[jmcw]

kenrexford, on 2011-October-15, 20:10, said:

OK, try this:

1NT (I'm more or less balanced)
3NT (me too)

Down 3 and we're cold for 5♦.

Push
Next board

[aguahombre]

jmcw, on 2011-October-15, 20:20, said:

Push
Next board

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

[Zelandakh]

I play another option that noone has mentioned yet, 1D - 3M as a fit jump with 4+ diamonds, a good 5+ in the major and GF strength. Of the other possibilities I think preemptive is better than a simple splinter but Frances' void splinter appeals alot more. Whatever you choose it needs to be some kind of highly defined picture bid imho.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-16, 02:49, said:

I play another option that noone has mentioned yet, 1D - 3M as a fit jump with 4+ diamonds, a good 5+ in the major and GF strength. Of the other possibilities I think preemptive is better than a simple splinter but Frances' void splinter appeals alot more. Whatever you choose it needs to be some kind of highly defined picture bid imho.

I play 2♠ as this (or the one suited rock crusher).

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-15, 20:40, said:

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

Actually, there is another idea out there. That is, the ENTIRE game need not be about stoppers.

The hyperbolic point that was made earlier, not intending to be hyperbolic, was that all calls after a minor is raised are notrump probes or cues. That seems like a joke, but it turned out to be intentional.

By the same token, pointing out that not even worrying about stoppers at all is playable was meant to illustrate the opposing point of view, namely that perhaps the overkill is there when your sole focus is on stoppers. Shape also is important, as unbalanced hands produce more slams generally and may offers better conditions for Moysian fits.

All in all, though, zooming 3NT contracts certainly have something to be said for them in these sequences, where neither opponent has felt the need or ability to introduce any suits. The simple raise is very parallel to:

1♦-P-1NT-P-3NT
1♦-P-2NT-P-3NT
1♦-P-1NT-P-2NT-P-3NT

In all of these three situations, I doubt many if any would treat new suit calls in the midst of all this as checkbacks for stoppers. Even if you did, I doubt many if any would be able to describe the last time that came up reliably.

So, why all of the probing nonsense after minor raises?

[Free]

I've heard many claiming they never never never have a 4 card Major, but I've seen some of them do it anyway on extreme hands. A nice example was xxxx-A-A-AKQxxxx and his partner opened 1♣... I was kibitzing at the table, so I didn't have to make a choice, but I think it has merit to raise instead of bidding 1♠, especially if partner likes to raise on a 3 card suit.

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-15, 20:40, said:

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

Some people agree with you that it's cheating to get to 3NT without a stop. Look at page 15 from this bulletin from Poznan: Bullein
Our opponents "correctly" found out that they had no diamond stop and played in a zero percent 5♣ contract.
We found out we were balanced opposite balanced (2♦, 2♥ and 3♣ were all alerted and artificial) and played in 3NT which was at least a 60% contract in spite of having no diamond stop, and gained 11 imps for our pains.

[han]

Indeed a well deserved pickup Frances! Strange pass by your counterpart on the next hand by the way, where you made the (to me) normal looking 2C overcall.

After 1C - p - 2C, your partner's 2D bid showed a 12-14 balanced hand, correct? What was 2H?

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-15, 20:40, said:

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

Knowing when to do one or the other is called judgement

[nige1]

The efficient, up-to-date approach is some variation of Minor-Suit Swiss (One of Eric Crowhurst's many brilliant suggestions in Precision Bidding in Acol 1974): A jump to three of a major is a kind of fit-jump. It shows game-going values with four cards in the bid major and support for opener's minor.

• In natural systems (like Acol), four-card support for the minor suffices.
• In artificial systems (like 2/1) where a minor opener could be Canapé with as few as three cards, it might be better to insist on five cards in opener's minor
• If you allow an inverted minor-raise to include a four-card major then you can insist that the jump shows at least five of the bid major (as weil as support for opener's minor). That is the treatment I prefer..

[aguahombre]

pooltuna, on 2011-October-17, 08:36, said:

Knowing when to do one or the other is called judgement

This refers to my rant about the "stoppers are for wimps" type posts. Certainly knowing when to use tools is a matter of judgement. But it sounds from the posts like the answer is pretty much "never", so their follow-ups on inverted raises don't deal with stoppers at all.

Not having the judgement to place cards very well, I prefer a method which allows us to get to 2NT, 3NT, 3m, 4m, 5m, or higher with back-and-forth information sharing. Sometimes that helps the defense; sometimes it helps them realize that any defense is futile.

Re: Francis' link...the example on page 15 was not a situation where inverted minor tools were available and one side judged well. However, for the blasters in the opening NT scenario, see page 4 of the same bulletin.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-17, 10:38, said:

This refers to my rant about the "stoppers are for wimps" type posts. Certainly knowing when to use tools is a matter of judgement. But it sounds from the posts like the answer is pretty much "never", so their follow-ups on inverted raises don't deal with stoppers at all.

Not having the judgement to place cards very well, I prefer a method which allows us to get to 2NT, 3NT, 3m, 4m, 5m, or higher with back-and-forth information sharing. Sometimes that helps the defense; sometimes it helps them realize that any defense is futile.

Re: Francis' link...the example on page 15 was not a situation where inverted minor tools were available and one side judged well. However, for the blasters in the opening NT scenario, see page 4 of the same bulletin.

You mean the one where someone had KJ742 x 10763 AQ2 opposite a strong notrump, and chose to bid 1NT-2♥;2♠-3NT?

5143 is a good shape for playing in a suit contract and a bad one for notrumps. It provides three possible trump suits, one of which allows us to play game at the four-level. Furthermore, concealing your shape will rarely stop them leading your singleton against 3NT. With that shape, therefore, it is sensible to investigate strains.

With two balanced hands where your best possible major-suit fit is 4-3, it's much more likely that 3NT is the right spot, much less likely that you have a sensible alternative contract, and rather more likely that on an uninformative auction they'll lead the wrong suit.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-October-17, 10:59, said:

You mean the one where someone had KJ742 x 10763 AQ2 opposite a strong notrump, and chose to bid 1NT-2♥;2♠-3NT?

Yeh, that's the one. I could imagine his partner saying "I'm surprised you even revealed your spade suit."

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-17, 10:38, said:

This refers to my rant about the "stoppers are for wimps" type posts. Certainly knowing when to use tools is a matter of judgement. But it sounds from the posts like the answer is pretty much "never", so their follow-ups on inverted raises don't deal with stoppers at all.

Not having the judgement to place cards very well, I prefer a method which allows us to get to 2NT, 3NT, 3m, 4m, 5m, or higher with back-and-forth information sharing. Sometimes that helps the defense; sometimes it helps them realize that any defense is futile.

Re: Francis' link...the example on page 15 was not a situation where inverted minor tools were available and one side judged well. However, for the blasters in the opening NT scenario, see page 4 of the same bulletin.

Sorry, it's mainly on p16 - the hand is introduced at the very end of p15.

ps FrancEs, as in my user name.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-17, 10:38, said:

This refers to my rant about the "stoppers are for wimps" type posts. Certainly knowing when to use tools is a matter of judgement. But it sounds from the posts like the answer is pretty much "never", so their follow-ups on inverted raises don't deal with stoppers at all.

Not having the judgement to place cards very well, I prefer a method which allows us to get to 2NT, 3NT, 3m, 4m, 5m, or higher with back-and-forth information sharing. Sometimes that helps the defense; sometimes it helps them realize that any defense is futile.

Re: Francis' link...the example on page 15 was not a situation where inverted minor tools were available and one side judged well. However, for the blasters in the opening NT scenario, see page 4 of the same bulletin.

Different people have and had different perspectives, but for my part I would note that there is a slight difference between "pretty much never" on the one hand and "all calls are probes" on the other hand.

My personal perspective comes from a structure that includes a lot of shortness calls and/or two-suiter calls early, but delay/relays with balanced hands, as someone else described. Certainly, a simpler version might be something like:

1♦-P-2♦-P-2NT = thinking 3NT, start probing if you want
1♦-P-2♦-P-jump = shortness
1♦-P-2♦-P-new = natural unbalanced
1♦-P-2♦-P-3NT = zooming

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2011-October-17, 09:10, said:

The efficient, up-to-date approach is some variation of Minor-Suit Swiss (One of Eric Crowhurst's many brilliant suggestions in Precision Bidding in Acol 1974): A jump to three of a major is a kind of fit-jump. It shows game-going values with four cards in the bid major and support for opener's minor.

Is something written in a 1974 book up-to-date? What year are we in now, Nigel? 1975?

[FrancesHinden]

han, on 2011-October-17, 02:53, said:

Indeed a well deserved pickup Frances! Strange pass by your counterpart on the next hand by the way, where you made the (to me) normal looking 2C overcall.

After 1C - p - 2C, your partner's 2D bid showed a 12-14 balanced hand, correct? What was 2H?

2♦ = 12-14 balanced or unbalanced clubs+diamonds
2♥ = game forcing, neutral, either denies a singleton or is going to take control in some way
3♣ = weak NT, 5 clubs, not a horrible minimum

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-October-17, 14:34, said:

Is something written in a 1974 book up-to-date? What year are we in now, Nigel? 1975?

I guess that is why he said "some variation of"...allowing for subtle improvements over the period of 37 years.

Some treatments introduced longer ago than that are quite workable intact or with slight modifications. Newer is often better, but not always ---especially if our overall style is relatively old.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-October-17, 14:34, said:

Is something written in a 1974 book up-to-date? What year are we in now, Nigel? 1975?

Would you regard the Multi-Landy defence to 1NT as up-to-date? That first appeared in Crowhurst's Acol in Competition, published in 1980.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-October-17, 09:10, said:

The efficient, up-to-date approach is some variation of Minor-Suit Swiss (One of Eric Crowhurst's many brilliant suggestions in Precision Bidding in Acol 1974): A jump to three of a major is a kind of fit-jump. It shows game-going values with four cards in the bid major and support for opener's minor.

• In natural systems (like Acol), four-card support for the minor suffices.
• In artificial systems (like 2/1) where a minor opener could be Canapé with as few as three cards, it might be better to insist on five cards in opener's minor
• If you allow an inverted minor-raise to include a four-card major then you can insist that the jump shows at least five of the bid major (as weil as support for opener's minor). That is the treatment I prefer..

jallerton, on 2011-October-17, 14:34, said:

Is something written in a 1974 book up-to-date? What year are we in now, Nigel? 1975?

aguahombre, on 2011-October-17, 14:46, said:

I guess that is why he said "some variation of"...allowing for subtle improvements over the period of 37 years. Some treatments introduced longer ago than that are quite workable intact or with slight modifications. Newer is often better, but not always --- especially if our overall style is relatively old.

Pains-taking statistical analysis (e.g. Verne's "Law of Total Tricks" 1969) and tools like suit-play, simulation dealers and double-dummy solvers are introducing some science into the game, at last.

Naturally, however, there are few radically new ideas and many old ideas cycle into and out of fashion. Examples:

• Double of one notrump opener. Years ago, this was take-out (Philips "200 Hands from Match Play" 1934). Later most experts played it as penalty. Now, take-out doubles are again à la mode.
• Strong-club systems like Vanderbilt and Schenken date from the dawn of Bridge. We played Nottingham Club with asking bids long before the Italians souped up Wei's "Precision". In the USA, strong club systems now seem to be regaining popularity.
• Crowhurst's conventions (c 1974)) are returning to fashion. Crowhurst's way of defending against two-suited overcalls like unusual-notrump is now deservedly coming back into style (the more expensive cue-bid shows support for opener's suit) .Some of Crowhurst's eponymous conventions are born again and rechristened (e.g. Check-back and Multi-Landy or Modified Cappelletti).. Many experts now adopt some form of his Five-card Stayman
• There are dozens of other well-known examples, e.g What we know as Stayman was invented by Marx (1939) and re-invented by Rapee (1945).