Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Yehudit Hasin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 197 198 199 200
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan - my agreements are adequate, as they include meta-agreements.
You auction 2-3-P-3 would be natural and forcing in this case. It is not perfect, but “continuations are natural, unless discussed” does cover continuations. Is there better defense? Sure, but I don't remember providing the perfect defense system for 1NT overcall structures. I also play suction over 2 openings and do not provide defenses for that.
Multi in a way is easier, because there is a lot of experience with it - so there already a lot of defenses floating around you can use as basis or as is. Again, there are thousands of players who play multi and against it without an issue at all levels - so you can't argue that it is difficult to grasp, because practice proves otherwise.
Also, note that the defenses currently provided by ACBL are incomplete by your standards too, nevertheless multi is allowed in some events and these are considered adequate - so obviously covering all continuations is not .
:)Yu
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard I believe that if 4D is X, partner with xx in diamonds should pull it out. It just shows some diamond length (4-5?). It is not an absolute penalty, as you are passed hand - just a suggestion if partner's hand is suitable, and desire to play 4 if its not.
So if that is my partnership understanding, this is what I bid with this hand, regardless of the opponents - and let partner decide. If you pay it rather inflexibly, it is a whole different issue.

:)Yu
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not see how GF+ or spit range 1 negates hiding opener's hand or anything else in our structure. It is just a relay.
I see a lot of value in being able to immediately communicate distribution /suit when responder is weaker, and opps are more likely to come in if they have distribution. Arguably it is more important when responder is in some invitational range and game is possible, than when responder is a complete bust.
:)Yu
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard I believe that E was also transferring the A. Nevertheless in club auctions I just do not trust the opps and want to describe my hand to P. X of 4 describes my hand better than 4, after all I am a passed hand. Partner can then decide what to do - it does not shut them out.
:)Yu
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - any system notes you could share?
Richard, thanks, I will look if I can find it somewhere local. Did not catch on , does not mean not worth trying.
:)Yu
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed - interesting. We had this discussion with the club manager, regarding whether the club can decide not to enforce convention cards (never mind the fact that none of them do, it was theoretical), providing they chose a different way of disclosure. His understanding was that the club is the RA for club games, and so was of multiple other directors.

:)Yu
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suction was not outlawed on the WC at least not till recently - and Jim and I still play it over all strong bids! They will have the one suiter more often than the 2 suiter (assuming 4-4 is not 2 suiter).

Our standard approach to suction - bid of their next suit (what they will have most
often) is t/o of that suit. X shows their bid suit. Other bids are natural. In your case I would make the exception that 1-1-X should probably be equivalent to 1-1(nat)-X.

:)Yu
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“At any rate, I would not be using 3♥ as a catch-all invite.” - this is in my experience not a majority view either. Personally I prefer to use it as general invite, and always be able to differentiate invite vs sign off than having a more accurate invite only sometimes and none in others.
:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Long diamond suit that you do not want partner to lead. Probably weak hand with 6-7-8 diamonds (assuming opps are kind of believable not to have game). S did not want to overcall till opps declared the strength split.
Could even be Kxx, xx, Qxxxxxxx,-.

:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave - my question is not about what is desirable, it is whether that is the meaning of the current regulation? Because if yes, the onus of defining expected is on each RA (here each club is in theory an RA), not the players.
:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I completely agree with the but, my list is not exhaustive, just examples…
:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would depend on NT/suit contract, did we bid the suit or not and basically if there is any logic to me holding up an honor. If I absolutely can not have A/K then it could be count, and could be SP (again depends on dummy). If there is a possibility of a hold up, it is 100% attitude.
:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The law also says that a special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood etc. ” - I would think that means that the RA should publish what it considers the default meaning (or meta rules for such) and the rest needs alert?
:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, since I am the lab rat for this experiment I will contribute my impressions:
First, I never played any variant of precision before that - so I am do not have preferences in terms of what I am used to.

I think that 1 negative is useful in practice on several accounts, most of which it seems that people are reluctant to compete over it - whether it is because they are forced to 2 level, or because it contains a strong option as well I do not know. But there is not much bidding from the opponents over it. If they double it shows spades, and makes the auction somewhat easier for us.

It did pose significant difficulties for 2 suited hands. Eventually I suggested the following:
1C-P-1S-P
1NT= balanced, semi balanced hands in the NT range (ours is 17-20-)
2C- asks the responder about tolerance for hearts
2D- asks the responder about tolerance for spades
(in both cases 2M=if you have any other suit I prefer that, and 2M-1 is I have 2+ in that major, jump to 3M is I have exceptional hand in context of that Major, and 2NT=8-11 balanced).
2M - Single suited F1 (like the 3M response).
3m - single suited minor.

Jim is trying to add a lot of meanings to different continuations, not all of which I consider an improvement (its just very cramped, and I think unnecessary so). But since that we are not landing in particularly bad partials nor do we end up playing 1NT -3 with 2M available. By far the most common is 1NT, and we include many 5431 hands that do not have 5 card major into it. If you decide not to you run the risk of playing 2M in 4-2 fit - up to you :)

Yet, my most favorable impression of playing this sytem is when we do not open 1C. I find the limiting openings and weak NT very useful.

That said, playing this system for some time led me to the idea of 1 GF+ and the rest as weak bids, but that is just an idea (input is welcome).

:)Yu
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MK - may be. But that's what Multon apparently played. I definitely saw splinters in response to weak 2 openings in my life, but admittedly in club games. Yet, the point about 4 can never being natural on that auction stands - 2 says in a variants I ever saw “pass if you have hearts”, that hand wants to play 4 if the opener has spades?

:)Yu
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan - “ but the reality is that players in club games don't need such clear agreements of the meaning of their bids because they have ”table feel“ to help them work things out. ” - if you refer to players in the clubs using UI, I would not expect that you would say it is OK - which is what it sounds to me. But you know, that just means that players in the clubs EVERYWHERE will be OK with multi - including ACBL land. So it is hardly the reason to disallow it.

About your example:
So on that board they had an accident because they did not know/forgot/did not discuss if they were playing system on after a t/o double. That would be the same problem if you translate that auction to:
2-X-4…..how is that multi specific?
It is not an example of why multi screwed up, it is an example of not having meta agreements is screwed up - and may cost you a match. If my 1NT gets doubled for penalty and I did not discuss runouts, should I assume XX by P is transfer or to play? At different levels of play the answer is probably different, but it has nothing to do with whether playing 1NT strong or weak is better. This does not take a lot of discussion.

Accidents happen. Surely Kickback or Lightner doubles or some strong club systems are up there on that list, way above multi- all perfectly legal, not BSC. This one sticks to your mind, because Multi is something esoteric to you, but in real life it is no more accident prone than other ones. Ask any pair that plays it regularly - and, btw, did Multon and Martenes stopped playing multi after this “accident”? I seriously doubt it.

About written defenses - I am glad I do not usually use them and was never accustomed to. In fact the only time we used them, was when we were not allowed to play our defense to multi because it was not written (sorry Danny)….but I would say that having written defenses is hampering because people relying exclusively on those do not have meta agreements.

Want an easy defense to multi:
First round bidding by either:
X=balanced NT, over that system on. All doubles in subsequent auction are for penalties by either partner.
2NT/4NT=minors
3m/2M=natural
3NT/4M=to play, system on after 3NT (but use with caution, 3NT may be minor suit based).
4m=preemptive-ish (vul dependant) - not a sac, long broken minor and not much outside.

After the start of
2D-P-2H-P-
P/2S-?
suit calls are weaker than direct overcalls. X is t/o, 2NT is not natural (lots of options available, but I like minors - just one that's easy to remember and consistent with the rest)

Over other continuations than 2H - X are t/o of their preferred trump suit, bids are natural, q of that suit is strong asking for stopper (probably running minor and something outside).

That's about all I used to discuss as defense for a club game, and it is not rocket science. It is not the best or most comprehensive either, but has the advantage of simplicity. Took me about 10 seconds? In serious competition that many people play multi, we would discuss and adjust more - but that is true for every other convention.

:)Yu

PS: one more thing about your example - Martens should have never passed, and 4 can not be natural -partner can not have a hand that prefers to play 2 if opener has hearts, but wants to play 4 if opener has spades.
7 hours ago
Yehudit Hasin edited this comment 7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer solid invites and aggressive accepts, but this in my opinion should be taught somewhere further along the line. The best advice I got about IMP strategy is “memorize the IMP scale” - explain that, and the strategy is going to be easier to explain.
Some things I think are more important than adjusting accept/invite ranges:
1. Declarer strategies: do not worry about overtricks, safety plays, in slim contracts always take the line that allows you to make, however unlikely it is.
2. Doubling strategies: no low level penalty doubles (they should learn to relax that one later), doubling of sacrifices, doubling of thin games.
3. Slam bidding
4. Defensive strategies: active leads and trying to beat the contract (overtricks don't matter)

:)Yu
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad the strong hand is going to be the dummy - behind you.
:)Yu
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Yu, try this thought experiment. …..
So, yes, there is logic behind the ACBL restrictions.” -
Jan, history and logic are not the same. What you describe is the historical reason for the difference, not a logical one. If a convention that does not pose an actual problem to rank and file players across several NBOs should be a BSC, I would say it is a reason to review the definition of BSC - not to barr it somewhere else.

“And anyone who claims they don't need to work on defensive methods against Multi is wrong, as the many many accidents both sides have in competitive Multi auctions attest.” -
Work and discuss are again different things. You need to discuss, like you need to discuss if UvU you q higher suit for higher or higher q is support. I am not aware of the many accidents with or against multi - and where I started playing it is perfectly legal at every level. There will inevitably be accidents with something new, but if that is the reasoning ACBL should have barred negative doubles too - and any convention for that matter. I saw accidents with Stayman, Michaels, and all key card asking ones - Kickback, Gerber, RKCB, Blackwood - all perfectly legal. If you are talking about defensive bids - UvU, all defences to 1NT etc come to mind.
But go to any club in Europe and they have zero problem with defending Multi (unlike for example remembering Michael's and which suits that bid means). So your assertion that is more accident prone is simply not true. It may be more accident prone in US, BECAUSE it is rare, but it is no more difficult to defend against, and the defences are no more difficult to learn or discuss that any other convention. In ACBL land you could even read them apparently, so you do not even need to remember them.

:)Yu
9 hours ago
Yehudit Hasin edited this comment 9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not anymore so than in pairs game, and I would say that typically less. We did not run into problems in this tournament, and I have a rather good hearing. One reason is that the next tables need to go to the nex board to keep up the pace, so postmortems are kept for after the match (again facilitated by hand records). The second thing is we are not playing the boards in the same order necessarily.
In the case you run after time the noise level is lower than usual Swiss because there is no formal need to compare, so less teams actually do, and that is non specific noise. It would be rather difficult to discern info about the particular last board you are trying to finish.
:)Yu
Sept. 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 197 198 199 200
.

Bottom Home Top