32519

The thread title says it all, "What's the point of an Individual Tournament?" What do you prove?

This is actually interesting. Multi is allowed, but because no one has ever challenged it in its original form, the SABF simply doesn't know about any other form. This will need to be taken up with the committee.

Maybe I need to rephrase my question - If South does enter the auction over 2♠, then - 1. What is the minimum number of HCP you would expect South to hold? 2. Dropping the number of HCP required on hands where South has extra length must certainly be a consideration because of cross-ruffing potential (doubler has shown a t/o of the majors). The lower the HCP, the longer the requirement of the suit bid.

Windows 8.1 to push Metro underground

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good. After your double this is how the bidding continued – [hv=pc=n&n=skqh5dk98532ca972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi)p2h(My%20longest%20major)d(T/o%20for%20the%20minors)2s(6%20spades%2C%204%20hearts)]133|200[/hv] Because of the vulnerability, I do not know how aggressive your side is. Will South bid or not over 2♠? You have a known 4-4 fit in ♣ after the t/o double.

Hmm, seems that just like johnu and zel, you are reading that post of mine out of context. Better go and read this post again, my answer to them (and now you too.) My guess is that those who have upvoted your post also misread my answer. :unsure:

It's all about the system. Fantunes solved it in their own way. A 1♥ opening bid promises a 5+ card suit, 14+ HCP, 11-13 HCP with 5+♥ and 4♠ 1NT = 0-9, no 4-card major. Now they use the 2♣ either as natural or Gazzilli to keep responder talking.

The 1NT (forcing) is part of 2/1 which now creates a hole/flaw (a whole flaw :)) in the system. For those who play 1NT as forcing, how do you plug this hole if you fall into the anti-Flannery camp with a 4522 hand? With 4531 you can still bend the rules slightly.

This hand comes from a club game last night. How do you plan to cope with this bidding sequence? [hv=pc=n&n=skqh5dk98532ca972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(%5BSee%20note%201%5D)p2h(My%20longest%20major)]133|200[/hv] The 2♦ bid promises one of the following hand patterns - 1. 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP 2. 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP 3. A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP 4. A big 5-5 hand in the minors, 14+ HCP

An immediate raise to 3♦ promises 10-13 HCP and guarantees support for the 6-card major (whenever opener opened with the 6-4 hand pattern in the majors. The bid is game invitational. After this whenever opener has opened one of the other three hand patterns, then – 1. With a natural ♦ suit, opener will pass. The combined HCP strengths of the two hands will hopefully see the contract home. 2. With the big 4-4-4-1 16+ HCP hand, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 26. The continuation bidding allows you to find the best spot. 3. With the big 5-5 14+ HCP hand in the minors, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 24. The final contract now depends on the degree of fit between the two hands, more often than not either – a. A minor suit partial b. 4NT to play c. Game in a minor 4. An immediate raise to 4♦ or 5♦ is pre-emptive and showing a single suiter in ♦, a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. Obviously now opener has not opened with a natural weak 2 in ♦. Whether or not opener bids game over 4♦ will depend on the actual hand pattern held. With 6-4 in the majors, a pass is more likely. With a big 4-4-4-1 hand pattern, game will most likely be bid. So to answer your question, an immediate raise of the ♦ suit is not lost. Also it puts more pressure onto the opponents to enter the bidding once partner has shown some values.

Emerging market contagion threatens rich countries.

Both of you are reading my 100% gain out of context. I was replying to this post of gwnn. His argument was that the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid will largely vanish when it is forcing for 1 round. My counter argument was that – 1. If the opponents double for takeout (or make an overcall), my partner is under no obligation to bid. Under that scenario I am under exactly the same footing as anyone else who opens a natural 2♦. But now the pressure is transferred to the partner of the doubler to enter the bidding on potential crap not knowing what my partner is holding. Additionally my partner is sitting behind the doubler which is going to prove problematic for his side when my partner has real values. I have retained the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid in my version of the Multi, a 100% gain over everyone else who plays some or other version of Multi which does not include the possibility of a natural 2♦ bid. The other versions don’t have the nuisance value. 2. If he chooses to pass the first time round to find out, a) something about partners hand, and b) which hand pattern I am actually holding, then the bidding gets back to him in 3♦ 74.2% of the times. He has lost a whole level of bidding space for his side which may prove crucial in his side reaching the optimal spot. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side. 3. Something else that neither of you are taking into consideration is the fact that you don’t know what the continuation structure looks like when partner has values. Your side not entering the auction the first time round allows my partner to show those values (in whatever combination they are held). You are allowing my side to bid in an uncontested auction. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side. The loss of a natural 3♦ pre-empt is something I have already conceded higher up in this thread. But that wasn’t part of the argument with gwnn. The argument with him was about losing the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ pre-empt. For your benefit I will make this concession as well – when opener has a really weak 2♦ opening bid, knowing that the auction is possibly going to go to 3♦, the system notes say that these sorts of hands should rather be passed. So your side won’t be extracting any penalty double from those types of hands. Is that a gain or a loss? I will let you decide for yourself.

I know the basics of Flannery but have never read Bill Flannery’s book. Is that what it says? What is wrong with playing, “any change of suit is forcing for 1 round?” That way partner gets to bid his 4-card ♠ suit over 1♥. Opener with a minimum can raise to 2♠, with a max he can raise to 3♠. If the opponents chip in with an overcall in the minor suits, a negative double brings responders 4-card ♠ suit into play.

I have changed my mind on the 50% you gain, 50% I gain. I have changed it to 100% I gain and 0% you gain. If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout and my partner chooses to pass, the pressure switches onto your side. I have retained the natural nuisance value of a 2♦ opening bid. If you choose to pass first, the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a whole level of bidding space. Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

50% of the time this can work to the advantage of your side, the other 50% to the advantage of our side. If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout, my partner is under no obligation to bid. However if you choose to pass first to find out something about partners hand, and which hand pattern opener is actually holding (74.2% a natural ♦ suit), the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a full level of bidding space, a very rare and priceless commodity. I’m perfectly happy with that sort of bidding.

No I don't. 74.2% of the times opened, my 2♦ bid will be a natural 2♦ bid. But you are correct in saying that it is forcing for 1 round. When it is a ♦ suit, the auction is forced to 3♦. When I opened with a 7-card suit, that is where I want to be anyway. That still leaves another 25.8% of times when I have one of the strong/semi-strong options.

fromageGB was the one who pointed out the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts. Misiry and this proposal of yours make use of 3 transfer pre-empts, all susceptible to the shortcomings pointed out by fromageGB. Because of the low frequency of occurrence of big 2-suiters I reject both methods outright. Not only do they not fit in with the rest of my system, all I will be doing by adopting either is giving the opponents more options to enter the auction at low risk to themselves. 99.98% of these types of openings will be a weak single suiter i.e. a big 6-5 holding has a 0.02% probability of occurrence. A big 6-6 2-suiter has a 0.01% probability of occurrence. Effectively my method only has the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts on 1 bid, my 3♦ bid as a transfer to ♥. My 3♥ bid guarantees a big 2-suiter in ♠/m. Even if the opponents X 3♥ showing the suit, or bid 4♥, I can still outbid them in 4♠. If they choose to sacrifice my side still gets the plus score. The other downside of my method is that I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt, but I don’t lose it altogether as it ends up in my version of the Multi. This is exactly what I have done. My version of the Multi has 3 strong/semi-strong options all with a relatively low frequency of occurrence. Read this post by mikeh. A natural 2♦ bid has a bigger nuisance value than many are willing to admit. Therefore I don't want to lose it. The overall frequency of occurrence of my 2♦ bid is 3.74%. Of that number, 2.64% is a natural ♦ suit. The other 3 options within my 2♦ bid which are rarer all have proper follow up sequences. When I show the big 5-5 hand in the minors, the opponents easily outbid me in 3 of either major. However because I am showing a hand with proper values they won't bid the easy game versus players who show a weak hand in the minors (as your system does). Additionally, partner is now placed in a much better situation to bump the auction up to 4m. The opponents can still bid 4M but because I have shown real values, hopefully I can take them down and our side gets the plus score.

Why has this never been challenged before?

Zel, in my BBO profile, I have set my skill level at “intermediate.” At best I can label myself “advanced.” By far the majority of club players would also regard themselves as “intermediate.” We all have a passion for the game. It’s addictive. Week after week we keep on returning to the table for our “weekly fix.” If we can’t get our “weekly fix” for whatever reason, we start getting withdrawal symptoms. Here we have a room full of intermediates all drawing up their own set of agreements in an attempt to gain the upper hand. Just like you, I get “a kick” out of experimenting with new ideas. The only place I have to test some of these crazy ideas is against this room full of intermediates. All of them will be offended if you label them beginners. The seriousness with which you hear them arguing and fighting with each other over a bad result gives you an indication of how seriously they take the game and the desire to win. I also want to win, even if it is just a club game. As long as I am getting good results from some of these crazy ideas I will keep on playing them. These forums have plenty of posters who (almost) without fail, love to ridicule these crazy ideas. The latest ridiculing can be seen in this thread on big 2-suiters. The truth be said, from much of all this ridiculing, new possibilities come to mind, or things are pointed out which I never thought of in the first place. No matter how good or bad Misiry is, the fact is it does not fit in with the rest of my system. After being dealt some of these big 2-suiters, I have only recently started developing some sort of partnership agreement on how to bid them that fits in with the rest of my system, and that requires minimal memory load. What am I wanting to demonstrate? This forum is about interesting hands where all sorts of things happened at the table, sometimes good, sometimes bad. I added a hand to the forum where the contracts were all over the place. Maybe I just got lucky?

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place - When N/S declared: 2/18 in 2NT 2/18 in 3♦ 4/18 in 3NT 1/18 in 4NT 1/18 in 5♦ 2/18 in 5♦X 1/18 in 6♦ When E/W declared: 2/18 in 3♠X 3/18 in 4♠X All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦. [hv=pc=n&s=sh93djt76543cq943&w=sqt9643hkqj6dcat6&n=sak85ha542daqckj7&e=sj72ht87dk982c852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)2n3d(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)p3sdppp]399|300[/hv] Notes on the bidding: 1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns - (a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP (b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP © Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP (d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP 2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

Any system or convention that allows you to open more hand patterns with a relatively high frequency of occurrence should always get the thumbs up. The overall frequency of Multi (including the hand patterns for the bids which have been freed up through Multi) appears to have a pretty decent frequency of occurrence. From that, its a wonder that there aren't more people using it. An even bigger wonder, is why it isn't allowed everywhere. Once I've eliminated the errors in my own numbers in this thread I'd like to see what that final frequency of occurrence figure is. Then I want to see how it matches up against sticking to the standard/regular uses of each bid i.e. 1. 2♦/2♥/2♠ all as a regular weak 2 2. 2NT as a regular 20-21 HCP balanced hand. 3. Whichever one comes out with the higher frequency of occurrence is what I intend using in my own system. Your input thus far is highly appreciated. Point out the rest of my errors posted here so I can fix them to get to that final number. Thanks again.

Thanks for your input Zel. I fully agree with thas as many players put all their 22+ HCP hands through their their 2♣ bid. I will adjust my numbers accordingly.

Halleluja! Someone has seen the light!

This can't be right. If the requirements for opening with Misiry are hands as strong as this, then the frequency of occurrence is going to drop even further, to the point of being negligible.

This post is equally valid for Misiry. With such a low frequency of big 2-suiters just drop the whole thing altogether.