[bridgepali]

The Strong Two Club Convention when not responded to 2D's is a game response/ fit finding convention. It's intent after a bona fide twenty-two to twenty-four point opening bid is to end up in a strain or trump game contract.

RESPONDER/POST RESPONDER
(Select One)
- with >7pts. and a balanced hand, bid 2NT.
- with >7pts. and a 5+ card major strain, bid major at the two level.
- with >7pts. and a 6+ card minor strain, bid minor strain at the three level.

OPENER/POST OPENER
(Select One)
- with a balanced hand, respond to 2NT bid 3NT; or with 4+ cards of a major or 5+ cards of a minor bid strain at the three level.
- with 3+ cards of a bid major, bid major at the three level. Otherwise, with 4+ cards of the other major, or 5+ cards of a minor, bid strain at the three level giving preference to the major. If hand is balanced, bid 2NT.
- with 3+ cards of a bid minor, bid minor at the four level. Otherwise, with 5+ cards of the other minor or 4+ cards of a major, bid strain at the three level giving preference to a major. If hand is balanced, bid 3NT.

RESPONDER/POST RESPONDER
(Select One)
- with <33 combined hand points, conclude bidding by passing when facing a strain game contract or bidding 3NT., unless a strain game contract can be reached.
- with >32 combined hand points, raise a supported major bid to 4NT. If the major bid is not a supported bid, with 4+ cards in the other major or 5+ cards in a minor, bid strain at 4NT giving preference to the major. Otherwise bid an unsupported strain to game, bid 3NT, or introduce a 5+ card strain. If hand is balanced, bid 4C's.
- with >32 combined hand points, raise a supported minor bid to 4NT. If the minor bid is not a supported bid, with 5+ cards in the other minor or 4+ cards in a major, bid strain at 4NT giving preference to a major. Otherwise, bid an unsupported strain to game, bid 3NT, or introduce a 5+ card strain. If hand is balanced, bid 4C's.

Alert: Response formats presented are covered by 2013 copyright.
Watch for Talking Pts. XV?

[Vampyr]

You have not actually played bridge, have you?

[bridgepali]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-17, 20:11, said:

You have not actually played bridge, have you?

Why do you ask?

[diana_eva]

This whole series is absurd. Bridgepali, what are you trying to achieve with these posts? Where does the information come from?

If you would read your own post here you would at least notice that you can't bid a minor at the 2 level over a 2C opener, and you can't raise the minor at the 3 level as opener. You are proposing a scheme like this:

2c = strong, artificial opening, to which responder is supposed to bid 2c = natural, clubs, 7+ HCP, or 2D = natural, diamonds, 7+HCP

So what is it that your talking points series is supposed to mean? Are you trying to teach? Are you looking for feedback? What's the point?

[bridgepali]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-18, 11:21, said:

This whole series is absurd. Bridgepali, what are you trying to achieve with these posts? Where does the information come from?

If you would read your own post here you would at least notice that you can't bid a minor at the 2 level over a 2C opener, and you can't raise the minor at the 3 level as opener. You are proposing a scheme like this:

2c = strong, artificial opening, to which responder is supposed to bid 2c = natural, clubs, 7+ HCP, or 2D = natural, diamonds, 7+HCP

So what is it that your talking points series is supposed to mean? Are you trying to teach? Are you looking for feedback? What's the point?

Thank you for making me aware of the misrepresentation regarding the Responder/Post Responder initial minor bid. As of 9:45 P.M. British time November 18, 2016, it has been corrected. I have yet to determine how such an error got by me.

Talking Pts. is a compilation of bidding observations made during my bridge playing years. I am not teaching nor am I looking for feedback. My intent is to share shortcomings in the bidding process that plagued my game for years.

To call the Talking Pts. series absurd is an unfair appraisal. To be absurd it's content would have to be ridiculous, unreasonable, unsounding or incongruous; which not one posting has been. Talking Pts. is for guiding players to a better understanding of the Goren based bidding method. I had taken several hundreds of hours of ACBL sanctioned lessons before recording my first slam, all because my partners and I hadn't been taught how to count points in our hand's to the fullest.

The first nine posted Talking Pts. have had over 10,000 unsolicited views, which by my guesstimate could mean around 1,000 bridgees have become happier with their point counting. Those nine post also had fewer than 90 replies, mostly from cyber bullies who for some reason do not want other bridgees exposed to a different point counting concept.

As for the convention postings, they have nothing to do with bidding or playing bridge. The purpose was to show an approach to memorizing conventions with the task based on point counting.

During my playing days it would be a novelty to partner with someone who played more than Stayman. Regardless of what some one would tell me regarding why, I suspected it was because of memorization. And when you would come across a partner who played more than Stayman, there's interpretation. I find remembering numbers and sequences easier than verbiage and suspect others do also.

Yours truly,

[Vampyr]

bridgepali, on 2016-November-26, 15:24, said:

Talking Pts. is a compilation of bidding observations made during my bridge playing years. I am not teaching nor am I looking for feedback. My intent is to share shortcomings in the bidding process that plagued my game for years.

Your posts indicate that you have not overcome these shortcomings, and you have come to the right place for help; yet you don't seem to want any.

Quote

To call the Talking Pts. series absurd is an unfair appraisal. To be absurd it's content would have to be ridiculous, unreasonable, unsounding or incongruous; which not one posting has been.

I am afraid that all of your posts have been these things.

Quote

The first nine posted Talking Pts. have had over 10,000 unsolicited views, which by my guesstimate could mean around 1,000 bridgees have become happier with their point counting.

I can guarantee that no one has taken your points on board, even if they understood what you were trying to say. And why would they? Your methods never reached a contract that was anything but ridiculous and had no play.

[1eyedjack]

bridgepali, on 2016-November-26, 15:24, said:

The first nine posted Talking Pts. have had over 10,000 unsolicited views, which by my guesstimate could mean around 1,000 bridgees have become happier with their point counting. Those nine post also had fewer than 90 replies, mostly from cyber bullies who for some reason do not want other bridgees exposed to a different point counting concept.

No need to take it so personally. If the forum members read stuff that they think is either rubbish or incomprehensible they will not be slow in responding to express that opinion and you are certainly not alone in that treatment. But it is rare for such posts to be attacking the messenger rather than the message. It does happen, but it is rare (perhaps less rare in the water cooler section), and I see no evidence of it in your case. The criticism that you consider cyber bullying has for the most part, at least at the outset, comprised an attempt to engage with you to support your arguments. If they have become rather more dismissive of late it is I suggest a direct result of your consistent failure to engage with the more temperate responses. In short, they have in the main lost patience.

I don't understand how you come by your suggested correlation between the number of unsolicited views and the number of beneficiaries of their expanded knowledge. There is a scheme for upvoting posts, which should be a more reliable guide. How many upvotes have your threads attracted? Upvotes aside, and leaving aside also the negative responses, how many positive responses have you had to these threads?

My own views of your threads will have been included in the 10000 odd unsolicited views that you mention, and I am a little dismayed that those views apparently count toward an expression of approval of their content.