Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alex Martelli
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just in case you're still emailing notes about Symmetric Relay, I'm aleaxit@gmail.com – late to this thread but a fascinated purchaser of the 5cm Scanian book and fan of all kinds of systems!-)
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran and Richard, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree – I'm not saying it's a good idea to have 2H be ambiguous, I AM saying that with most partners it actually IS (so game is a gamble, though a fair one, and slam is wild after having chosen the very dubious 2C preference). You'll be happier playing 2H than 2C if your 2C preference came from xx-Axxxx-xxx-Qxx and partner's 4=3=3=3 (ugly rebid problem for responder over 1S – 2C will much more often be 4 cards, but, even then, a 5-3 in H will play better than a 4-3 in C; such problems argue for the style in which the 1S rebid does promise 4+ clubs… of course, responder with a weakish 4-4 in H/S is what argues for rebidding 1S even with 4=3=3=3).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago I used to subscribe to “Australian Bridge” and I remember that opener's rebid in a new suit was popularly played as forcing in Australia; checking it online now however seems to suggest this is not the case any more (the “AB Standard” system they use in their bidding forum, per https://australianbridge.com/abstandard.htm, specified that *reverses* are forcing – doesn't mention non-reverse shifting of suits by opener, thus by inference it appears it's non-forcing).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, the original poster specified (it's right at the top of this thread) “Opener will bid 1s on any hand with 4s - but he does have at least 3 clubs”; given this style, and the fact that 2C could sometimes be necessary with just 3 cards in clubs, I'm convinced that with most partners 2H would not ensure the perfect 4=3=1=5. Yes, the ambiguity hurts; but not as much as bidding a weak, discouraging 2C preference, leaving opener the chance of either playing that low part-score, or else slam:-). (Of course this responder should have rebid 3C, assuming it's not game forcing, or 2D, if _that_ is only a 1-round force ).
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that H may well play better – that's typical of “swans” (7-4 hands) – but if partner could rebid S that would change the picture. Since strength-wise (playing tricks) the hand's between 3H and 4H, I let the S-rebid possibility sway me to 3H – partner's much more likely to rebid S over that, than he or she would over 4H.
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I consider 4H a (fair) gamble because with most partners one risks opener having a minimum 4=3=3=3, just choosing a heart fit that might be 5-3 over a club one that might even be 3-3; weak diamonds and spade waste may well make 4H a 0% proposition.
Oct. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To answer the original Q, which nobody's addressing – I'd play D to Q (but duck if LHO plays K or J first), back to hand w/Spade A, D again. I'm playing for KJ([potentially x0 of D on my left, or K10 or Kx (again, potentially x accompanying) – allowing me to lose the D trick to LHO. Kxx-Jx (10 either side) would work too!
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The likely (though not certain) D shortness with opener makes it well worth gambling a vulnerable game at IMPs.
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A “takeout” double of 4H must be flexible – partner can pass much more often than he'd pass a takeout double of, say, 1H. This hand can't risk defending 4HX! If/when 4S is doubled and comes back to me, I'll try 5D…
March 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…actually found the system notes, is/was a Google Doc of differences from KSU, and I had s/thing wrong (4M natural, not Texas). Mail me at aleaxit at gmail.com and I'll gladly share the read-link, the whole NT system is right there as “Morgan Transfers” as is every other agreement where we differed from KSU (it also points to KSU;-). Offers extended to any interested reader…
March 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure! 2C NF Stayman (can be garbage); resp. rebid 2H is `misery`/garbage, 2S inv. 2D inv. or better 5+H; 2H/S, 3C/D, 3N sign-offs; 2N, GF 5+S; 4D/H Texas. Plenty of weird specialized artificial meanings for slam exploration w/ 3H/S, 4C/S/N, and peculiar rebids after original 2C/D/N resp, which never come up and are forgotten when they do;-). But the strength is: no transfer on sign-offs (maximum preemptive effect), plenty of simple natural exploration for game & unb. invites available, inv hands w/5-card major can finish in 2M. Haven't played it in years (my career has this habit of yanking me away from regular bridge;-) but I can write my old partner to see if he has notes to send me…
March 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did study this years ago, specifically for quantitative 1NT-2NT invites on a KS-style 12-14 NT, to help my partner David Morgan design a better response system; I don't have the numbers at hand but very extensive simulations (with stratified sampling just like in my BW articles back in Jan&Feb 2000, making it very solid) showed the purely quantitative invite as a loser at both BAM and IMP, so David used 2NT otherwise. (Yielding a beautiful system with 2M a natural sign-off, much more preemptive than transfers, yet plenty of choice to explore anyway).

No broader conclusions can be afforded, but Bocchi-Duboin, per their 2010 book (in Italian), did apply the idea much more broadly: no quantitative game invites at all in any sequence; raises that sound like natural game invites set trumps and start a slam quest instead. I find it peculiar that Garrisi's review (in English), http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/the-bocchi-duboin-system-review-by-paolo-garrisi.html , does not mention this key, non-standard style choice.
March 24, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top