[lenze]

Quote

Quote

I will always open 1 Club holding
4-4 in the minors (Kantor101)

Hi, you should go participate in the 1c - or 1d thread in the SAYC/2over1 forum. If I remember correctly, flytoox also always opens 1C with 4-4 in the minors but he wasn't getting much support. Your view would support his position.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...ay;threadid=595

I hope you noticed that I accepted your 1C bid at face value for the remainder of my discussion in the response you quoted. The reason being, opening 1C or 1D should not be a huge issue on this hand. That is just a matter of style.

ben

Hi Ben: I did read the thread. Fred wrote

"These are only the reasons that I use to justify the style
that I prefer to play. I have fairly strong convictions that
I am "correct" about this, but there are plenty of good
players who would strongly disagree."

I STRONGLY disagree

BTW, please note my qualifier(If I intend to rebid in NT) 4441 hands are NOT an issue

[EricK]

Quote

Quote

But even then it's better than natural bidding for slams and Oh sorprise! after learning your amazing conventions I can conclude that it is easier to learn and remember. Just describe your shape, your controls and where they are, then pd bids the best contract he can find. I'm sure it is easier than Kantar RKCB, Inverse Josephine, Criss Cross, Batman & robin , and your zillion gadgets.

Let me make a few points about natural bidding

1) Natural bidding is not a system. Two people can not just sit down opposite each other and agree to play "natural", and expect to get good results (this doesn't stop them of course). One reason Moscito does well is that nobody will agree to play it unless they have discussed the whole system. If a natural partnership were to put as much effort into discussing various bidding sequences as a Moscito pair has to, their results could be as good.

2) Natural bidding does not have to rely on loads of conventions. Most pairs, in my experiece, play far too many conventions. For constructive auctions in a natural system, the only conventions I wouldn't give up are fourth suit forcing and cue-bidding (I'd also like to keep Roman Keycard Blackwood, but I could live without it).

3) Natural bidding is less easy to disrupt than most relay systems. The relayers may deny this, but again, they will have put a lot of effort into working out how to combat interference. A Natural pair who put as much effort in, would, I think, do better in competitive auctions.

4) Natural bidding is unfortunately very hard to do well . There is a need for judgement in a lot of auctions, and it can very easy to miss a slam which a relay system finds without any trouble. And since judgement is a quality lacking in 99% of bridge players, a lot of people will do better playing a more structured system.

All in all I think that a relay system may be easier, but I don't think it is theoretically better. I think if a pair knows their system (whatever it may be) inside out and plays and defends competently, then they will do phenomenally well in all but the top flight.

"Play whatever system like, but make sure it is the same one as your partner "

Eric

[hrothgar]

I agree with almost all the points that Eric makes, however, I would like to add one important detail:

The main reason that I use relay methods has nothing to do with whether relays are superior to standard.

I play relay structures as a tool to enable me to play extremely light openings.

Light opening structures are incompatible with "traditional" response structures like 2/1 game force. Instead of exploring for the best game or investigating slam, the response structures needs to be optimized to identify an acceptable part score at a low level.

Just as the strong club opening is a necessary evil that permits me to have limited constructive openings, the relay structure allows me to play light limited openings. [Now, it just so happens that I think that relays are also easier to remember, but thats a whole different kettle of fish]

[rtewari]

Isn't Exclusion Blackwood a widely used convention even amongst naturalists these days? Should be an easy sequence if using it.

1D - 1S
1NT - 2C (2C = some type of checkback)
2D/2NT - 3D (2D/2NT as per agreement denies 3 spades, denies 4 hearts , 3D agrees diamonds)
3H - 5C (3H = cue, 5C = ERKCB)
5S - 7D (5S = 2 w/o Q , 7D = to play)

Since it is a team game, once partner opens 1D (mostly 4 unless 4-4-3-2), it is nearly certain that we are in slam and suit will be diamonds. Once partner shows a heart control via 3H, responder can launch into EKRCB and bid 7 once 2 key cards are known. It is good if you have methods to ask for other cards but even without those 7 will be a good percentage.

On this hand, partner has shown maximum 2-3 in the majors (by bidding 2D/2NT on responders checkback). Most of the times AKQxx of spades versus xx of spades will be enough to take care of the major losers. Plus partner may have spade J or in extreme cases, the grand slam may be on a finesse (partner may have heart J) or may be some squeeze chances.

IMHO, with known <= 5 cards in majors with opener, the only significant cards to discover are diamond K and heart Ace to bid the grand and it will have a better than percentage chances of success. Of course, you have to avoid the inverted minor route to discover partner's major holdings.