BBO Discussion Forums: Bid even better than you did before (1N responses) - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Bid even better than you did before (1N responses)

#21 User is offline   Flame 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,085
  • Joined: 2004-March-26
  • Location:Israel

Posted 2004-October-06, 14:24

whereagles, on Oct 6 2004, 06:52 AM, said:

One day I'll have time to read all of that :), but right now I'll settle for a coment or two:

1. Bids to show invitational 55 in the majors are of little use. The playing strenght of such a hand opposite a 1NT opener is usually high enough to take a shot at game whenever one has mild values. Better use your two sequences for showing inv 55 to show a 56 or 65. This is useful to avoid playing the wrong major when opener has 2-2 in the majors (unless you prefer to just forget the 5-card suit, but then you can't open 1NT on 4441s or 5431s - singleton AKQ, of course).

2. Don't you prefer 1NT-2NT-3C-3M as natural, 54 strong? (Same for diams.)

More comments as I have time to read the rest of the theory :)

I also think you are wrong, 5-5 major hands have lots of potential,and this potential is hard to mesure before knowing about the 5-5.
And about the 5/4 minor major, i play a very simple 4 suit transfer' but even with this simple system 1nt-2nt-3d-3M is a short suit not 5-4. 5-4 are bid using stayman.
0

#22 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,649
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2007-December-18, 17:36

luke warm, on Oct 5 2004, 06:14 PM, said:

i'm 53 years old tho, and my brain cells are dying at an alarming rate... it exhausts me just thinking about a new method

My brain cells too, and we aren't the only ones:

http://www.nytimes.c...ience/18law.htm

Quote

Laws of Nature, Source Unknown

...

When I was young and still had all my brain cells I was a bridge fan, and one hand I once read about in the newspaper bridge column has stuck with me as a good metaphor for the plight of the scientist, or of the citizen cosmologist. The winning bidder had overbid his hand. When the dummy cards were laid, he realized that his only chance of making his contract was if his opponents’ cards were distributed just so.

He could have played defensively, to minimize his losses. Instead he played as if the cards were where they had to be. And he won.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#23 User is offline   benlessard 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 2006-January-07
  • Location:Montreal Canada
  • Interests:All games. i really mean all of them.

Posted 2007-December-19, 01:45

Ive basically been on the same path as you were.

My reasoning was that
"Playing 1Nt---2H & 1Nt ---2S to play seems like a big waste of useful space and i don't think i can afford non-forcing bids at the 2 level"

"the frequency for 2D/2H for 5+ cards in a specific suits is too low therefore probably a non-optimal design"

"4 card transfer (Scanian) are nice but since partner is forced to accept them we dont gain any sequence"

"I want to invite and stay low, i hate playing 3M down 1 and i hate inviting with a 5M and endup in 2Nt"

"So ill use 2C to show H and 2D to show spades so that we can make a type of 2 under transfer with superaccept in between."


Unfortunatly ive discarded the whole approach because

1- a delayed S/H sign off allow too much lead directing & strenght showing X + it allow cheaper overcall that just there the loss was too heavy. Having to go through

2D--2H---2S & 2C---2D---2H to signoff was a disaster of great proportion.

2- playing at the 3 level protected by a 9 cards fit just didnt work as well as i though it would work. Some balanced hands not quite strong enough to X 1Nt came to life with a tiger double at the 3 level holding KQT9 of trumps and AK on the side.


To feel that if partner super accept our signoff we are safe at the 3level is a reasonnable assumption playing strong NT but playing weak Nt its more dangerous then we think.

3- Having 2 or 3 way bid are vulnerable to preemption and over a weak Nt there is a lot more action then over a strong Nt.


My conclusion is
By having delayed signoff in 2M you allow yourself more forcing sequence but it come with a high price tag especially when playing weak Nt. Its hard to accept having 2 non-forcing bids in 2H & 2S but the need for them is high.

The imps you catch back with slammish hands in wich you can relay might compensate if all the slams were tough slam to bid. But unfortunatly slams are a bit rare when playing weak nt & so many of them are push boards anyway. Good "system hands" are usually slam in the 55-70% zone that they wont reach at the other table. But they dont bring enough profits compared to reaching better games (5m instead of 3Nt) or 3Nt without allowing lead directing etc..

Complex relay bidding for slam in a weak nt structure doesnt bring that many IMPs in my experience. But we are really in a experimental zone so only practice will be the final judge.
From Psych "I mean, Gus and I never see eye-to-eye on work stuff.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users