Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stefan Olausson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“2NT should be a 4 card invitational+ ♥ raise”

Provided 1 is 5+,
it doesn't make sense to require 4cd support here,
unless you specify some other bid for 3cd support inv+.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Since G/B 2NT here could, presumably, be ”bad with ♣s, ♦s, or ♥s"

Isn't that normally called Lebensohl?

G/B-2NT rather refers to opener's rebid?
Sept. 2
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, you can always explore it,
but if it turns out there is no fit,
(say opener is 4-1-3-5 and responder 2-4-4-3 or similar)
where are you going?

You often end up scrambling into a lousy higher partial than the majority,
who open 1, and then play in 1NT.

Of course, they will also find a 4-4 major fit, that you may miss if you Pass 2.

In my experience, this is a frequent recurring painpoint of such system.
It works much better if 2 is always 6+suit and denies 4M.
Sept. 1
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> 5. 2♣ opening bids - including the 4 card major or not

No, you don't want 4card majors in 2.
Esp at matchpoints, it's downright terrible.
Unless responder has GF values, it's an insoluble dilemma
whether to explore 4-4 major fit or not.
And it keeps coming up too frequently.

Recently, I started playing a stong-1 canapé-system,
where this is elegantly solved.
You open your 4-card major suit and may then show a longer club suit next round, if appropriate.

I really like it.
Sept. 1
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, for the link, Craig.

That's some interesting data to digest :)
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And also comes to mind, a different quite interesting thread a couple of years ago, by the way….

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/74642-new-hand-evaluation-method/

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/74773-bidding-system-based-on-enhanced-hand-evaluation/

This wasn't double-dummy, but actual results from real play.

My own assumption was that declarers who *bid* 3NT on a specific deal, would be *more likely* to score 9+ tricks, than declarers who stopped in a partial on the *same* deal.

Other people argued that *defence* would be more likely to score 5+tricks if declarer was in 3NT, than those defending against 1NT/2NT contracts on the *same* deal.
But that I could refute by statistical analysis of the materials – on average, declarers had an advantage.

By same reasoning, I would assume declarers will consistently score *better* than DD-results, and defenders worse – and considerably more than just 3-6%.

This, since declarer generally has a considerably better overview of the deal (what is going on, the goals at hand, etc), than defenders.

And additionally, in leading to trick 1, defenders can only do *worse* than double-dummy – rarely better (the only exception, I think, being some unlikely psychological capers that happen to induce a declarer error).
Aug. 28
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“But the amount of this bias is pretty well known (around 3% - 6% for 3NT contracts–closer to the lower number when hands are balanced).”

3%-6%, compared to what? Actual results from real competitions, I assume?

But where is the actual source/investigation/evidence of such claim?
I'd sure be interested to read it.
(Those percentages sound suspiciously low to me, but I cannot tell without actual statistical materials…)

At least, it seems the percentage would be different in a very strong field vs average club-games…
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What means “clipping boards”?

Never heard that, sorry…
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if everyone at the table is playing double dummy, I think?
Including the lead to trick 1…

:)
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another possibility is to have 1NT show an invitational hand (without major, of course) opposite the weak NT-range.

So, if playing the std 15-17 1NT-opening, it would then show invitational vs 12-14 – i.e. ca 11-12 hcp or so.

The advantage of this, is that you can stop in 1NT when pard is minimum and rejects the invitation, rather than play at the 2-level.

In practice, it is also very rare that this situation occurs, though.

This agreement also requires that you have some other bid available, when holding a weaker hand ca 6-10 hcp with only 4 or 5 clubs.
Either 1-1 if you play transfer-responses to 1.
Or you need a (semi)artificial 1-1 that does not promise diamonds.
Aug. 27
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I played this way for a long time,
that 1-1NT promises 4+ clubs to make it possible to find a 4-4 or better -fit, esp if opps compete.

It seems like a very reasonable idea.

I must say, however, I actually never recall having had any use of it.
For some reason, it seems extremely rare for such a situation to actually appear.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
isn't political discussions banned here? :)
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hand above is still 4-2-1-7.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Christopher – I've heard of them, of course, but never studied them in detail.

Still, seems like an obvious disadvantage, that you can seldom play in 2 with 4-5 in blacks.

Both DONT-ish defences, and this “Pagan” I referred to here, has that quality – you should always find a playable suit at the 2-level. I consider it a very important one.

That's also why I don't like the 2/2=5M+4m conventions, btw. If the major is strong enough, I rather bid it as a single-suiter, otherwise stay silent and defend.
Aug. 19
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Petter – they might be two different defences, not sure…?

“Note: there are several similar names and varieties-Astpro, Asptro or Apstro)”
http://www.bridgeonsundays.ic24.net/defence.pdf
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “2♣ = Spades + Other”

How can that ever work?

For example, what does advancer do with 2-5-3-3 (or 1-5-4-3) dull hand?
If he passes, overcaller may have + (or +?).
If he bids, overcaller has +, going down (an extra trick) in 3 (perhaps doubled)…?
Aug. 18
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Kerry!
Yupp, agreed. Pagan seems to be the name for it :)

ps. I like it, too!
It's pretty clever :)
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Added 2M = Natural in the OP.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The downsides I see of this convention compared to DONT-ish, is that you cannot show a single-suited minor (or both minors) on the 2-level, and have no bids to show 5M+4m.

But instead get better precision for all other 5-4 hands.

There's pros and cons to everything :)
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that sounds like the DONT convention…

The immediate downside of that compared to this “no-name”(?) convention is, that when overcaller is 5-4/4-5, advancer will not know which suit is longer, and you might not play in your best suit.

Also, I have played DONT (X=any single-suiter) in the past, and
a too common scenario is that next opponent bids something over your Double. Since pard doesn't know which suit you hold, he can seldom support you, even when he happens to hold good support (he will assume you have his worst side-suit).
Also, if he ends up leading to trick 1, it is a clear disadvantage not being sure which suit you have.

Since overcalls with single-suiters are more common than two-suiters, I prefer “reverse DONT” over “std DONT”:

X = clubs, or two higher suits (not clubs).
2 = clubs + a higher suit.
2/2/2 = natural

Then pard will at least be in a better situation when you have the frequent single-suiter.
Aug. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top