[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Apr 12 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

No, thats not what I meant.  We all "know" that Ben plays some pretty esoteric stuff, so I can easily buy that he plays it.

I was just surprised that you did, considering that the probable majority of US players don't and the popularity of the other methods.  But I will take you at your word, is all I meant. Geez. Take a chill pill, man.

Actually I am not sure whether the majority of North American experts plays 1M-3m etc. artificially. BWS has strong jumpshifts combined with 2/1-GF-except rebid, but in a vote assuming 2/1 absolute GF, 19% voted for natural construtive jump shifts, 42% for invitational jump shifts, and only 38% for a structure where you cannot show and differentiate between constructive and invitational one-suiters.
(http://www.bridgewor...f=bwspolls.html, 904)

Note also question 905, where only 19% voted for adding Bergen raises. Bergen raises seem to be a BBO (plus maybe club-level) phenomenon.

There is a big difference between the phrasings of:

The probable majority of US players, and

The majority of US experts.

I will assure you that the majority of US players will play bergen or WJS after 1M opening (or any method other than invitational).

I would not make the same statement for US experts.

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so). In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

[gingolia]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

I have always hated Bergen raises, I find WJS pointless, and where the heck did mini-splinters come from, almost no one plays those at least not anywhere I have ever lived.

I play all jumps as fit jumps with several of my partners ... I thought this was sorta standard but maybe not (or at least maybe not on the auction 1M-3m?)

[cherdano]

Bid_em_up, if you are not surprised about experts playing invitational jumps or similar, why are you surprised Josh does?????

[AlexOgan]

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so).  In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

Really? What do you think two American experts would play if they were playing together for the first time and had only a few minutes to prepare? I always thought it would be pretty close to BWS.

[awm]

If I sat down with an American expert to play 2/1 I would definitely want to play invitational jumps over 1M. Certainly this is one of the first conventions I suggest when coming up with a set of 2/1 based agreements. And I think at this point most experts are aware of this treatment, even if they don't all prefer it themselves.

[mike777]

Ty for post.

Playing lite openers this hand type is a "hole" in the style I play.
I have no decent way to show a one suited invite hand in a minor. As I mentioned before I have been a bit surprised on how seldom this is a problem at the table if not in theory.

I agree 2d playing 100% game force is out so I am stuck bidding 1nt. Now over partners rebid of 2H I can bid a weakish 3D or an undiscussed 4D or 5D here. Good hand to discuss with partners what they think a 4d or 5d rebid would mean here.

It is very interesting to me that so many good players simply play the direct 3D as an invite hand here. I assume they must not play Bergen or something else very much at the top levels anymore.

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Apr 12 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Bid_em_up, if you are not surprised about experts playing invitational jumps or similar, why are you surprised Josh does?????

Because I am just as surprised that the rest of you play it instead of one of the other methods. This was the first I had heard of it actually being used for an invitational hand, and since Ben was the first to suggest it, I just automatically inferred that it was one of his many "pet" treatments.

Obviously, my mistake.

[bid_em_up]

AlexOgan, on Apr 12 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so).  In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

Really? What do you think two American experts would play if they were playing together for the first time and had only a few minutes to prepare? I always thought it would be pretty close to BWS.

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that the majority of US players are experts? (well, maybe they are on BBO....but only there.)

Do you really believe that the MAJORITY of players are going to sit down and say "Bridge World Standard, partner"? Hell, they have a hard enough time counting to 13, remembering what trumps are, and following suit.

Experts may say "BWS partner?". In real life, the majority of players, not being experts (read as meaning "professional or part-time professional or wanna-be professional level players), will not. Is this really that hard to comprehend?

Since I don't read BW, nor do I know of anyone who has a subscription or copies to borrow, I am/was totally unaware that this is now the "popular" treatment. And I would expect that the majority of US (non-professional) players are in the same situation as myself.

Edit: Notice nowhere have I said that I thought this was a bad treatment, or that it doesn't have merit. I can see how it does. It just caught me off guard that this has become the "expert" standard.

[mike777]

The system hole lives on

1s=1nt
2h=3d......4d here would have been a splinter,,....5d too unilateral.

[jdonn]

The MAJORITY of US players, since I assume this includes all those kitchen bridge and lousy rubber bridge players who comprise the true majority, probably would play it as a strong jump shift.

[AlexOgan]

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

AlexOgan, on Apr 12 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so).  In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

Really? What do you think two American experts would play if they were playing together for the first time and had only a few minutes to prepare? I always thought it would be pretty close to BWS.

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that the majority of US players are experts? (well, maybe they are on BBO....but only there.)

Do you really believe that the MAJORITY of players are going to sit down and say "Bridge World Standard, partner"? Hell, they have a hard enough time counting to 13, remembering what trumps are, and following suit.

Experts may say "BWS partner?". In real life, the majority of players, not being experts (read as meaning "professional or part-time professional or wanna-be professional level players), will not. Is this really that hard to comprehend?

Since I don't read BW, nor do I know of anyone who has a subscription or copies to borrow, I am/was totally unaware that this is now the "popular" treatment. And I would expect that the majority of US (non-professional) players are in the same situation as myself.

Edit: Notice nowhere have I said that I thought this was a bad treatment, or that it doesn't have merit. I can see how it does. It just caught me off guard that this has become the "expert" standard.

Rereading carefully and in light of this response, I guess I misinterpreted your earlier post. I thought you were claiming that BWS wasn't particularly close to "expert standard". I guess you were really claiming that "expert standard" isn't relevant to "real life".

I'm still curious about whether BWS is, in fact, basically what a pickup expert pair would play.

Edit to add: BWS notes are available free online at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...d&f=bwsall.html.

[Fluffy]

I don't like 1NT response because partner could bid 4♠....

I play 3♦ as weaker, but I might bid that anyway.

[skjaeran]

I'd bid 2♦, then 3♦ - inv. I play a 2/1 variation where 2/1 followed by rebid is inv and 1M-1NT is non-forcing.
Over here most advanced and expert players use minisplinters.
2/1 is not the norm, but gains popularity.
In my regular partnership I play a combination of minisplinters and Bergen raises.

[inquiry]

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 12 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Bid_em_up, if you are not surprised about experts playing invitational jumps or similar, why are you surprised Josh does?????

Because I am just as surprised that the rest of you play it instead of one of the other methods. This was the first I had heard of it actually being used for an invitational hand, and since Ben was the first to suggest it, I just automatically inferred that it was one of his many "pet" treatments.

Obviously, my mistake.

Well,,, unlike most people here, I post my full methods on the internet. Here is the link showing that I in fact ALWAYS play invitational jump shifts here...

Semi-forcing 1NT, direct raises, and invitational jump shifts

And while I will be the first to admit I play esoteric things, I would never consider a natural invitational jumpshift as esoteric. In fact, bergen is so bad, I always try to get people who play that abomination to play something else, preferably invitational jumpshifts.

Ben

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

The MAJORITY of US players, since I assume this includes all those kitchen bridge and lousy rubber bridge players who comprise the true majority, probably would play it as a strong jump shift.

That may well be true.

Really, I wasn't attempting to insult you or offend you, and I apologize if it did.

The fact that you play it this way just caught me off guard and surprised me. I was unaware that this had become the "norm" for US experts.

Unfortunately, the written medium doesn't always portray the intent of a statement and after rereading it, I can see how my original post might have been taken in a different manner than the one that I intended it to be.

[jdonn]

No problem we are cool, yo.

[whereagles]

I'd just bid 2♦ and see what happens. I can always bid 5♦ later.

[mike777]

inquiry, on Apr 12 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 12 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 12 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Bid_em_up, if you are not surprised about experts playing invitational jumps or similar, why are you surprised Josh does?????

Because I am just as surprised that the rest of you play it instead of one of the other methods. This was the first I had heard of it actually being used for an invitational hand, and since Ben was the first to suggest it, I just automatically inferred that it was one of his many "pet" treatments.

Obviously, my mistake.

Well,,, unlike most people here, I post my full methods on the internet. Here is the link showing that I in fact ALWAYS play invitational jump shifts here...

Semi-forcing 1NT, direct raises, and invitational jump shifts

And while I will be the first to admit I play esoteric things, I would never consider a natural invitational jumpshift as esoteric. In fact, bergen is so bad, I always try to get people who play that abomination to play something else, preferably invitational jumpshifts.

Ben

Granted I have stated long minor invite hands are a "hole" for me, a few questions.

1) Why do you feel Bergen is "so bad". Granted some 9 card spade fit hands you may just bid 2s with.
2) What do you assume one major=3minor in your p/u with little discussion partnerships is? Do you just try and avoid the bid?

btw I certainly agree in many 2/1 books playing one major=3 minor as natural and invite is a common option of playing this bid.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Apr 12 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

1) Why do you feel Bergen is "so bad". Granted some 9 card spade fit hands you may just bid 2s with.

Here are my feelings:
- Often when you just raise to 2 the opponents won't balance and you get to play it there a level lower.
- You lose room for specific game tries as opposed to 1♠ - 2♠.
- You create the "hole" you describe by taking bids that could be used for a natural purpose.
- You give the opponents artificial bids to double.
- I think the gains are minimal, since if you raise 1 to 2 and the opponents balance and you bid 3 anyway, that is almost always where it ends so no big deal.

The reason I think they are so popular is they are easy to play, effective against weaker players who deal badly with preemption, and frankly pretty fun since you get to jump around more.