[JLOGIC]

robkat, on 2011-April-19, 20:49, said:

In my experience, when someone resorts to rude sarcasm he is unsure of himself for some reason.

True dat, +1

[JLOGIC]

655321, on 2011-April-19, 21:58, said:

According to http://www.wordcounttool.com/ his last three posts used 2230 words (excluding quotes!) to do just that.

ya sry

[Zelandakh]

Rob, you may not be aware of this but, of the regular BBO posters, Justin is possibly the highest-rated player that is not a yellow. Therefore his opinion and thoughts are valued here greatly.

I think the line here is simple: if you are bidding 3NT because it is the least lie for your hand then it is normal bridge; if you are bidding 3NT because your philosophy is that all hands without a 4 card major should do so then that goes a step beyond this and should ideally be alerted, at least in company that would not expect this. I agree with you that full disclosure in f2f bridge can be difficult and even occasionally self-defeating. I think on bbo a short note would be in order except against opps who know you quite well (it does not waste time and cannot hurt). F2f it probably depends on where you are and who you are playing against.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh must play in a tough game, if he expects his elderly female opponents to bid 3♦ on a broken suit. The ones I play against would have KQJ10xxxx and a side ace.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-April-20, 02:50, said:

Zelandakh must play in a tough game, if he expects his elderly female opponents to bid 3♦ on a broken suit. The ones I play against would have KQJ10xxxx and a side ace.

If you wait for such a hand, you can employ the bid about every other leap year. Semisolid suits are not that common, in particular when somebody opened a strong notrump in front of you.
Often people, on opening lead, keep quiet, when they can defeat notrump contracts out of their own hand and most players can not show a minor one suiter at the 2 level over 1NT.
Much more likely is that overcaller has a long broken suit, not too easy to establish in notrump, and this is what let to the s t a n d a r d expert practice not to care about stoppers when responder bids 3NT.
I see no need to alert unless playing in a low level club game, where it might be polite to do so.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I have thought a bit more about this and wonder if differentiating between 4 and 5 card majors is really more important than finding a stop. If we treat good 5 card suits as 6-baggers and downgrade poor 5 card suits to 4 then we can have everything by using, for want of a better term, a reverse thrump double...

1NT - (3D)
==========
X = shows something in diamonds
3H = 4-5 hearts and no diamond stop
3S = 4-5 spades and no diamond stop
3N = no major and no diamond stop

Here you lose some the 5-3 major fit when there is also a stopper but do not play 3NT without some kind of stop. In other wordse you do not always find the ideal spot but the spot you find should always be playable. I would be interested in a simulation on how such a scheme matches up with 'standard' for different ranges of 1NT opening.

[Zelandakh]

I thought I would also add that over 3C you do not have to lose anything at all to be able to find both major fits and also be sure of some kind of stopper. Several schemes are possible, with one matching the above being:

1NT - (3C)
==========
X = something in clubs
...3D = 3 card major, no 4 carder
...3M = 4+ suit
...3N = no 3 card major (or use for whatever if you never open 22(54) or 22(63) with 1NT
3D = 4+ hearts and no club stopper (Opener's rebid will distinguish between 2 and 3 hearts)
3H = 4+ spades and no club stopper (Opener's rebid will distinguish between 2 and 3 hearts)
3S = 5 spades, 4 hearts and no club stopper (or could be diamonds if preferred)
3N = natural raise without club stopper

Do you still bid 3NT with the same philosophy over 3C, Justin? From a theory point of view it seems ok over 3D but bad over 3C. Surely there are at least a few experts that use the extra step (3C vs 3D) in a similar way? Or is the gain just too infrequent to be worth remembering some system here? I am interested how top players think about situations like this, how they weigh up the gain against the memory strain and what other factors come into play.

[JLOGIC]

Common amongst many american experts that I know over 3C is to play:

3D=inv+ with 5+ hearts
3H=inv+ with 5+ spades
3S=GF diamonds

This allows you to invite and stop at 3 rather than being forced to GF which is nice.

Alternatively, you could give up on inviting if you value being able to show a signoff/competitive hand at the 3 level, for instance if you were weak with 6 hearts and wanted to play 3H.

Double would still be takeout and bid with a 4 card major.

Likewise over 3D it is good imo to play 3H=inv+ spades, 3S=GF hearts

Again you will have a few auctions where you are not sure about stoppers (for instance, over 3D inv+ with hearts, you can bid 3S with a max and no fit and no stopper, but over 3H there is not enough room so you just have to bid 3N. Similarly, if you are min and sign off over the invite (with a min), and partner bids 3N you don't know about stoppers. Or X-3S-3N, responder could just have 4 hearts and no club stopper.).

I think your system is worrying far too much about stoppers. In reality, when we have enough values to GF we usually have a stopper, especially as LHO is very unlikely to bid with a solid suit (most people would pass 1N ime, and hope to defend 3N, which they would have!). This is especially true if we have no major suit fit, as we will have some length in their suit. If RHO does have an honor, the suit will often be blocked (or "pseudo blocked" if RHO has stiff K and LHO has AQJ or something, he won't lead the ace, regardless of whether you alert or not!).

So, based on our length and high cards, we are very likely to have a stopper. If we don't sometimes the suit is blocked. And even failing that, LHO has to lead his suit. Again, this is not deception by failure to alert, it is simply a function of giving them less information causing them to sometimes lead incorrectly (if they always lead their suit, we will be gaining on the many hands that we do have a stopper).

Fred recently wrote a post basically saying if they show 2 specific suits in an overcall, it is best to just bid 3N and play no stopper showing/asking bids, as it gives away too much info. Obviously a 1 suiter is different, but the general idea can still remain the same.

I think dedicating so many resources to the stopper is a mistake, and it's better to use the extra room over 3C to help you decide whether to bid game or not, to transfer to the strong NTer (better to have the bidder on lead), to leave more room for slam investigation, and to find your fits more effectively.

[Zelandakh]

To be honest this is similar to what I played semi-automatically coming from Rubensohl: X and 3red the same (t/o + xfer) but 3S = no major, no stop, and 4C = diamonds. The above proposal comes from the thought that there might be a better way. One option would be to play that 3M after 3red shows 2 and can be passed. Then you cannot stop in 3M when there is a 5-3 fit but alot of the time then game has a good shot anyway. Worth testing which information ends up being more critical I think. As for worrying about stops, I suspect that stems from my weak NT background (English Acol and strong club) where it is more important.

[han]

Nice posts JLOGIC!

(although I think you meant to write affect instead of effect)

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2011-April-26, 08:31, said:

Nice posts JLOGIC!

(although I think you meant to write affect instead of effect)

Indeed I did, standard for when I write a lot/too fast since it's a mistake spell checker wouldn't find!