[david_c]

bid_em_up, on May 22 2006, 05:05 PM, said:

In the NT sequence, I will say again, the extra Jack/Queen that partner may or may not have is unlikely to materially affect the result on the board.

It's not that unlikely - let's say about 25% for a jack? That might not sound much to you, but given that we're talking about very close decisions here it could easily be enough to tip the odds one way or another.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 22 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

...and the last WC won using MOSCITO was?  ...and the number of players in the Top 100 in the world who use MOSCITO is?  ...and just how good is MOSCITO's record at slam bidding, especially minor suit slams?

I readily admit that we haven't seen any MOSCITO pairs win a World Championship. However, I don't necessarily consider this the "be all and end all" regarding the validity of these types of methods.

For example, MOSCITO might have a better track record in World Championship play if it weren't banned in North America and much of Europe.

A more valid question is to focus on MOSCITO's popularity in those parts of the world where people are actually allowed to play it. My impression is that the core methods

1. Light limited openings showing ~9-14 HCP
2. Majors first opening style
3. Frequent use of relays with strong hands
4. Transfer openings (1♦ = hearts, 1♥ = SPades, 1♠ = Diamonds)

is reasonably popular with strong pairs in the Antipodes. (I'm sure that Cascade or Mrdct could provide a more accurate estimation of the relative frequency of MOSCITO compared to Acol or 2/1 type methods)

In my estimation, the strongest pairs using MOSCITO type methods in internation competition are

Reid-Newell from New Zealand
Martson-Grosvenor from Australia

[jdonn]

foo, on May 22 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

Always using pass or blast or being forced to only use pass or blast is reducing the number of options you have on a specific board from 3 to 2.
That's a bad thing in the long run IMHO.

No, it just changes your options if the system designer is smart about it. I have a friend here who specifically doesn't use invitations after 1NT opening bids. He plays auctions like the following

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 2NT: Relay to 3♣ to signoff in a minor (Stayman on 2416 hand for example) or do other various strong things.

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♠: Fit for spades, choice of games (for example opener will bid 3NT with 4333.)

He has lost options that most people are used to, but gained other options in return.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 05:25 PM, said:

Quote

I'm also very curious who, in the opinion of a player of your obvious caliber, are the best technician(s) in Bridge at this time?

It would make for a fun thread. I'd clearly put Rosenberg first. I think Rodwell is something like 10th or so, but I also think Rosenberg is so far ahead of everyone else that even whoever is 2nd isn't close.

(sorry I've screwed up the quoting and lost the attributions)

Who is the best 'technician' ?
Best single dummy cardplay analyst?
Best declarer player?
Best or fastest double dummy analyst?
Best abstract bidding theorist?

I could suggest a few more, categories but the point is that they aren't all the same person (not even best cardplay analyst and best declarer player).

[foo]

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 11:25 AM, said:

foo, on May 22 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

I'm also very curious who, in the opinion of a player of your obvious caliber, are the best technician(s) in Bridge at this time?

It would make for a fun thread. I'd clearly put Rosenberg first. I think Rodwell is something like 10th or so, but I also think Rosenberg is so far ahead of everyone else that even whoever is 2nd isn't close.

Where textbook accurate Declarer play is concerned, I agree with you that Michael is probably #1 by a significant margin.

I'm not sure I would call either Eric or Geir outside the top 10 in this regard.

Also, testbook declarer play is not the only technical skill in Bridge. The overall #1 player in the world has not only this in sufficient quantity, but in addition all the other technical skills at a high enough level that when we "collapse the vector", that is "boil all the facets into one overall score", that person comes out ahead.

Nonetheless, the three I mentioned are all =very= good players; and I'm glad to see we were not that far apart in our opinion.

[foo]

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

foo, on May 22 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

Always using pass or blast or being forced to only use pass or blast is reducing the number of options you have on a specific board from 3 to 2.
That's a bad thing in the long run IMHO.

No, it just changes your options if the system designer is smart about it. I have a friend here who specifically doesn't use invitations after 1NT opening bids. He plays auctions like the following

1N-2♣;2♠-2N: Relay to 3♣ to signoff in a minor (Stayman on 2416 hand for example) or do other various strong things.

1N-2♣;2♠-3♠: Fit for spades, choice of games (for example opener will bid 3N with 4333.)

He has lost options that most people are used to, but gained other options in return.

Ah, but now we are considering a different discussion.

Now the conversation is not
"Should we systemically be able invite or should we systemically be forced to choose with invitational hands?",
now the conversation is
"Is this sequence better used for invitational hands or for some other hand type?"

That might be considered a subtle distinction in speech by some, but it is a large distinction in bridge terms.

I'll note in passing that the 1st sequence not only puts the 1N opening on the table as Dummy, it also reveals extraneous information about the (presumably) stronger of Our two hands. Both of these are usually considered less than optimal by most theorists.

The second means We have to pass or blast to 4M when holding an invitational hand with a 44 major suit fit for Opener. (Unless your friend has a different way of inviting in this situation). 4M in the 44 fit is one of the most important contracts in Bridge.
Being wrong about whether to be in it or not is highly likely to have a noticable effect on long term scores.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 22 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

Ah, but now we are considering a different discussion.

Now the conversation is not
"Should we systemically be able invite or should we systemically be forced to choose with invitational hands?",
now the conversation is
"Is this sequence better used for invitational hands or for some other hand type?"

That might be considered a subtle distinction in speech by some, but it is a large distinction in bridge terms.

I'll note in passing that the 1st sequence not only puts the 1N opening on the table as Dummy, it also reveals extraneous information about the (presumably) stronger of Our two hands. Both of these are usually considered less than optimal by most theorists.

The second means We have to pass or blast to 4M when holding an invitational hand with a 44 major suit fit for Opener. (Unless your friend has a different way of inviting in this situation). 4M in the 44 fit is one of the most important contracts in Bridge.
Being wrong about whether to be in it or not is highly likely to have a noticable effect on long term scores.

It's the same conversation. You will change the meaning of a bid only if another meaning seems more useful to you. I won't get into defending the methods, they aren't mine and I might not even have stated them correctly anyway. It just seemed to me you were saying 'if you systematically can't invite, you lose something' and I was responding 'yes, but you can gain other things instead.'

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 22 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

>1N-2♣;2♠-2N: Relay to 3♣ to signoff in a minor (Stayman on
>2416 hand for example) or do other various strong things.

I'll note in passing that the 1st sequence not only puts the 1N opening on the table as Dummy, it also reveals extraneous information about the (presumably) stronger of Our two hands. Both of these are usually considered less than optimal by most theorists.

You might not like the methods, but there are some damn good players who do...

This type of second round transfer is integral to some very good NT response structures. For example, the Scanian NT system treats most 2NT and 3♣ rebids by responder as puppets to the next higher suit.

The system in question was designed by Lindkvist, Nilsland, and Wigren (none of who are considered slouchs at system design).

[foo]

Richard, I am not saying I like or dislike the sequence or the method in question.

I'm pointing out that it has many of the same flaws as other sequences that people have "picked on": it is a revealing sequence that tells the defense a great deal about our hands and in particular the NT hand. In addition, it makes the NT hand dummy.

Given the amount of heat in some of the comments about the necessity for fast unrevealing auctions, etc... ...to be in favor of this sequence while at the same time being a forceful advocate of "pass or blast" is to some degree contradictory.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 22 2006, 09:36 PM, said:

Richard, I am not saying I like or dislike the sequence or the method in question.

I'm pointing out that it has many of the same flaws as other sequences that people have "picked on": it is a revealing sequence that tells the defense a great deal about our hands and in particular the NT hand. In addition, it makes the NT hand dummy.

Given the amount of heat in some of the comments about the necessity for fast unrevealing auctions, etc... ...to be in favor of this sequence while at the same time being a forceful advocate of "pass or blast" is to some degree contradictory.

As I noted earlier in the thread, I advocate a "pass or blast" approach over a NT opening because I don't believe that quantitative information is nearly as accurate as information about shape and stoppers and how well the two hands fit together.

In this case, you are generalizing sequences designed to explore for a reasonable part score to complete inappropriate auctions. I think that its entirely reasonable to favor one approach for explore for the best part score with a 6-4 hand while following another approach when bidding game.

[fred]

cardsharp, on May 16 2006, 03:52 PM, said:

ArcLight, on May 16 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

How damaging (helpful to the defense) is it to have to invite (1NT - 2NT - p/3NT) with the sequence:
1NT - 2C
2X - 2NT
since declarer reveals a key feature about his hand?

Fred has stated that he & Brad no longer use this as an invitational sequence unless they have a 4-card major too. Without one they either pass 1NT or blast game with a traditional invitational hand, due to the information passed.

Paul

We have actually made a change so that:

1NT-2NT=natural invitation
1NT-2S=6+ clubs any strength or 6+ diamond invitation
1NT-3C=6+ diamonds any strength except invitational

No strong feelings that this is better than what we used to do (no direct invitation, 2S=club any strength, 2NT=diamonds any strength, 3C=weak with both minors).

But you are right that I feel pretty strongly that, if you have to go through Stayman to invite in notrump with no 4-card major, that you should never use that sequence (just guess between passing 1NT and bidding 3NT).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Sigi_BC84]

fred, on May 22 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

1NT-2NT=natural invitation
1NT-2S=6+ clubs any strength or 6+ diamond invitation
1NT-3C=6+ diamonds any strength except invitational

No strong feelings that this is better than what we used to do (no direct invitation, 2S=club any strength, 2NT=diamonds any strength, 3C=weak with both minors).

What are you doing if you are strong with both minors (ie. 5-5 with slam interest)? What were you doing playing your old treatment?

Do you treat the better minor as a 6-card suit and ignore the other or is there any other treatment in your system?

I'm asking because we are playing something very similar to your methods.

--Sigi

[fred]

Sigi_BC84, on May 22 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

fred, on May 22 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

1NT-2NT=natural invitation
1NT-2S=6+ clubs any strength or 6+ diamond invitation
1NT-3C=6+ diamonds any strength except invitational

No strong feelings that this is better than what we used to do (no direct invitation, 2S=club any strength, 2NT=diamonds any strength, 3C=weak with both minors).

What are you doing if you are strong with both minors (ie. 5-5 with slam interest)? What were you doing playing your old treatment?

Do you treat the better minor as a 6-card suit and ignore the other or is there any other treatment in your system?

I'm asking because we are playing something very similar to your methods.

--Sigi

2D (transfer to hearts) followed by 2S=GF with both minors (usually 5+-4+, but could be 2344/3244 with a lot of points).

This is a good convention, but in order for it to be effective you need to spend a lot of time discussing:

1) What happens next
2) Dealing with super-accepts of the 2D transfer
3) Dealing with interference

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

Fred,
Have you & Brad punted on weak 55 D+C hands where 3m might be safer than 1N?

If not, how are you bidding them?

[fred]

foo, on May 22 2006, 10:36 PM, said:

Fred,
Have you & Brad punted on weak 55 D+C hands where 3m might be safer than 1N?

If not, how are you bidding them?

We don't have a way to bid those hands. We have to either Pass 1NT or guess which minor to transfer to.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

fred, on May 22 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

1NT-2NT=natural invitation
1NT-2S=6+ clubs any strength or 6+ diamond invitation
1NT-3C=6+ diamonds any strength except invitational

This is also what is played by Pasman-Simons. I read in Kleinman's "Notrump Zone" a funny corolary: when you open 1NT with 4-4 in the majors, you can respond to Stayman with either 2♥ or 2♠ randomly (to confuse the opponents), since
1NT-2♣
2♠-3NT*

promises four hearts.

[Gerben42]

Quote

This is also what is played by Pasman-Simons. I read in Kleinman's "Notrump Zone" a funny corolary: when you open 1NT with 4-4 in the majors, you can respond to Stayman with either 2♥ or 2♠ randomly (to confuse the opponents), since
1NT-2♣
2♠-3NT*

promises four hearts.

Ah another small gem. Someone got to start a "BBO Forum Nuggets" site

[Blofeld]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

Is this true?

We should certainly be bidding 3NT contracts that are considerably more likely to fail than to make. But we should also be bidding our 100% 3NT contracts. I haven't done any calculations, but my guess is that I'd expect over half of 3NT contracts to make. Of course, it also depends on what 'much more frequently' means.

---

I like the idea of randomising responses to promissory stayman with 44 majors.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm confused by what's special about this.

Most people who play 2C as 'Stayman', even if not promising a 4-card major, still play that 1NT - 2C - 2M - 3NT promises 4 of the other major (what other reason can responder have had for bidding 2C?).

Whether or not you can afford for opener to show one 4-card major or the other 'at random' depends on the rest of your methods. In particular, you will find slam bidding harder. Maybe it's worthwhile for the extra 'confusion' generated when playing in 3NT, but nothing in life is free..

[han]

fred, on May 22 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

We have actually made a change so that:

1NT-2NT=natural invitation

Fred, I'm wondering how often you use this sequence. What would you say, once every two sessions, more, less? Would it be possible to post some recent hands where you or Brad decided to bid 2NT? Would you have done worse if you had to choose between pass or blast?

I realise that I'm asking for quite a lot, so please ignore me if you don't have the time to answer (also, the last question seems quite hard to answer objectively).


I find this subject very interesting. I recall reading a double dummy simulation that said that the natural invite is only useful with hands in a very small range, something like 8.5-9 points (how these points were counted I don't remember, and is not so relevant imo). With less, it is better to pass, with more, it is better to blast. I wonder if the results of this double dummy simulation correspond to your (and other's) real-life experience.