BBO Discussion Forums: GNAT, Deerfly, Blackfly (some such) - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

GNAT, Deerfly, Blackfly (some such)

#21 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-October-24, 12:23

Ah, I misunderstood...I thought it was Snapdragon style where it shows exactly 2. my error.
0

#22 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2007-October-24, 13:09

I just looked things up in the Bridge Worlds glossary, and apparently I didn't get the difference between a puppet and a marrionette exactly right:

Puppet: Next Bid is forced (after which you show your hand)

Marrionette: Like a puppet except partner is allowed to bid other things with special hands

So all my puppet examples were in fact marrionettes

In my "Anti-Bart" article some years ago Jeff replaced the word "puppet" with something along the lines of "marrionette (a special kind of puppet)" and I guess I slightly misunderstood the distinction he was trying to draw.
0

#23 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2007-October-24, 15:12

awm, on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

There are many versions of BART out there -- I don't think the one where 1-1nt(f)-2-2 "forces 2" is by any means unique or universal. For example I think there's a version where 2 says "I would raise clubs if you have real clubs, please explain." There is even a version Josh Sher likes to play, where 2 could be a weak hand with 5, and opener's 2 bid shows something like 2-3 (i.e. descriptive). I do think BART is often a "second relay" rather than a "puppet to 2."

Yeah Bart is a complicated example. I had actually had a discussion of Bart in my original post in this thread but then took it out before posting because of the complexities. In addition to what I talk about below, I must note that bart when 1N was unlimited is vastly different then the convention actually played which assumes 1N was 5-12ish:

In "Standard Bart", 2D shows 5H and a flexible hand (2S or 3C) OR 2S and about 9-10 OR 4+ clubs and 2N values or 6D and INV (its also possible to include 3S, limit raise values with a club fit).

Here its normal to bid over the 2D bid as if partner has 5 hearts and a relatively weak hand since all the other meanings promise extra strength.

Some play the 2H bid as showing 3H, which is great for exploring game in hearts, but is pretty bad when the hands are:
a: 5233 vs 1543 (you probably end up in 3 clubs)
b: when responder has the 2 spades and 9-10 what do you do next if opener bids 2S instead of 2H? You have to guess if you should overbid with 2N or pass 2S either way you have a problem. Furthermore the 2N bid next is also completely ambiguous as to hand type, shape, and range, as is the 3C bid next (was it a preference or was it a strong raise?)

Consequently, if you play the 2H bid as showing 3 hearts, you need to take some of the hand types out of the 2D bid to get this to work. For instance if 2D actually SHOWED 5 hearts, its neither a puppet nor a relay. Its just an ART bid that showed something about a different suit.

As I have noted here, whenever opener doesn't bid 2H, responder is slightly screwed in that he can no longer show his hand, and his next bids becomes much wider ranged. Consequequently another varient swaps the heart hands in the 2D bid and the 2H bid whereby 2H is 5H and flexible AND limited (6-9ish) and the 6 hearts hands go into 2D. This makes opener able to bid 2H much more often to find out what responder has.

As to my preferences what matters most is how wide ranging opener is. When openers range is 11-18ish (like in standard) he can't afford to bid 2H on the really good hands no matter how many hearts partner might have, so will break the marionette much more often. In particular, with 5 hearts and 9-12 you can't show the 5 hearts at all if the heart hand in 2D is typically 6+ hearts.
On the other hand in standard bart with 9-10 and 2 spades and 5 hearts you at least have a chance of partner bidding 3H over 2D. If he instead bids 2H, you can bid 2S to show the 9-10 and a doubleton hand. But some chance of finding the 5-3 heart fit is better then no chance. So in this situation I am indifferent between the two methods.

On the other hand, opposite a limited opener, say 11-15, they almost never have a hand good enough to jump to 3H over 2D, so there is much less benefit of playing it this way and having 2D typically show 6H (or a good hand) is much better.
0

#24 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,503
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-October-24, 15:19

awm, on Oct 24 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

As for merits, I think the 1NT response in Hrothgar's structure is overloaded. It will be awkward outside competition because the need to "correct to the best fit" on a weak hand can interfere with the relay steps, and can be awkward in competition simply because there are so many hand types. On the other hand, I think the NF two-over-one responses are going to come up very rarely and not be all that useful. Note that MOSCITO in its original form uses a 1NT response on weak hands (letting opener describe naturally) and a relay on invitational or better hands; basically Hrothgar's trying to put both of these (and they are among the most common responses to a MOSCITO opening, surely the most common non-raise responses) into one bid. It seems like you can reduce the overload by moving some of these hands into a 2 response; for example my suggestion offloads all weak balanced hands with doubleton major (1NT responses in normal MOSCITO) into 2, so that after 1M-1NT responder will never want to "correct to the major" on a weak hand (the weak options will have 0-1 cards in the major).

Marston's lastest MOSCITO variant bundles the same set of hand types into a first step relay

1 - 1 shows either

1. A balanced NT type hand
2. A set of game invitational hands
3. A set of game foricng hands

Paul switched to this structure to enable him to use a transfer based response scheme over 1M openings. (1N = Clubs, 2 = Diamonds, etc)

MOSCITO's big advantage is the added bidding space available by using the transfer opening structure and being able to use first step rather than 1NT as the initial ask. I deliberately compensated for this by offloading a lot of hand types that would normally be shown as part of the 1M opening. For example, all balanced hands are now opened 1N. Minimum single suited hand with Spades are opened 2. I think that it might be necessary to have all two suiters with both majors opened 2.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#25 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,503
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-October-24, 15:48

joshs, on Oct 24 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

Here's the rebid schedule after

1 - 1N
2 - 2

2 = three hearts or a strong doubleton
2 = minimum hand lesser Hearts
2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness
3 = 5-5 in the black suits
3 = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

2 does not force 2. Therefore, 2 is not a puppet.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#26 User is offline   rbforster 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,611
  • Joined: 2006-March-18

Posted 2007-October-24, 16:02

awm, on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

non-game-forcing relay systems are difficult to play on the general chart because most responses to openings which are artificial and not game forcing are disallowed. So in many cases getting that first "invitational or better, artificial" call in there violates regulations.

I agree with Adam on the practical nature of playing relays under GCC - if you can get the first bid in legally (via 1NT forcing, or 1-1 (all purpose forcing), etc), you can probably continue with an artificial ask on responder's next rebid without any trouble.

awm, on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

It seems like you can reduce the overload [of 1M-1N] by moving some of these hands into a 2 response.

I have been thinking about this issue as well, and tend to agree with Adam on this point as well. In some sense, I think that using 1M-2 NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

It seems like splitting some of the hands out of 1NT and into 2 could help separate things. To keep it simple, you might have among others a wide range of club hands bid 2 F1 instead of 1NT. This could easily include the weak and invitational long club hands (opener could bid an artificial 2 over 2 to show game interest), letting both of these hand types stop in 3. Like I said earlier, I think working out a good system after the 1M-1N... relays would the an important part of this, and once you see what things are problem hand types in those methods you could consider moving some of them to 2 (instead of 1N).
0

#27 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2007-October-24, 17:18

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 24 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

Here's the rebid schedule after

1 - 1N
2 - 2

2 = three hearts or a strong doubleton
2 = minimum hand lesser Hearts
2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness
3 = 5-5 in the black suits
3 = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

2 does not force 2. Therefore, 2 is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.
0

#28 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-October-24, 17:38

Richard, I think you should accept that "relay" isn't a mathematical definition. Thus you should accept that your sequence 1S `1N 2D (which probably shows any GF hand except a few relay breaks or a couple of hands with a bid spade fit) is a relay because it shows "nothing" about responder's hand, whereas a Bart 2, which is one of typically three well-defined hands (5 hearts, or good hand with a doubleton spade, or a good hand with a club fit), is not a relay.

If you want to turn "A relay is a bid that only asks about partners hand and shows nothing about your hand" into a mathematical definition then you probably should say s.th. like "A bid with no more than 0.3 bits of information" but this is bridge not mathematics, nobody else would like that definition.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#29 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,503
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-October-24, 17:42

joshs, on Oct 25 2007, 02:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 24 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

Here's the rebid schedule after

1 - 1N
2 - 2

2 = three hearts or a strong doubleton
2 = minimum hand lesser Hearts
2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness
3 = 5-5 in the black suits
3 = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

2 does not force 2. Therefore, 2 is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

According to the notes, the 2 is described an artificial bid. It can be made on any number of hand types

I agree that people don't normally refer to the 2 as a relay (probably because they don't want to run afoul of system regulations). However, it is functionally identical to a relay...

2 is an artificial bid that asks partner to describe their hand. Yes, there are some negative inferences available, but this holds equally true of other relays.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#30 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2007-October-24, 17:49

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 25 2007, 02:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 24 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

joshs, on Oct 24 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Dude in BART 1S-1N-2C. 2C is not a puppet. 2C is a non forcing call. 2D over 2C is a puppet.

A puppet is a multi meaning bid that is to be clarified later. The puppet might force partner to ask for clarification, or it might not. If partner asks one of the options might be to pass, or it might not be an option.

Fine: We'll take it a step higher:

"Bridge - Classic and Modern Conventions" describes extended BART on page 231-232 of V1.

Here's the rebid schedule after

1 - 1N
2 - 2

2 = three hearts or a strong doubleton
2 = minimum hand lesser Hearts
2NT = Game invitational with heart shortness
3 = 5-5 in the black suits
3 = artificial, strong with 3 Hearts

2 does not force 2. Therefore, 2 is not a puppet.

Well I would assume, In the description of the convention you are quoting from the bid of 2D SHOWED 5 hearts and isn't even remotely a relay.... (Actually judging from the response structure its possible that 2D was 5H OR 6D and very weak, hence the paradox response of 3D which shows a bad hand for diamonds or a great hand for hearts)

Like we have all said there are a lot of versions of BART. None of them that I have ever seen are relays.

According to the notes, the 2 is described an artificial bid. It can be made on any number of hand types

I agree that people don't normally refer to the 2 as a relay (probably because they don't want to run afoul of system regulations). However, it is functionally identical to a relay...

2 is an artificial bid that asks partner to describe their hand. Yes, there are some negative inferences available, but this holds equally true of other relays.

If 2D was truely an ART bid that did not describe there hand but requests for partner to describe his hand (which is not the way anyone I know plays it), and if 1N was also an ART bid that did not describe their hand (again if 1N was limited to below game force values you might claim it did describe the point range if not shape) then I would agree that this is a relay sequence. Of course no one plays it this way....
0

#31 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-October-24, 18:27

Rob F, on Oct 24 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 24 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

It seems like you can reduce the overload [of 1M-1N] by moving some of these hands into a 2 response.

I have been thinking about this issue as well, and tend to agree with Adam on this point as well. In some sense, I think that using 1M-2 NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

I think this is silly, which probably proves my ignorance.

Think of the set of hands that you want to include in 2. Suppose opener has a 4-1-3-5 9 or 10 count. What percentage of hands would partner's passing your 2 bid be bad?

It doesn't have to be a narrow bid. Responder could have a 2-4-4-3 12 count, and it's still probably the right place to play (given that you can't play 1NT). You can have a huge variety of hands in the 2 response and have it be nonforcing, and with 3NT over 1 spade being to play, that narrows down the number of game forcing calls even further.

There are a number of reasons why I like 2 to be nonforcing.

1) Guarantees that it isn't a relay. If you respond to 1 with 2 with a 2-4-4-3 12 count and it's a 1RF, your opponents may gripe about it.

2) It makes the opening rebids natural and easy to remember.

3) My personal pet peeve, it doesn't make two bids with identical descriptions. You can't just describe 1NT and 2 as a one round force. If 2 promises 3+ clubs, does 1NT deny 3+ clubs? If 2 denies spade support, does 1NT promise it? As far as I'm concerned, if you can't explain which bids go in 1NT and which go into 2, that shouldn't be legal even in Superchart. And if the answer is that they set up different rebids to describe your hands...well, isn't that the definition of a relay system?

If 2 means a hand that wishes to play in 2 across a minimum 4-1-3-5, and 1NT is a hand that does not wish to play in 2 clubs across that hand, that's a pretty clean dichotomy. I can separate out very nicely in my head which hands would bid 2 and which would bid 1NT. The question is, can you describe your 1NT and 2 bids so that they have a similar perfect split?

Now, it might be better to have the 1NT be the nonforcing bid and 2 be the forcing one. Unfortunately, in GCC there is an explicit allowance for forcing NT, and not for 2. Oh well.
0

#32 User is offline   rbforster 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,611
  • Joined: 2006-March-18

Posted 2007-October-24, 23:52

jtfanclub, on Oct 24 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

Rob F, on Oct 24 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

In some sense, I think that using 1M-2 NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round.

Think of the set of hands that you want to include in 2... You can have a huge variety of hands in the 2 response and have it be nonforcing

I'm thinking of a much wider range of hands than your 1(34)5 8-12 counts. Just imagine every hand in 2/1 that starts by bidding 1-2 for example. I'd consider possibly including all of these

x xxx xxx KQJTxx (weak long clubs)
x Kx Qxx AQJxxxx (invite with long good clubs)
- Axx KQxx AKQxxxx (slam invitational with good clubs)
Qx AQxx xx AKxxx (GF with clubs and a side suit)
Kxx Ax Qxx KQxxx (GF with clubs and support)
xx Axx AKxxx Qxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary diamonds)
x AQJxxxx Ax xxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary hearts)
Qx xxx AKJx KJxx (GF balanced, but with an unstopped suit)
etc

Basically long clubs from moderate strength up, any GF unbalanced hand with 3+s, or any GF balanced hand worried about an open suit for NT. Since 2 would be forcing and the weak options are willing to play 3, opener gets 5 rebids (2-3) to show aspects of his hand that will help clarify his shape/values and assist in determining the correct strain opposite a wide range of GF'ing hands.

I'm not saying one should include ALL of these GF hands, but you could legally (since clubs is naturally bid) and might want to. Why? The reason I think this could be useful is that there isn't much space after you establish a GF when you go through the forcing NT since there are so many invitational and weakish hands to show. For example, let's suppose we have the auction

1-1NT(f)-2 natural. Responses will be something like

Pass - weak semi-balanced, preference for
2 - artificial GF relay (not needed as weak since 2 direct was NF)
2 - weak semi-balanced, preference for
2NT - natural and invitational
3 - ? GF something special (since invitational club hands response 2 not 1NT)
3 - natural raise, invitational
3 - natural, invitational with long hearts
3 - 3 card invitational spade raise
3NT - natural, to play

As you can see, there aren't too many "free" bids (shown in bold above) in response to opener's rebid available to show GF hands. You've got 3NT natural for appropriate balanced hands without extras, one relay bid with the cheapest new suit (which might be as high as 3), and maybe another 3 level bid or two depending on how cheap opener's rebid is. Trying to cram every unbalanced GF into either 1NT...3NT or 1NT...(GF relay) while still finding the right strain and level seems like a hard problem. Playing 1-2 as forcing can help with this.

Quote

There are a number of reasons why I like 2 to be nonforcing.

1)  Guarantees that it isn't a relay.  If you respond to 1 with 2 with a 2-4-4-3 12 count and it's a 1RF, your opponents may gripe about it. 

Under GCC 2 would either have to be one of: natural 3+ (could be any values), or GF values (could be any shape). Opponents often gripe at me for playing weird things, and I don't let this stop me certainly not when it's legal! :P

Quote

2) It makes the opening rebids natural and easy to remember.

Well if you're willing to play a system where you put almost all your GF's into 1NT forcing, I guarantee you'll have to remember a bunch of complex continuations. Those to 2 will be no different, but hopefully you can split the complexity between the two responses in a way that gets your hands described effectively without getting too high in either case.

Quote

3)  My personal pet peeve, it doesn't make two bids with identical descriptions.  You can't just describe 1NT and 2 as a one round force.  If 2 promises 3+ clubs, does 1NT deny 3+ clubs? 

Obviously it makes no sense to have both 1NT and 2 serve as a "forcing NT" bid. I'm not sure what split of hands you ideally want between the two, but once I figure it out, I'd certainly be happy to explain it to the opps in as much detail as they want. Maybe 1NT = "forcing, could be GF'ing," or in more detail "forcing, including constructive semibalanced hands, single suited or invitations, 3 card limit raises, GF balanced, or GF two suiters". In contrast, 2 would be "3+ clubs, constructive or better values, many hand types," or in more detail "constructive+ values with long clubs, GF single suited in any suit, or any slam invitational or better hand with 3+ clubs."

Quote

Now, it might be better to have the 1NT be the nonforcing bid and 2 be the forcing one.  Unfortunately, in GCC there is an explicit allowance for forcing NT, and not for 2

I actually think that the extra space you get from having 1NT forcing makes it the better choice for a forcing bid (even if it means you can't play in 1NT), but I think it's probably better to make both of them forcing to have more options for dialogue between partners during the bidding. In a midchart context, you could play Kaplan Interchange which might help some since it moves your legal "forcing NT" bid down one to 1 over 1 which might give enough extra space to work out all or at least more of the GF hand types. Playing 1-2 as NF makes a lot more sense than 1-2 NF, but that's for kind of complicated reasons (ask me if you care).
0

#33 User is offline   akhare 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Joined: 2005-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-October-25, 00:46

Sounds very interesting.

I have always meant to ask about the frequency of the 3C/3D/3H (6+ with 3 card support for opened suit) bids over a 1M opening. It seems that given that these bids rarely come up, it might be much better to use them for a different purpose.

What are opener's rebids over 1N forcing? I suppose the worst hands will be the ones with clubs and a major because 2 will likely show a balanced hand (unless all 5332 hands are opened 1N perforce).
foobar on BBO
0

#34 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2007-October-25, 08:54

Rob F, on Oct 25 2007, 12:52 AM, said:

Rob F, on Oct 24 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

1) Opponents often gripe at me for playing weird things, and I don't let this stop me certainly not when it's legal!  ;)

I guess I'm not convinced this is legal. I'm also not convinced I see the point.

Take the hand x AQJxxxx Ax xxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary hearts)

You're going to have to have a bid for
x AQJxxxx Axx xx,
xx AQJxxxx Ax xx, and
x AQJxxxxx Ax xx

But you can't legally put either of those in 2 clubs- 2 clubs can mean 3+ clubs, or it can mean GF, but it can't mean "3+ clubs or GF". So where are you putting those bids, and why can't you put the example hand with them?

1-1NT-2-3 can be used for all of:

Qx AQxx xx AKxxx (GF with clubs and a side suit)
Kxx Ax Qxx KQxxx (GF with clubs and support)
- Axx KQxx AKQxxxx (slam invitational with good clubs)

You've got the space left to differentiate.

Now this one is interesting....
Qx xxx AKJx KJxx (GF balanced, but with an unstopped suit)

I've always just blown these to 3NT, but I don't know that it's a good method to use.
0

#35 User is offline   rbforster 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,611
  • Joined: 2006-March-18

Posted 2007-October-26, 00:48

Having thought a little more about this, I like the 2/1 NF idea for red suits, but 2 as natural F1 with the invitational and GF club hands (including 5/4+ 2 suiters with clubs and another possibly longer other suit). This seems good for a couple of reasons -

1) Opener is very likely to have club length opposite a 1NT forcing bid, and thus often rebid a natural 2. Responder then has a very efficient GF relay with 2, and both 2 and 3 will be available to describe the invitational and certain GF heart hands.

The reason opener is likely to have clubs is that when responder isn't balanced, the only club hand responder can have is a weak signoff with long clubs (1-1NT-2X-3 to play). All other 1- and 2-suiters with invitational or better strength will have red suits since these corresponding hands with clubs would bid a direct 2.

2) Most of the hands bidding 1-2 will be GF'ing, meaning you can start your game/slam explorations at a lower level than if you had to go through a forcing NT and bid clubs naturally at the 3 level. Just reserve your 3 rebid as invitational, and keep opener's responses at or below 3 whenever he doesn't have extra values and everything should work out.

3) Separating the weak and invitational club hands (in 1NT and 2 respectively) means you can handle long club 2-suiters effectively (e.g. 46+). The heart fit won't be lost since both auctions stay low initially (unlike playing 1-3 invitational) and allow opener a chance to show his hearts. This is nice since the 3 rebid in both sequences 1-1NT/2-2-3 can show different values based on whether the first bid was 1NT or 2. In normal 2/1, with 46 you're stuck with either the weak or invitational strength on this shape since you have to start with a forcing NT but your 3 rebid is either weak or invitational (meaning it may be unsafe to bid 1NT in the first place if you've got the wrong one, or you'll have to fudge a 2NT invite with a very unbalanced hand).

I'll have some time off work this coming week and maybe I'll see if I can't work something out for this in more detail.
0

#36 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,503
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-October-26, 11:19

Here's another possible response structure over the 1M openings:

Using this structure would eliminate relays over 1M and (optionally) would allow some balanced hand patterns to be placed back in the 1M opening. The down side is that it would require that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT.

If I were to use this structure, I'd ditch including the strong hand types in the 1NT response. I don't think there would be that significant a gain in constructive bidding and there would be a significant increase in memory load.

Over 1:

4 = Splinter
4 = Splinter
3N = to play
3 = Value raise (4+ Spades)
3 = Strong jump shift
3 = Strong jump shift
3 = Strong jump shift
2N = Limit raise
2 = Value raise (4+ Spades)
2 = 5+ Hearts
2 = Neopolitan style, 3+ Diamonds
2 = Neopolitan style, 3+ Clubs
1N = Natural and non forcing

1 - 2
2 - 3

is a canape reverse in Hearts
3+ Diamonds and 5+ Hearts GF values

1 - 2
2 - 4

Slam invite with 4+ Spades
Club control, No Diamond control

1 - 2
2 - 4

Slam invite with 4+ Spades. Either
first round control of both C+D or
second round control of both C+D
Alderaan delenda est
0

#37 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-October-26, 14:45

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

The goal is to create something that is

1. Fun
2. Legal
...

Another paradox?
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#38 User is offline   the hog 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-March-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Laos
  • Interests:Wagner and Bridge

Posted 2007-October-26, 19:24

Hannie, on Oct 27 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 23 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

The goal is to create something that is

1.  Fun
2.  Legal
...

Another paradox?

Paradox or oxymoron?
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
0

#39 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,637
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2007-October-26, 19:49

Just combine and get fugal (no, this is not yet defined in the urban dictionary)
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

#40 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,232
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2007-October-27, 02:12

officeglen, on Oct 27 2007, 03:49 AM, said:

Just combine and get fugal (no, this is not yet defined in the urban dictionary)

Derived from Latin "fuga" (flight). "Fugal" is the adjective form of "fugue", which means, a.o.:

The free dictionary said:

2.  Psychiatry: A pathological amnesiac condition during which one is apparently conscious of one's actions but has no recollection of them after returning to a normal state. This condition, usually resulting from severe mental stress, may persist for as long as several months.


Fugal bridge is probably something to strive for: "Focus on the current board, not the previous one".
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users