bid 5C and leave the final decision to him.

Beto 4♣. As 3♠ forces 3NT, pass here is non-sense as 3NT should be bid directly. If partner bids 4♦ or 4NT over 4♣, i will bid 5♣. If he bids 4♥/♠, denying diamond control, i will bid 6♣.

Luis: 4c, slam try. This is an excellent 7 loser hand, and a 2NT opening averages 4 or 5 losers so a slam might be in the picture. I will bid 4c and expect pd to bid 4d. I will then bid 4h and if pd can't bid 4s I will just signoff in 5c, if pd can bid 4s showing the spade king then I will go with 4NT as RKCB for clubs.

Roland 4C. Hope it's forcing; if not, I am bound to get a plus score :-) Our system doesn't tell me if opener is obliged to bid 3NT. Anyway, let's see what happens; the worst case scenario is if I get 4NT as sign off (doubleton club). Then 5C might be our limit although we could still have a slam when I have 7 of them clubs.

MikeH: 4♣: playing the system, and giving due weight to my side controls: I have 2, count them, 2 aces and second round control in the other suit and an expectation of a 10 card trump suit (actually, I think the expectation is a little greater than 9.5, but I round up). Point counters go home: trick counters bid on.

Fred's response shows what happened at the table. One blasted to slam, and was down, one invited partner and made game.

4♣ = 100
4NT = 30
5♣ = 20
6♣ = 10
Pass = 10

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

BBO Advanced uses 3♠ as a transfer to 3NT with a minor suit slam try. That is all the notes say about this bid.

I'm so confused.... the BBO Advanced notes I use are those attached to this forum, which also define the continuations. What other ones are you referring to?

[inquiry]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 30 2006, 10:07 AM, said:

Quote

BBO Advanced uses 3♠ as a transfer to 3NT with a minor suit slam try. That is all the notes say about this bid.

I'm so confused.... the BBO Advanced notes I use are those attached to this forum, which also define the continuations. What other ones are you referring to?

Right you are.. I had overlooked (well actually forgot and the overlooked, since I transcribed the BBO Advanced notes here from the notes found in the Bridge Library on the gaming site). Mea culpa.. with those notes, there was no real reason for this problem then. :-(

[MickyB]

inquiry, on Jan 30 2006, 02:16 PM, said:

By the way, if we're discussing what methods ought to be, then it seems inefficient to have 3S force 3NT.

Depends what a 3NT response means.

I agree that 3♠ forcing 3NT and 3NT to play is inefficient, but it sounds like a good way to play until you always remember to bid 3♠ puppet to 3NT - then you can define 3NT as something else

[Walddk]

I used to play 2NT - 3NT as slammy with both minors. Over 4♣/♦, 4NT was:

"Sorry partner, I forgot I couldn't bid a natural 3NT. Hope 4NT makes".

Perfectly legitimate agreement, by the way.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jan 30 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

I used to play 2NT - 3NT as slammy with both minors. Over 4♣/♦, 4NT was:

"Sorry partner, I forgot I couldn't bid a natural 3NT. Hope 4NT makes".

Perfectly legitimate agreement, by the way.

Roland

I consider this type of agreement to be very problematic.

Once your bidding systems includes a checkback sequences that says "partner forgot agreement" you've changed your basic agreement. The actual meaning of your 3NT response is

"Slammy with both minors or
Balanced, wants to signoff in Notrump"

Disclosing anything else to your opponents strikes me as highly unethical. Given that this 3NT treatment is perfect legal, I really don't understand why you don't disclose this information to your opponents. (This is a game based on the premise Full Disclosure, right?) Sure, it might make you look a bit silly, but the solution to this is to avoid methods that your partnership is incapable of remembering.

There is a good thread on rec.games.bridge that discusses this topic in depth
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...c3ddcd36f78d680

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Jan 30 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jan 30 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

I used to play 2NT - 3NT as slammy with both minors. Over 4♣/♦, 4NT was:

"Sorry partner, I forgot I couldn't bid a natural 3NT. Hope 4NT makes".

Perfectly legitimate agreement, by the way.

Roland

I consider this type of agreement to be very problematic.

Once your bidding systems includes a checkback sequences that says "partner forgot agreement" you've changed your basic agreement. The actual meaning of your 3NT response is

"Slammy with both minors or
Balanced, wants to signoff in Notrump"

Disclosing anything else to your opponents strikes me as highly unethical. Given that this 3NT treatment is perfect legal, I really don't understand why you don't disclose this information to your opponents. (This is a game based on the premise Full Disclosure, right?) Sure, it might make you look a bit silly, but the solution to this is to avoid methods that your partnership is incapable of remembering.

There is a good thread on rec.games.bridge that discusses this topic in depth
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...c3ddcd36f78d680

There is absolutely nothing unethical about this. 3NT is slammy with both minors and must be alerted. If 4mi is followed by 4NT, however, it's a sign off, and this is obviously also alertable. Responder forgot the system, and he has a legitimate way of revealing it. It is a partnership agreement, not a partnership understanding as such.

It is indeed full disclosure because it was specifically outlined on our CC. Therefore, the opponents had all the info they are entitled to.

And finally, congratulations to you if you never forgot any part of your system. If that is the case, you are probably the only player in the world who did not. If you did, I think it's best if .... "you avoid methods that your partnership is incapable of remembering".

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Jan 30 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

>And finally, congratulations to you if you never forgot any part of your
>system. If that is the case, you are probably the only player in the world who
>did not. If you did, I think it's best if .... "you avoid methods that your partnership
>is incapable of remembering".

My memory is far from perfect and I have certainly been known to forget system on occasion. However, this is a horse of a different color. You are adding artificial sequences which specifically cater to what you describe as "misbids". This is formally defined as part of your system. Once this happens, you have changed the definition of the 3♠ advance. Furthermore, you must provide this information to the opponents when you describe the 3♠ bid (on the convention card or when asked for an explanation).

Rules lawyers like to play stupid little games with the regulations. One of their favorites is rewording illegal agreements to allow them to fit through some loophole. In order to combat this, its important to distinquish between player's agreement and the way that they choose to describe these agreements. Personally, I prefer the practical approach. If it looks like a duck, and walks a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck, even when the duck claims its actually some misunderstood dachshund