[mishovnbg]

Hi Ben!

The way I explain 2NT is which I remeber by your explanations and really like it except 3♣ in case of precision opening. My way is different as you know (or suppose to know as one of furst tortured by NTC reader ).

My way is:
1♥-2NT, ?

3♣: min, deny slam interest, but can still accept game. 3♦ continue ask.
3♦: max, 6+♥
3♥: max, S/V ♠
3♠: max, S/V ♣
3NT: max, deny S/V
4♣: max, S/V ♦
4♦: max, 7♥=2=2=2


1♥-2NT, 3♣-3♦, ?

3♥: S/V ♠
3♠: S/V ♣
3NT: deny S/V
4♣: S/V ♦
4♦: 6♥, deny S/V
4HE: 7♥=2=2=2


Next relay after shown distribution is spiral scan asking (NAB).
Other bids except game are cue bids, 4NT is turbo convention

Usage of 2 methods(sometimes 3 include RKCB) of slam investigation allow to use appropriate one, depending of needs, which is most important imho

As you can see I am also willing to play what my p like friend

Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on May 24 2004, 10:34 AM, said:

3♣: 7+L
3♦: 6L
short suit ask/try 5-L
3NT: 6L, max hcp

Reverse Romex graded raises at work... George would be so proud.

The Zar thingee's was to illustrate the principle that you could if you like, roll both very weak and reasonable strong hands into 3♣ without loss in precision of bidding, and in fact, perhaps improve precision. These ranges are not to be etched into stone.

The problem is, if you leave 3♣ for only bad hands, that puts a potentially large range of hands onto the 3♦ bid. You solved this somewhat by lowering the requirements I use for the other bids (3NT is fine, but the 3M and new suit bids are lessened).

But there are six loser hands, and there are six loser hands. Let's examine two...

♠AKQxx
♥Qxx
♦Qxx
♣xx

This is a six loser hand, 13 hcp, 3 cp, and 11 dp = 28 Zar points. Not such a great hand imho. Compare that with....

♠AJTxxx
♦AKJx
♦xx
♣x

This is also six losers. Zar points, however, are 13 hcp (same as before), 5cp, 15 dp, and 1 point for concentrated honors. So by ZAR this one is worth, 34 ZAR points before partner raise, after the raise I get two more for the ♣ singleton and the sixth trump raising total to 36. On a loser count bases both would be bid 3♦. Oh sure, you might lie, and bid 4♣, treating this as five losers, but you see the point. The trick taking potential of these two hands are very much quite different. On the first, I probably would bid 3♣, on the second, I would be trying to force to slam.

So while loser count is fine, and certainly simple, there is something to be said for both partners trying to convey information limiting their hands in some reasonable manner. That is, I like the concept of narrowing the degree of fit so that opener and responder both can guess the ballpark of the other hand. Having said that, I stand ready to play either method, as I think both are far superior to normal jacoby.

Ben

[whereagles]

Hum.. sorry, but

AKQxx
Qxx
Qxx
xx

Is a 7-loser hand. Unsupported queens count as 2 1/2 losers, not just 2. Also, the hand is sub-controlled (too many queens, too few aces/kings), which makes it more like 7 1/2 losers..

[inquiry]

I pretty sure misho is referring to ROMEX cover card concept, rather than typical loser count. If you makes you feel better, add both red jacks.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Hi Ben!

As I already told you, while you are count Zar points and probably didn't notice I use Romex way of losers-cover cards conception, but with some corrections. I just afraid to distract you form about 100 posts for Zar,bum-bam,bip-map and so on points. Actually about general correction of counting losers I read 30 years ago written by Jeff Rubens: 2A more than Q = 1/2 losers less and v.v. I use also same correction for cover cards. Card combinations like TJ10 or AKJ are also 1/2 losers less, but counting by range of Q. For hands in example:

1. 61/2L, because 3Q and only 1 A. By the way if your partner ever bid, what you suppose he to have, next 3 queens may be?

2.
♠AJTxxx
♦AKJx
♦xx
♣x

This hand is more complicate. You have 6L but 2 card combinations for 1 loser less totall. They are count as Q, but you have 2A to cover them, so no more corrections. Final count = 5L. By the way same counting is very aggressive, because if you p have ♠KQ and ♥Q you are in trouble because of counting both by him and by you same values - one of forms of duplication, nicely described by Mike Lawrence.

As you can see I also use Romex method with reasonable corrections, because it is practical, most fast for count include my corrections at table, very aggressive like Zar and enough precise for counting hypothetical tricks. Percentage tricks you can count only when you see dummy. Real tricks can be count only when you finish board . It is simple vaste of time to use very accurate count of unknown objects, but anybody is free to use his own method of guessing

Misho

[keylime]

We don't even use 2NT as a GF raise - we use that as a natural, forcing bid promising a balanced hand. What we do instead is cheapest jump shift into a suit as GF with the following as responses:

1H-2S:

2NT - balanced, 5-3-3-2
3C - any minimum
3D - maximum hand with shortage
3H - maximum, balanced, five trumps
3S - unused
3NT - 6-3-2-2 or 7-2-2-2
4C/D - 4 card suit with A/K
4H - drop dead signoff

1S-3C:

3D - any minimum (including 5-3-3-2 hands)
3H - max hand with shortage
3S - max hand, balanced, five trumps
3NT - 6-3-2-2 or 7-2-2-2
4C/D/H - 4 card suit with A/K
4S - drop dead signoff

This has worked wonders - lot easier to cope with than Romex Raises due to the ease of use.

[the hog]

There is a lot of redundacy in these responses, Dawyne. I am sure you can optimise them to greater effect.

Just one example:
1H-2S:

2NT - balanced, 5-3-3-2
3H - maximum, balanced, five trumps

These 2 responses are similar and can easliy be multi plexed.

[keylime]

Yes there is, realize it's only 6 weeks old and is getting more refinements, but we liked Fred's concept so much, but didn't want to part with the Martel-Stansby notions....call it a prototype. It'll get better - it's KLP, it HAS to be better!

[robl]

This is a common 2NT-structure in Sweden:

3♣ minimum (no void)
3♦ max, no shortness
3♥ max, singleton/void ♣
3♠ max, singleton/void ♦
3NT max, singleton/void other major
4X void X with min or supermax

1M - 2NT; 3♣ - 3♦ slaminterest, asking for shortness
3M no shortness but and some interest
3OM singleton
3NT no shortness, interest of playing 3NT
4m singleton m
4M bad cards

1M - 2NT; 3♦ -
3M start cuebidding pd
3OM singleton in OM
3NT interest of playing 3NT
4m singleton m
4M bad cards