32519

The contributors to this forum have a phenomenal amount of knowledge regarding various Non-Natural Systems. Apart from Precision with all its variants, how many of the other NNS are allowed by the controlling bodies in the different countries? From these forums, it appears as though the USA is amongst the most restrictive. Yet the USA (excluding China?) has more bridge players than all (most?) other countries. Which leads me to the question that I have been unable to find the answer to myself: How does having all this knowledge help if – 1.) You will rarely, if ever, get to play your own NNS? 2.) You will rarely, if ever, get to play against a NNS?

Some other threads on Lebensohl / Rubensohl I came across: Rubensohl v Transfer Lebensohl http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42512-rubensohl-vs-transfer-lebensohl/ The thread received 24 replies for anyone interested in reading them. Rubinsohl http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/37753-rubinsohl/ Rubinsohl Tweak http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42196-rubinsohl-tweak/ Rubensohl http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38269-rubensohl/ Rubensohl How did Garozza mean? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36759-rubensohl/

Others have also tried something different. Here are some of the more interesting systems I found in this forum: Scream v IMPrecision v Straw Man http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50322-scream-vs-imprecision-vs-straw-man/ Pattern System http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/17897-pattern-system/ GaLwood http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44912-galwood-bidding-system/ Little Canape http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36236-little-canape-a-system-to-analyze/

Here is another defence to a 1NT opening that I stumbled across. It is called MONK (Major Orientated NT Killer). You can read more here http://www.bridgebuff.com/monk.html

Can we steer this 1NT discussion into a new direction? Before discussing the merits or demerits of the various defences to a 1NT opening, what are YOUR primary objectives? 1.) Effectiveness accompanied with ease of memory? 2.) Showing your distribution satisfied to compete for a part score? 3.) Showing your distribution WHILE AT THE SAME TIME announcing values good enough for game when held in the right combination with partner? 4.) Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others? 5.) Disrupting the opponents 1NT sequence while at the same time giving partner a lead indicator? 6.) Assisting the opponents in reaching a thin game in the majors? Yes, you read that correctly. I place 2NT over 1NT promising 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP into this category. For the 1NT bidder to make a thin game in the majors, his RHO is now marked for any required finesses. This must surely be one of the poorer choices for interfering over a 1NT opening. Defending against it is easy via cue-bids: 3♣ = both majors, longer ♥; 3♦ = both majors, longer ♠. This is nothing more than showing a Smolen type response over a 2NT interference. X of the 2NT bid can be used as a replacement for Stayman after the interference promising only one 4-card major and game going values. Opener can choose to convert or leave the X in to see where the doubler runs to in the minors if his partner doesn’t have any preference for either minor. Opener has been given some free additional information as to suit strength and hand layout of the opponents. Now opener has some more choices: (1) X again, this time for penalty, (2) convert to game in the best known major suit fit, (3) convert to 3NT with the right sort of hand. MY OBJECTIVES are: 1.) Effectiveness accompanied with ease of memory. 2.) Choosing to show hand patterns that occur more frequently than others. 3.) To show my distribution, differentiating between constructive values competing for the part score and game invitational values. 4.) To show my distribution while at the same time announcing values good enough for game when held in the right combination with partner. 5.) To show a 4+/5 card holding in the 5-10 HCP range which always promises a major as the 5-card suit. Probing further with these hand types reverts to partner when he has some values and a fit is found. 6.) If the hand I am dealt has some values but doesn’t meet any of the above requirements, I choose to pass rather than give the opponents information which will assist them in bidding thin games e.g. 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP. I’m still busy optimizing my defence against a 1NT opener, but in line with wank’s statement above “it’s all about the majors,” my defensive agreements can currently differentiate between the following major suit holdings: 1.) A 6-4 holding and 10-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner 2.) A 5-5 holding and 10-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner 3.) A 4-5 holding (Flannery) and 11-15 HCP, game invitational when held in the right combination with partner The rest of the structure currently looks like this: 4.) A constructive 2♥ or 2♠ showing 8-12 HCP. Based purely on frequency of occurrence, this is a big winner when measured against Muiderberg which promises 5-cards in the suit bid and 5-cards in an undisclosed minor. The probability of being dealt a hand in this range is 4.76%. The probability of being dealt a Muiderberg type of hand in the 8-12 HCP range is 1.72% (1.80% in the 5-10 HCP range, but how effective this is sitting behind a 1NT opening is questionable). 5.) There are two bidding sequences employed in my structure to show 5-5 in the minors. The first one promises real values, 14-18 HCP. The frequency of occurrence within this range is low at only 0.16%. However those pesky opponents are less likely to get to game in either NT or a major after showing real values. I may lose the part score battle, but not the game battle. 6.) The 2♣ bid is the catchall bid, used to show (a) all 2-suited 4+/5 holdings and 5-10 HCP, the 5-card suit is always one of the majors, or (b) 5-5 in the minors and 11-13 HCP. The frequency of occurrence for these hand types are quite high, standing at 7%. The 2♣ bid will probably not be allowed in ACBL land is there is no anchor suit. 7.) With a minor suit orientated hand and 5-10 HCP, I choose to pass cutting my losses. People are forever naming conventions after themselves. This is no different. I have named it "Lee Defence over 1NT" after myself.

Hand 1: Does your defence to a 1NT opening allow you all four options here? Or must you sacrifice 1 in favour of something else?

I have been following these posts keenly, hoping to find the optimal solution which caters for both major suit and minor suit orientated hands in the direct seat over the 1NT bidder. How do any of the 1NT defences already posted here find the game contract (or a very profitable sacrifice) for the 3 hands below? Granted that it will be rare that these situations arise, but when they do, I don’t want to miss the game opportunity. Over a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, declarer can bid game on sub-game values, making use of the information of knowing where most of the missing HCP are located. The 4th hand wants to retain a penalty orientated double, more so when the opponents are vulnerable. How do I cater for them all in one solution? For all 4 hands, dealer is South playing a 15-17 NT range. Hand 1: Major Suit Game[hv=pc=n&s=sj54ha43dkq2caqj7&w=sk963hkq9652da7ct&n=st872h87d64c96432&e=saqhjtdjt9853ck85]399|300[/hv] A botched defence from N/S here sees 4♥ home. Hand 2: How do you find the very profitable 4♠ sacrifice here? [hv=pc=n&s=saqh9864daj4cajt2&w=skj98haqjt75dc864&n=sthk32dkq9632ckq3&e=s765432hdt875c975]399|300[/hv] The sacrifice becomes even more profitable with red versus white. Hand 3: Minor Suit Game [hv=pc=n&s=sakqthj52dkq9c632&w=s9hk8da8654cakj84&n=sj87532h763dt72c5&e=s64haqt94dj3cqt97]399|300[/hv] Will your methods find the minor suit game? Hand 4: I still want to retain a penalty double. If this is IMPs, the opponents vulnerable and West on lead, the penalty double becomes very profitable. [hv=pc=n&s=skqt3hakq2d72ckt3&w=sah8dakqj84c87642&n=sj984h9653d53cq95&e=s7652hjt74dt96caj]399|300[/hv] What is the plan of action for either North or South after the penalty double?

How do we incorporate the feedback from mycroft’s thread “Lebensohl vs Transfer Overcalls” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51384-lebensohl-vs-transfer-overcalls/ with this one? Thus far the feedback is extremely illuminating. These forums truly are a hive of information!

I came across this list of defences to a 1NT opening bid. If you know of other methods not listed here, then kindly add them. Then rank this list from 1-20 in order of effectiveness the methods that you have at some time played on a scale of 1-10. You can differentiate between what is effective against a weak NT and against a strong NT. Once input to the thread has ceased, I will end the thread off with a final post on how the forum posters ranked these methods. It could possibly lead to some interesting further discussion. Thank you all in advance. Defensive Method/Convention 1. Aspro Convention 2. Asptro/Middlesex Astro (added, see post below) 3. Astro Convention 4. Astro Cue Bid (deleted, see post below) 5. Becker Convention 6. Bergen Over No Trump 7. Brozel Convention 8. Brozel Rescue Bids 9. Cansino Convention 10. Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage (all the same convention, see post below) 11. Crash Over One No Trump 12. D.O.N.T. 13. French (added, see post below) 14. Hamilton Convention (same as 10, see post below) 15. HELLO (added, see post below) 16. Landy Convention 17. Lionel (added, see post below) 18. Meckwell (added, see post below) 19. Meyerson (added, see post below) 20. Modified Astro 21. Natural 2-level Interference (not conventional) 22. MONK (added, see post below) 23. Multi Landy 24. Optional Double 25. Pinpoint Astro 26. Psycho Suction (added, see post below) 27. Randy (added, see post below) 28. Ripstra Convention 29. Suction Convention 30. TONT (added, see post below) 31. Vertigo (added, see post below) 32. VROOM (added, see post below) 33. Woolsey (added, see post below) 34. Zebulon (added, see post below) It is not good enough to just have an agreement on overcalling the opponents 1NT opening bid. You also need agreements on how to cope with interference. Check out the link added on page 7 of this thread (post nr 129). [This thread has been edited].

I was watching a BBO Live Broadcast some time ago when the commentators were discussing Lebensohl versus Rubensohl. I never understood a word of it. I know the basics of Lebensohl. But what the heck were these commentators talking about? What is Rubensohl? Which is better?

After making various changes along the way and dumping some of our original ideas, I believe pard and me now have our own unique system as well. How effective it is will only be discovered once we start actually playing it at the table. I have absolutely no idea if any of these ideas have been tried anywhere else before e.g. “Reverse Stayman” after a mini balanced pre-empt. My next step is to print out this thread and sift through all the constructive feedback, adjusting the original set of system notes wherever necessary. Does anyone know how to do that? Neither the print function, nor the download button seems to work. I posted a separate query for Ben to look into. A special thank you to the following posters – 1.) Zelandakh: His post got us thinking in the right direction, although not fully adopted. 2.) Manudude03: He pointed out some glaring oversights. No doubt we would eventually have corrected them ourselves. But we could do it now. 3.) Antonylee: He forced us into looking closer at coping with pre-empts after the 1♥ opening. The structure to cope with 3-level pre-empts would be unnecessary brain drain and was dumped. 4.) Awm: The 1♣ and 1♦ continuation structure from his Recursive Diamond Notes fit in nicely with what we are trying here. I don’t know if it is ethical to use someone else’s ideas.

I encountered the same problem. Ben [inquiry], can you or anyone else assist?

There are quite a few large topics/threads (stretching over more than 1 page) that I wish to printout/download for further study and evaluation. Is there a simple easy one step method to do this?

The way we want to play the system at the moment is this: 1.) We still want to keep the 1♠ and 1NT bids available as a mini preempt in 1st and 2nd seat, especially at favourable vulnerability. 2.) The 1♠ bid shows 11-12 HCP and either a balanced hand or a 5-card ♠ suit. The 5-card suit is always applicable in 3rd and 4th seat. But what about 1st and 2nd seat? How does the bidding continue, responder with a bust, not knowing if opener is balanced or holding ♠. We are planning the continuation bidding along these lines – ...a. Pass shows a ♠ bust (at least 4) ...b. 1NT shows values interested in a game try. Openers replies are again the “reverse Stayman” structure higher up in this thread ......i. 2♣ = both majors .....ii. 2♦ = 4-card ♥ suit ....iii. 2♥ = 4-card ♠ suit .....iv. 2♠ = 5+ ♠ ...c. 2♣/2♦/2♥ are all to play showing a 5-card suit and no game interest Now to your question: With ♠ being the boss suit, we are comfortable to keep the opponents guessing. The 1♣ bid becomes the catchall bid for all hands in the 10-15 HCP range that don’t fit in anywhere else (or don’t fit in due to seat). You are going to be dealt plenty of hands with a choice of where to open them, 1♣/1♠/1NT. The choice will be governed by seat and vulnerability. Responses to a 1♣ opening are natural promising at least a 4-card suit and 6 HCP. Opener with a 5-card ♠ can safely bid 2♠ second time round showing the 13-15 HCP range. Your side has a minimum of 21 HCP and the boss suit. With highly distributional hands in the 14-15 HCP range, an artificial 1 ♦can be opened to find out something more about responders hand. You don’t want to run the risk of responder passing these sorts of hands when opened 1♣.

I have run enough random deals through BBO’s deal generator and can give the following feedback: 1.) Natural bidding copes marginally better with 3-level pre-empts than this system. 2.) Amongst the random hands dealt, opening 1♥ in this system dealt the hand displayed 2 posts back where responder was forced to pass unable to cope with the pre-empt. A beneficial score resulted. 3.) The 1♥ bid here was also showing the following hidden benefit: When the hand belongs to the opponents, LHO doesn’t always have an automatic overcall unsure which major opener has. 4.) However, the BIG LOSER here is the memory work required to cope with a 3-level pre-empt. The bad scores are going to arise, not so much from inability to cope with the pre-empt, but rather from brain drain. So we have dumped the previous 1♥ bid in favour of a natural 1♥ bid.

This is the first time ever I have heard about myxo twos. I looked it up via a Google search and found this http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Myxomatosis2Bids.html Now I have the following questions: 1. How many contributers to these forums play myxo 2s? 2. How effective have you found them: ...a) Offensively? ...b) Defensively? Will really appreciate feedback here.

I took antonylee’s challenge here to heart[♥] and have been running random hands through BBO’s deal generator, comparing the ability of natural systems to cope with 3-level pre-empts versus this system after a 1♥ opening. Thus far the score is equal with 4 out of 30 hands unable to cope with a 3♦ pre-empt in either system. And then this hand was dealt which I thought worthy of posting for further discussion. [hv=pc=n&s=sa53hqj9742d5caq6&w=s964hkdkt87432ck2&n=sjhat65dq9ct98753&e=skqt872h83daj6cj4]399|300[/hv] In natural systems E/W can find a ♠ game after this sequence: 1♥-3♦-3♥-3♠ 4♥-4♠-all pass 10 tricks are made with E/W only losing the 3 Aces With this system the North hand cannot cope with the pre-empt. But what does East do now after this sequence: 1♥-3♦-P-? The probability is high that East will pass over the 3♦ pre-empt. South won’t bid again. The end result is that N/S have made a substantial gain here. I’m still running sims through the deal generator. The results of 30 hands isn’t enough.

A lot has already been said about this hand. Can we see whose arguments were better? bd71 can you kindly post the full hand?

From the bidding, I place West with 4X♥, North with 4X♥, East with 4X♥ and South has 1♥. You are vulnerable so I would hesitate bidding too high. Raise the ante and bid 2♠. Consume some of the opps bidding space. The hand has great cross-ruffing potential.

Here is something I stumbled across years ago (can't remember where). Why should you learn to play bridge? Here are some good reasons: 1. Bridge is a wonderful game. You will have a great time playing bridge! 2. Bridge is the most popular card game in the world. More books have been written on bridge than any other card or board game. 3. Many people enjoy bridge as a competitive game. 4. Many people enjoy bridge as a social game. 5. Playing bridge is good exercise for your brain. 6. By learning bridge you will improve your partnership communication skills. 7. By learning bridge you will improve your problem solving skills. 8. Bridge is a game for people of all ages, sexes, nationalities, races and religions. 9. Unlike other sports, you can play bridge up to the day they bury you. Hopefully you have been convinced you should learn to play bridge! (Somewhere else I read that playing bridge regularly, is one of the best ways to prevent (or stall) the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. I have no idea if this is true or not.)

Having seen awm’s Recursive Diamond Notes http://cs.ucla.edu/~awm/bridge/rd.pdf , we are going to try some of his ideas here. We are going to reverse our 1♣ and 2♣ bids with a small adjustment to fit in with what we have been experimenting with thus far. Awm’s 1♣ opening is adjusted slightly for our system as follows: 1♣ = 10-15 HCP, balanced or three suiter or minors 2♣ = All 20+ unbalanced hands The 20-22 HCP balanced hands we will reintroduce via our version of Multi. We also like awm’s response structure for his 1♦ opening bid. We think it will fit in nicely for our 1♦ bid as well. This is what awm suggests: The most common response to 1♦ is 1♥, which shows any hand with game-forcing strength (9+ points usually) and also any very weak hand (0-4 points). All other bids show the intermediate range! The full set of responses looks like: 1♥ any 0-4 points or any GF 1♠ 5-8 hcp balanced or semi-balanced 1NT 5-8 points, three-suited hand with no 5-card major 2♣ 6+♣, 5-8 points, not balanced 2♦ 6+♦, 5-8 points, not balanced 2♥ 5+♥, 5-8 points, not balanced 2♠ 5+♠, 5-8 points, not exactly 3♥, not balanced 2NT both minors, 5-8 points 3♣ 5+♠, 4+♣, 3♥, 0-1♦, 5-8 points 3♦ 5+♠, 4+♦, 3♥, 0-1♣, 5-8 points 3♥ 6+♠, 3♥, 5-8 points

This is a very interesting question. When South passes 2♥X it places him with a ♥ pre-empt. But the X from East also placed him with a genuine ♥ suit. How many? Most would expect to see 5. West has 2 which means North is void in the suit. So how many tricks are N/S expecting to make? Down 3X pockets +500 for E/W. Down 4X pockets +800 for E/W. Both ♥ and ♠ games are out of the question for E/W. From the bidding West knows that North must be loaded with ♠. But the minor suit situation is not yet known. Pulling a probable +500 for an exploratory minor suit bid is no guarantee that a minor suit fit will be found leading to game. West has no idea of East’s powerhouse. From all the posts thus far, Justin’s makes the most sense. I have upvoted it as well.

Yeah, spot on. Don't know what I was thinking. After the ♥ lead is ruffed, the rest of the hand can be ruffed out.

The actual hand here poses many errors/questions/lessons from which, apart from myself, others can learn as well. Therefore I have chosen to post the full hand for further discussion. [hv=pc=n&s=skt82hk87654d543c&w=sq75h92dakjct7653&n=saj9643hdq8762cj8&e=shaqjt3dt9cakq942&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2dp2hdp3cp3hp3sd6cppp]399|300[/hv] Errors/Questions/Lessons: 1) I STRONGLY disagree with South opening here, either with Multi or a standard weak 2♥. When holding 6-4 in the majors, I have seen it all too often that the partnership misses game in the shorter major. On this layout 4♠ makes if you guess the ♠ suit correctly. So for me, South should pass here. On the actual bidding sequence, the ♠ fit was buried. 2) North’s opening bid here poses some interesting questions – a) Do you open Multi, Muiderberg or a weak 2♠? Obviously the decision depends on your system agreements. This partnership were playing Multi, so to advertise a 6-card major, North would probably have opened 2♦. b) East enters the bidding with 2♥. South now knows that North’s suit is ♠. Holding 4 and a ♣ void, the cross-ruffing potential is huge. Added to favourable vulnerability, many South’s may easily jump to 4♠. 3) Pass-Pass-back to East. What now? Easy, with this holding, the next bid is 5♣. 4) Back to South. With the ♣ void, South is now looking at a sacrifice and raises the stakes by bidding 5♠. 5) Pass-Pass-back to East. What now? In the actual sequence, East blasted into 6♣ and got away with it because North was on lead. 6) Pass-Pass-back to North. What now? What bid is available to North demanding a ♥ lead which defeats the contract? A Lightner Slam Double is the answer. http://www.gabrial-ui.com/about_bridge/conventions/LIGHTNER.HTM A Lightner X demands an unusual lead, not that bid by the defenders. With East overcalling ♥ and South holding 6, playing Lightner Slam Doubles, South should be able to work out that a ♥ lead is required. The N/S compounded errors turned a plus score into a huge minus score. Declarer made 6♣ for a score of 1370, a total swing of 1570. If this was a team match, as the N/S pair, I would run and hide from my teammates!