[vang]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2004, 08:52 AM, said:

any hand that could bid game across virtually nothing WITH NO FIT is expected to open 2C.

um, dunno. i played something like "any hand which can make game with 2 queens at partner (or less), open with 2C." which implies that 1/1 response usually needs more than 2 queens, which means the 1/1 responder promises something (not much, but _something_)

[helene_t]

I wonder why
1♦-1♥
2♦-2♠
should be GF, what else can responder do with a invitational hand, 5-card hearts and a spades stopper.

Netherlands, but prefer not to play Dutch systems. Consider myself World Class (that is, I always agree with myself) but most people consider me intermediate.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Sep 6 2004, 05:35 PM, said:

I wonder why
1♦-1♥
2♦-2♠
should be GF, what else can responder do with a invitational hand, 5-card hearts and a spades stopper.

Netherlands, but prefer not to play Dutch systems. Consider myself World Class (that is, I always agree with myself) but most people consider me intermediate.

on the sequence you showed, opener presumeably denied holding 4 spades and also showed a minimum opening with diamonds... he couldn't bid 1S, 1NT, or 2C, therefore probably holds 6 diamonds... it seems to me that unless you have a fitting ♦ honor, nt doesn't have much chance

i guess it's possible to miss game with an invitational hand opposite a minimum minor opener, but the misfit nature of the hand doesn't sound good...

i like your self-description... wish i'd thought of it first

[Fluffy]

helene_t, on Sep 6 2004, 03:35 PM, said:

I wonder why
1♦-1♥
2♦-2♠
should be GF, what else can responder do with a invitational hand, 5-card hearts and a spades stopper.

Interesting point, but this looks as marginal sequence, maybe its better to play just 1RF in this position, althou I think 3♦ would make the trick good for an invitational, is it worth it to remember this sequence is the only non GF?

Quote

Netherlands, but prefer not to play Dutch systems. Consider myself World Class (that is, I always agree with myself) but most people consider me intermediate.

Intermediate? I never played with you, but what I can say is at least everything I have read from you in hte forums has sense, that´s more than I can say from most (included me) .

[paulhar]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2004, 08:52 AM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 6 2004, 08:49 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

Opener cannot GF in SA.  Responder is expected to respond 'on air' with no fit, and any hand that could bid game across virtually nothing with no fit is expected to open 2C.

1♣-1♥
4♥

Allow me to repeat myself.

any hand that could bid game across virtually nothing WITH NO FIT is expected to open 2C.

This has a fit, and the bid you mention isn't forcing at all- in fact, it's a sign off.

What's your point?

Sigonff?

Wouldn't you respond 1H on

S-KJ52
H-AQJ63
D-K74
C-7 ?

And when partner bids 4H showing about 20, you'd "respect" his "signoff" and pass?

[jtfanclub]

paulhar, on Sep 6 2004, 05:40 PM, said:

Sigonff?

As in, in contrast to invitational or forcing. It doesn't mean partner is barred from the bidding. Neither does any other signoff bid. Oh, wait, now somebody's going to post about 7NT. Gee, maybe I should throw that in as well.

There was point to your post, but damned if I can find it.

[EricK]

jtfanclub, on Sep 7 2004, 04:28 AM, said:

paulhar, on Sep 6 2004, 05:40 PM, said:

Sigonff?

As in, in contrast to invitational or forcing. It doesn't mean partner is barred from the bidding. Neither does any other signoff bid. Oh, wait, now somebody's going to post about 7NT. Gee, maybe I should throw that in as well.

There was point to your post, but damned if I can find it.

There is a difference between a sign off bid and a non-forcing bid. Sign off bids are non-forcing, but non-forcing bids are not necessarily sign offs.

eg 1NT 3NT. The 1NT bid is non-forcing (partner can act if he wants), but the 3NT bid is a sign-off (partner must pass).

Another way of putting it is that a non forcing bid says "this is the limit of my hand" but a sign off syas "this is the limit of our hands".

Eric

[Free]

EricK, on Sep 7 2004, 06:40 AM, said:

a non forcing bid says "this is the limit of my hand" but a sign off syas "this is the limit of our hands".

Eric

VERY nicely said!

[leonidas]

Hello! Second day of survey.
I'm glad to notice that my post contributed to install a deep discussion on the matter.
But my first purpose was to make a statistic analysis.
So i continue to inform all of you about it.
At this point in time i received 36 opinions.
20=opener ORF; responder GF
12=both ORF
3=both GF
1=opener GF; responder ORF
The next two days i'll be far from home.
See you at the end of this week
your friend leonidas

[helium]

Two level response by:
Opener - forcing, but not GAME force
Responder - Game force



helium on bbo, kenneth in Norway,27 years old, self rated as "expert"on bbo.

[helene_t]

In all natural systems a 2-o-1 reverse by opener is RF but not GF, at least in an uncontested auction. A 2-o-1 jump rebid is GF, but I'm not sure if that should be called a reverse.

As for 2-o-2 reverses, they are GF in SAYC (and Biedermeijer), but I'm not sure if this is also the case in ACOL (with 2-o-1 responses showing 8+). Is there a concensus in the U.K.?

In 2/1, a 2-o-2 reverse shows extra strength in Lawrence's version but not in Hardy's version.

And then there is the question if a reverse, when not GF, promises a third bid (I think most experts would say so, but beginners are tought differently, at least in the Netherlands), and if reverses in contested auctions are different.

[OSH]

mr1303, on Sep 5 2004, 11:27 PM, said:

I play forcing for 1 round, and I use Lebensohl after a reverse if responder has such an appaling hand that he wishes to sign off at the 3 level.

I agree with this, and by responder is GF.

I'm from Italy, played only 1 time on BBO, so I think I'm a total beginner.

[cherdano]

skorchev, on Sep 6 2004, 08:13 AM, said:

Quote

For practical reasons I say I'm an expert, so that more good players will play with me. I guess my above reasoning tells me I'm mediocre  .

Hi Hannie,

I don't think that if you post your BBO level is Expert more "good" players will play with you. I know many Advanced players who are better players than Experts, World Classes and than some stars. And if you "raise" your skill level to Expert but really you are Intermediate (sorry, I don't know what is your level, and I don't want to insult you, it's principally to these who "raise" his level) the "good" players will play only once or twice with you and then will put you in their enemy-lists.


Stefan

Hi Stefan,

in Hannie's defense (we know each other from real life), his level is certainly much better described by expert than by intermediate. And I suppose he plays well enough that an expert player won't mind playing with him again.

Btw, I think the constant complaining about wrong skill levels on BBO is a little exaggerated. By looking at the profile you can usually tell the true and fake experts from each other. Ever played with a "transfers, no cappelletti"-expert? Most of the time I paired up with an advanced player with reasonable profile for a tourney I wasn't disappointed.

[doofik]

I've been dabbling in Polish Club and this whole matter is taken care of in this manner:

1♣(!) -1♦(nat or 0-6 pts)
2♦(game force) - 2♥ (partner I'm bust, no aces or kings)

now opener can make an informed decision.

When responder comes in with a positive response, i.e.:

1♣(!) - 1♥/♠
2♦ is an absolute game force.

If the responder reverses we're in slam territory.

It would appear that the Polish Club controls some things better. That's why I prefer it.

Jola

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on Sep 7 2004, 02:57 PM, said:

By looking at the profile you can usually tell the true and fake experts from each other. Ever played with a "transfers, no cappelletti"-expert?

Whoever says no cappeletti, at least knows a bit of the game

[pclayton]

Assuming a standard framework - (well, Walshish anyway):

Reverse by Opener: One round force.

Reverse by Opener: Usually game force, but one round force after:
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠
1♣-1♦-1♠ (or 1N) -2♥ (or 2♠)

Expert by definition from Southern California.

[han]

cherdano, on Sep 7 2004, 09:57 AM, said:

in Hannie's defense

Do I owe you any money Arend?

[the hog]

HeleneT:
"In all natural systems a 2-o-1 reverse by opener is RF but not GF, at least in an uncontested auction."

This is not correct Helene. Many 2/1 practitioners play the reverse as gf. In Strefa - a natural system, it is also 100% gf.

Doofik:
"I've been dabbling in Polish Club and this whole matter is taken care of in this manner

1♣(!) -1♦(nat or 0-6 pts)
2♦(game force) - 2♥ (partner I'm bust, no aces or kings)":

This is also not necessarily the case. In Matula's version of PC 2H in the above sequence is a semi positive and all other bids are transfers or show some 5/5 shape with 0-4 hcp.

Doofik again:
"1♣(!) - 1♥/♠
2♦ is an absolute game force."

True, but it shows 19+ with 3+ cards support, (Odwrotka). Without the 3 card support opener has to make some other bid, (perhaps even 1S over 1H).

And Doofik once more:
"If the responder reverses we're in slam territory."

This depends on the version of PC. Even if you play WJ the statement is not correct. 1H 2C 2H 2S certainly does not mean that we are in slam territory.
Also be aware that "serious" PC uses the MAFIA style of responding, so your statement is totally incorrect for those styles. For example, the sequence
1D 2C 2D 2S simply shows a S stopper. Hand strength may still be a minimum 12-13.

Incidentally, WJ is the "everyman" version of PC. It is quite different to what many of the better players play.

Ron