Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Casselton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Rainer, Kit et al.

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment (i.e. open light in 3rd if you can sensibly do so) my take is that people overrate their success in this area.

When it's the oppo's hand and you disrupt them successfully tends to dominate anecdotal memory. When you have a full strength opening and you get the chance to make a normal rebid, normal stuff happens.

But there is no free lunch and there are (at least) two downside situations which people tend to not give full (negative) weight to …

… One: You Pass partner's response for fear of showing a full opening bid (not Rainer's style - but his has its own additional issues) and play in a poor or inferior contract

… Two: Fourth hand bids and partner doesn't act if marginal for fear of you being light (and you aren't) or partner overlooks this possibility and does act (and you are).

As in all areas, judgement (and brutal evaluation of actual outcomes) is required - a blanket rule won't do.

Ian C

PS If one is really into this - and the local gendarmerie allow that sort of thing - play a system with a Fert. Then, you'll never have to worry about opening in 3rd again ;)
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, Christopher.

Even the simple discussion about the order of cashing the clubs (if one is going to cash them) is useful.

What I have most desired, for some time, is a truly complete set of carding agreements for/from an expert partnership. I wouldn't mind if it were an arbitrary expert partnership - as it's function (for me) would be closer to that of a checklist to consider rather than a pre-packed set of rules to follow.

Ian C
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Michael.

You beat me to it - that what I was about to suggest might make sense (I don't play the method, only defend against it, so couldn't speak with authority about semi-constructive options).

I can see Andy's thinking though - indeed I agree with it when the opponents are playing such methods. My idea re 2 (P) 2 (P) 3 was simply a riskier extrapolation of the same idea.

Ian C
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Andy.

I understood your auction to be broadly equivalent to 2 (P) 3 when opener has hearts (of course, this assumption may have been wrong).

Assuming not, I'm guessing most would play this as pre-emptive rather than invitational. Hence, my extrapolation that someone who might bid 4 in the example auction might also risk a tactical 3 with an appropriate sort of hand (especially against opposition who delay certain initial defensive actions).

Not suggesting this is strictly “correct” in any sense.

Ian C
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, Kieran.

You meant as responder as opposed to overcaller!

Agreed.

Ian C
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Andy,

Your point is valid (though I would still prefer to have both T/O's in the armoury) - “compromise” is the correct word.

That said, an opponent who might bid (2) P (2) P (4) might also roll the dice with (2) P (2) P (3), giving a not dissimilar issue.

{David} You do indeed lose (2) DBL (P) P for penalty, though not the more useful (2) P (P) DBL (P) P - which typically transposes to (2) P (2) DBL* (P) P where the * is either pure T/O or pure penalty - the detail of rationalising why this should be so is left to the reader.

You've got me on the Reverse Fishbein mind you - haven't figured that one out entirely yet, but given our Lebensohl-like response structure, (2) 2 (P) ? might not be without difficulty on the odd occasion :)

Ian C
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kieran.

You may be making a more subtle point than I currently envisage, but for us, it's just as easy: (2{=Multi}) 2 is how the auction would start.

Ian C
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit,

That is accurate in and of itself.

The question which is worth asking is how often you'll want a (safe) T/O DBL of versus a 2 overcall. On a frequency basis, I would suggest the T/O DBL has a higher utility.

On a related point, you note that (2) 2 becomes possible where it wouldn't be over (2). It is similarly worth noting that (2) DBL{=T/O of } (P) 2, or the analogous (2) DBL{=T/O of } (2) DBL become possible, which also wouldn't be possible over 2.

It depends what you most value, and as a matter of course, I almost always value a T/O DBL over any other defensive tool.

Ian C
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kit.

To answer your final question, it is not based on simulations, but rather, very long experience (both personal and that of team-mates, who usually play something different).

On many deals, any reasonable defense will get by. However, I have rarely, indeed don't recall ever, hearing a post-mortem conversation along the lines “if only I'd been able to immediately show a WK NT, we'd have been OK” - which is the main advantage the other approaches typically give, e.g DBL as 13-15 hcp BAL or anything very strong.

Conversely, I have heard many over the years marveling at the efficacy of the immediate T/O type, both in allowing high level action if bounced, but also, allowing the partnership to safely subside, rather than feeling the need for a delayed action under pressure, having got the basic hand-type off our chest immediately.

Still, I am but one person and a lot of good players would seem to disagree.

As a matter of theory, the other good thing about this defense is that it can be applied generically. Whenever the opposition have shown two discrete roughly equal (typically weak to modest) hand types, the same principle applies.

So, imagine you are playing a strong club method and the opponents play 1NT/2/2 as a CRaSH defense and overcall, say, 2. Here, 2 is T/O of the option with diamonds (that is, T/O of the minors) and DBL is T/O of the other option (in this case, T/O of the majors).

Same principle to the common 1NT defense after 1NT (2{=or}) ?

The important point of all these auctions is that people know what they're doing after a T/O DBL or equivalent, so when you get that and your cue-bid(s) back, most partnerships are on pretty safe ground.

Ian C
May 30
Ian Casselton edited this comment May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unusually, Kit.

I don't know where to start on the auction - there is much I don't agree with. I'm assuming a Precision-like opening context in the following comments.

The North hand is closer to a 1-bid than a WK2 or equivalent IMO. If you want an objective (as in not influenced by the specific deal) view on this, K-R rates it as 11.90 hcp. Further, as you yourself suggest, owning spades argues less for the need to pre-empt if marginal. I rate the actions 1/Pass/2 in order.

Moving around to East and assuming a Multi 2 from North, playing any method which doesn't allow an immediate T/O of an assumed WK2 type is sub-optimal IMO, though I am aware of the absence of such defensive options in certain geographies. Whether its the method mentioned by Phillip above or my own preferred DBL = T/O of , 2 - T/O of , you want to be getting the T/O DBL type across asap.

In my preferred methods (which I first saw Martel and Stansby playing back in the day), the DBL (T/O of ) action is a particularly safe auction entry point. On this hand, as Andy observes, it would seem reasonably possible to get to 5 thereafter (though a precipitous 4 from West or a MP-like 3NT might also be possible outcomes, as David alludes to).

The one interesting consideration which arises from this is what does (2) DBL{=T/O of } (P) 2 mean, in such an auction? I have played this defense for years, but never had that auction nor felt the need for it. However, someone who had played it for some time at my suggestion once asked me - and I couldn't answer him!

I suspect after due consideration, I suggested “natural”, but maybe, a hand like this might be a alternate use - in effect, punishing the opponents for giving you the extra space as opposed to a natural WK2.

Ian C
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's perhaps a case of in-out valuation, John.

With respect to opening (though the relevance on the actual hand may be less).

I would argue xxx QJTxx Kxx Ax is a lot better and an almost certain opening in context.

Ian C
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Stu.

I suspect the issue here is a poorly written regulation which permits ambiguous interpretation. Your interpretation could be right (and as I have said above, I will stand corrected if so) but I suspect the actual intent was along the lines of the better written WBF one

“A pair opposing a HUM system pair will submit two (clearly legible) copies of their defence to the HUM system at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Such defences are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card”

Of course, the Multi-2 is not a HUM method, but it goes on to analogously cover written defences to brown sticker and similar conventions

http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/departments/systems/policy.asp

Ian C
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ulf.

As an aside, just had a look at the the ACBL Defense Database (deliberate use of US Spelling): http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/mc20.pdf

We play something very much like Option 1, but the implementation of it as listed is relatively poor - the one on p301 of the current Encyclopedia of Bridge is an improvement (and at least discusses the rationale of some of the options it chooses).

Ian C
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Tom.

Rather than repeat it, see my comment to Ellis below.

If you are right (i.e. your written defence to a method forms part of your card, rather than theirs) then I stand corrected.

The obvious issue, if you are right, and which Ulf alludes to, is that as soon as we take the option to play a written defence, the opponents get a written mnemonic to their own methods.

Seems weird, but then again, I've seen RA's do some pretty weird stuff over time.

Ian C
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ellis,

I think I get your intent, but I'm not sure you've expressed it correctly.

In the variants I have seen of this (I believe, the idea may have started with Edgar Kaplan), then if

{1} The opponents are playing such a method, and
{2} You choose to have an allowable written defence to said method (provided or of your own creation), then
{3} Your written defence, in effect, becomes part of the opponents' system card - i.e. you may consult it if and as you would their card

The situation Ulf describes, on face value, appears to come from a parallel universe, where

{4} The opponents are able to try and force you to choose a specified (or one of a number of specified) defences, and
{5} If and when you do, the opponents believe they are entitled to refer to what in effect is their own system card, and
{6} The TD's seem to believe all is right in the world with {5} & {6}

For what it's worth, I think the whole idea of written defences is perverse* and I wouldn't want one supplied by someone else or a governing body even when allowed to have one - but if we are going to have such perversions, they at least need to be internally consistent.

Ian C

* but I take very seriously my obligation to provide one, as I must do regularly
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David.

In the sad case (Bad Thing) that written defences are required, I agree.

The good thing about what Adam proposed is that it can be generalised.

Ian C
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, Richard.

I particularly am interested in (read “like”) Adam's idea re (1) 1 - it's definitely usable in 4th, but also perhaps in 2nd (with 2 as Michaels or similar).

{Adam} As a matter of interest, is it your idea, or did you get it/derive it from somewhere else?

Ian C
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problems, Richard.

May I add that I wasn't clear - I meant DBL = T/O of .

Ian C
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard.

I can't recall the original discussion, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't contemplate for a second playing a defence where the direct DBL of 1 wasn't T/O (with the cue-bid showing whatever the partnership plays in a Michaels-like context).

That balancing seat is different is a fair point. Not sure I'd change the methods though (other than the 1NT range, which changes anyway). I might be persuaded to allow 1 as natural (reverting the 2 bid to being Michael's-like.

Ian C
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ben.

Alas, I think we have our own selection problem now (with events yesterday in South Africa) …

Ian C
March 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
.

Bottom Home Top