[Codo]

1eyedjack, on Sep 19 2007, 06:39 AM, said:

I am sure that all the beginners who read this thread must be so relieved to have such a diligent self-appointed guardian overseeing their interests.
As regards what is "off-shape", that is an arbitrary cut-off that is open to any partnership to define. An off-shape 1N is one that is outside the parameters of partner's expectations. But partner's expectations may be subject to prior agreement, and it is a prejudicial term that implies unacceptability in an objective sense.

Players learn the game by a variety of ways, and not all players find the same approach to learning is best for them. When I was learning I found it useful to try out different methods on the fringe of acceptability, seeing how often they worked and why they failed when they did. So I am not particularly in favour of a dogmatic protectionist approach.

I cannot read the joke in your words, but maybe it is my missing english understanding that makes me fail to understand it.
Anyway, I play with beginners and I taught them. Most I know love to have simple rules. They are always very delighted when a hand fits into their known bidding theory. Freaks are horrible, nobody knows what to do with them.
The game is so difficult that the really do not need to know when it is right to use offshape bids. They have enough to do with the bids that fit into the system.

To learn when it is necessary to break or bend the system bid is not needed at the beginning.

And young intermed. players will try to use many offshape bids on their own, I doubt that they need your encouragement.

Quote

It is apparent to me that you did not read my post particularly carefully.  You make out that I advocated opening 1C on 4-2-3-4 when in fact I advocated the opposite (notwithstanding Mikeh's subsequent anecdote).  You repeated a point that I already acknowledged in my original post (that there are differences between a weak and a strong 1N opener).

Maybe you are not used to it, or maybe it was to difficult to read in a post that look so attacking, but I tried to agree with you that an example about a weak NT does not fits well into a discussion about a strong NT hand.

And this "Open 1 Diamond with 4243 stuff": AS others (and me) wrote, this is possible after you thought about honour location, rebid problems and how valuable a hand is. And if you use the french systerm, you quite early learn how to evaluate your hand not just after HCPS, but this is still too much for beginners.
So again, we disagree that this is suitable for a B/I forum.

Quote

As regards educating beginners, there are two generalisations that I have observed (and of course there are individual exceptions):
Generalisation 1: Beginners dislike opening 1N (or playing in NT), tend to look for excuses not to open 1N, and absolutely would never open an "off-shape" 1N, having half an excuse not to do so.
Generalisation 2: Beginners view what you regard as off-shape as being either illegal or being much more deeply flawed on merit than practical results justify. Consequently they are unduly surprised and upset when they encounter it at the table, quite possibly perpetrated by an opponent rather than partner.
If my post does something to restore balance in this area then it would not be a bad result, in my opinion.

Actually I totally disagree with both statements:
1. Most beginners I know like to open 1 NT because this is a well defined bid and they are prepared for most of their rebids.
Some older beginners dislike 1 NT because that makes them declarer. And amazingly many beg. like to become dummy and relax. But this is another point.

2. If I bid an offshape 1 NT (or any other off shape bid) most beginner defenders will never realisze it, so there is no surprise. And if intermed. see your off shape bid and ask or complain, you are allways free to explain the upsides of your approach. They may or may not understand.

Quote

I begin to think that having a "B/I" section in these forums is a bad idea.  There are few ideas in the game that have merit which are too difficult at least for an intermediate player to appreciate.  There are some, but they tend to be blindingly obvious and would be overlooked by such players without wasting too much time.  Virtually every time I see criticism of a posting in this section the critic complains that it is inappropriate to an absolute beginner, wilfully disregarding that the forum is also aimed at any intermediate player below "advanced" status.

The B/I forum is a bad idea because 99 % of the posters are the same as in the A/E forum. But of course there are differences between B/I themes and A/E. And of course it is not easy to draw a borderline between A und I.

P.S. I completely agree with my famous northern neighbour that most intermed. learn much too much conventions and not enough basics. But I do understand them, we had been all there before.

[hrothgar]

1. I am quite fond of off shape 1NT openings
2. I (probably) wouldn't open 1NT on this hand

For me, the problem is not the shape, but rather the strength and the nature of the hand.

The hand is all aces and kings and screams suit play
The hand is strong enough that I don't have any real rebid problem

Off shape NTs are fine and dandy, but they certainly aren't mandatory. There's not need to do so on this hand.

[Gerben42]

Misunderstandings about Dbl happen to experienced players too, let me illustrate:

Yesterday we had this auction:

I open 1NT with 4♠ 2♥ 4♦ 3♣.
Two passes.

RHO balances with 2♣, natural.

I pass again.

LHO bids 2♥, also natural.

Partner doubles, RHO passes.

Obviously if Dbl is penalty you pass, if Dbl is takeout you bid 2♠. So what is it? Let's recap the auction:

1NT Pass Pass 2♣
Pass 2♥ Dbl Pass

Me: penalty
Partner: takeout

(no guesses what the result was)

A friend I asked: takeout
A world-class player I asked: penalty

Both of them had good arguments.

I think your conclusion "make a bid partner understands" is a very good one, many IMPs are lost by not following that rule!

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Sep 18 2007, 11:39 PM, said:

As regards educating beginners, there are two generalisations that I have observed (and of course there are individual exceptions):
Generalisation 1: Beginners dislike opening 1N (or playing in NT), tend to look for excuses not to open 1N, and absolutely would never open an "off-shape" 1N, having half an excuse not to do so.
Generalisation 2: Beginners view what you regard as off-shape as being either illegal or being much more deeply flawed on merit than practical results justify. Consequently they are unduly surprised and upset when they encounter it at the table, quite possibly perpetrated by an opponent rather than partner.
If my post does something to restore balance in this area then it would not be a bad result, in my opinion.

I agree with this. Whether beginners should be taught that a 5422-shape is always, never or sometimes a 1NT-opening, I have no strong opinion about, but most (all?) beginner's books say it's never a 1NT opening, so it's probably a good idea to accept that premise unless the thread is specifically about criteria for 1NT openings. But well, you already acknowledge that you didn't target your post specifically at beginners.

As for the meaning of the dbl: I think beginner's should learn that this double is t/o unless specifically agreed as penalty, but I suppose most bridge teachers disagree with me on this.

[Fluffy]

I play support doubles showing good hand 3 cards, or very weak with 4 cards, so I would have to overbid to 3♠.

[MickyB]

1NT auctions are clearly simpler and more comfortable for beginners, so I'm surprised that it isn't normal to encourage them to open 1NT more often.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Sep 19 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

I agree with this. Whether beginners should be taught that a 5422-shape is always, never or sometimes a 1NT-opening, I have no strong opinion about, but most (all?) beginner's books say it's never a 1NT opening

I can't say I like those books...

Q5
AQT7
KJ754
KJ

You're setting yourself up for a world of hurt if you open this 1♦.

I don't have a problem with people who don't open 1NT with 5422 if it doesn't have a rebid problem (such as the original case), but I suspect 5422's have rebid problems more often than not.

Maybe most experts X on the original sequence, I dunno. But to me, even though I don't play support doubles, that should still strongly imply 3 hearts (4-3-1-5 or 4-3-2-4 distribution).

[Wackojack]

helene_t, on Sep 19 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

As for the meaning of the dbl: I think beginner's should learn that this double is t/o unless specifically agreed as penalty, but I suppose most bridge teachers disagree with me on this.

I have just tried to make a stab at formulating a rule in this situation and it seem very complex for beginners and even intermediates. Here is a try which no doubt is still unsatisfactory:

After you open 1 of a suit and partner make a natural response in another suit and RHO intervenes with a 3rd suit, then a double by you is for take out. This means that it would normally show 4 cards in the unbid suit. This applies to interventions up to the level of ??? There are implications for partner if you have a hand that has to pass this intervention. Partner needs to be mindful that you are unlikely to hold 4 cards in the unbid suit and may have a hand that would otherwise have doubled the intevention for penalties. Thus a double here is also for take out. (Which of course opener could leave in for penalties with a suitable hand)

I wouldn't like to to explain this to any beginner and also most intermediate players. (At least not until they have mastered completely the normal sputnik double and the normal re-opening double) Is there a simpler way of explaining? Indeed have I got the finer points of the compexity in these siuation?

[helene_t]

Wackojack, on Sep 19 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

I wouldn't like to to explain this to any beginner and also most intermediate players.  (At least not until they have mastered completely the normal sputnik double and the normal re-opening double)  Is there a simpler way of explaining?

Something like
"A double of a natural bid in a suit generally shows a hand with constructive values and no clear direction. It will typically be based on some length in the unbid suit(s), tollerance (but not primary support) for partner's suit, and if doublers own suit was already known to be at least a 4-card while rebiding if would show 6, a double will often be based on a 5-card. IOW a little bit of everything. Since a double is the most flexible call available, it is generally the default call when the hand is too strong and/or too offense-oriented to risk passing, while no other call appeals.

Responding to a double: Assume doubler has a singleton in the enemy suit and therefore, in general, only leave in the double if you have, incluing partners single trump, at least many trumps as you need tricks to defeat the contract. I.e. to pass a 1-level double you need six trumps, at the 2-level 5 trumps etc. This means that you will have to bid something even with zero points and even with less than ideal length for the bid. Do not bid notrump in dispare: notrump bids in response to a double are generally constructive. If you have a good hand (in context), consider that you would have made a non-jump bid in a suit with no (extra) values, so to show your good hand you typically have to jump or make a cuebid.

If you would like to penalize opps, pass and hope partner will reopen. If you have game-forcing values and haven't showed that yet, however, it may be safer to bid 3NT right away instead of passing, since passing could lead to defening undoubled if partner cannot reopen.

There are some situations in which common sense or common convention dictates that a double of a natural bid in a suit is for penalties. The most important one to know is that if LHO overcalls your preempt, partner's double is for penalties."

[ralph23]

1eyedjack, on Sep 18 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

Generalisation 1: Beginners dislike opening 1N (or playing in NT), tend to look for excuses not to open 1N, and absolutely would never open an "off-shape" 1N, having half an excuse not to do so.

From Mike Lawrence's Judgment At Bridge (on the "omnipresent 1♣" or whatever he called this affliction):

A lady in his class held a 16 count, balanced, with 2 small clubs. She opened (of course ) 1♣.

After the lesson hand, Lawrence asked her, "Why didn't you open 1NT?"

Her response: "Well, I couldn't stop clubs."

Lawrence's comment in the book after this example: "I am not making this up."