Chamaco

I tried to find Landau/Baron 's book at Baron Barclay and Amazon, but it seems to be out of print :D

I have been taught that Qx is only a half-stopper , not a real stopper. So, if 2H explicitly promises a stopper, 2NT seems nice :-) BUT, if 2H does not deny NOR promise a stopper, and pard can have anything, it seems to me that 2NT should promise a full stopper and not simply describe shape... Bottomline, let's decide what 2H does promise: does it ABSOLUTELY promise a full stopper ? If no, then 2NT seems suspect. If yes, 2NT seems great :-)

Ok, so here is now a simpler related problem (I just switched the minors). In the same situation (MP, white vs red, 3rd seat) you hold HAND 2 AQJT-xx-Txxx-Jxx Bidding goes p-(p)-1♠-(2♣) DBL-(p)-? Now you have available a more comfortable 2 diamonds rebid THE QUESTION IS: Does 2 diamond show full opening values ? Without real opening values am I obliged to rebid the opening suit ? If not, how do you discriminate a full opener from a subminimal opener ? (you will agree with me that opener cannot bid the same way with a full opener and without full values...)

Ok, so you are playing at matchpoints and after 2 passes, white vs red, you decide to "be smart" and open light: HAND 1 (see hand 2 in a post below for similar problem) AQJT-xx-Jxx-Txxx You decide to open a lead directing 1S because you have the following agreement: 1. you can pass any pard's bid to show subminimal bid 2. you have agreed to play reverse drury so pard won't take off looking for game Bidding proceeds: MP, NV vs Vuln p-(p)-1S-(2D) X-(p)- ? Ouch ! You HOPED you could pass any pard's rebid (or use drury sequences), but this is awkward... What agreements do you suggest to solve these sequences once you are at this point ? (besides avoiding the problem altogether, giving up opening good 4 baggers in 3rd seat with marginal values at favourable vulnerability.... B) )

Fantunes have tuned their system to allow for not missing potential games when both players hold 10-13 and 10-13. That's why their NF bids promise substantial values (10-13) OR, if low in values, a selfsufficient suit that justify bidding in spite of low hcp content. I was curious about the EHAA approach and their scrambling methods. Any study material around ?

What has this to do with Precision? You can overbid to 24 HCP games in every system. If partner opens Roth-Stone style you just have to lower your standards for GF. Gerben, I just referred to the anecdote written by Winston, see above post. "Sometime in this first year, someone mentioned that we should play Precision. The club owner, a fine lady and a straight shooter, said, "Don't teach Winston Precision. He doesn't play well enough yet." It was a crushing blow to my ego, but she was exactly right - I had no idea how to value hands, use judgement, or play the hands to exact the 24 point games to which Precision geared itself. I simply wasn't ready as a driver to hop behind the wheel of a Ferarri. Better for me to drive the dirt circuit for a few years in a souped up Chevy." Nothing else :-) BTW, I wanted to indirectly point out the same thing you say: Precision, played in it's Vanilla form (e.g. no relays), probably seems to pose exactly the same type of problems as other systems, only in different sequences.

Well it does free up many useful bids. :-) For instance, if you decide to include the strong balanced reverse into the multireverse, you free up the 1m-1M-2NT bid as "PseudoJacoby" (or PseudoScanian, or whatever) strong raise, using the same system on you use after 1M-2NT. There are plenty of other sequences that can benefit from the Multireverse.

Hi all, I'd like to have a quick look at the way EHAA handles the continuations of 2-level openings, to compare vs Fantunes style. I'd appreciate any kind of feedback, thanks !! :-) Mauro

This is close to the "Multireverse" used by many in italy. The concept, similar to the Gazzilli concept for 1M opening, is to use the first "reverse" step as an artificial reverse; it also applies to, say 1D-1S-2H (2H = Multireverse), or 1D-1H-2S (2S = multireverse). This frees up higher jumps (2NT and 3-level jumps), to show specific distributional feaures rather than extras in hcp. Something more specific can be found in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6187 (scroll down until you find mentioned Multireverse)

I wonder why West did not switch to clubs at trick 2 despite pard's signal. He made a neutral return in spades, so he must have been worried of giving away a trick, otherwise he would have made an aggressive continuation. My guess is that West has Qx and did not want to open up the suit, so I'll finesse the Ten.

Perhaps overbidding to tight (Precision 24 hcp) games is a way to develop card play ? ;) Survival instinct is often much better than studying technique when it comes to learn to swim :-) (Although, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting to drop studying card play technique :) )

I'm sure Kasparov supporters felt much the same... At chess pro levels, the opening theory (e.g. the equivalent of bidding theory) extends right into the middlegame with mating attacks or into the endgame, so it is strictly connected to tactics and technique. The vital need for opening preparaton arises in those complicated long variations (e.g. Dragon, Najdorf, Sveshnikov Sicilian or Marshall attack in the Spanish) where you can indeed find yourself in a losing position right after the opening. In those openings, a 2450 ELO rating player can indeed defeat a 2600 player. BUT, in openings where there is not such a strong theory (e.g. the game does not land into a forced mate sequence or a forced losing endgame), commonsense still prevails, and I could bet way more than a couple of cokes that if you pair Kasparov vs any 2650 GM in a "normal" position, Kasparov will win 75% of the time. =============================== In Bridge, it's not the same: the bidding theory does not have the same strong, direct connection to card play technique (which is the equivalent of middlegame tactics and endgame technique).

Good point, I felt the same way. Of course the SST/WP accounts for the LOCATION of honors (e.g. "working Points" in "working suits"), so it avoids overbidding that would occur with the acritical ("acritical" = mechanical, becoming just "losers-counters" instead of "point-counters") use of LTC. BUT, if one makes use of LTC with a grain of salt (e.g. deevaluating honors in misfitting suits, and reevaluating short suit honors fitting with pard's suit), I have a feeling it amounts to more or less the same as SST+WP, but LTC is quicker to use. ========= As a side note: most hands used in the book to demonstrate the failure of LOTT are hands with duplication: either duplication of shape (mirrored singleton-doubleton-trebleton) or duplication of values (eg AQTxxx opposite KJxxx, when at least some of these honors are superfluous). Many of such duplications cannot be diagnosed with most bidding systems (of course with some exceptions), so the fact that an evaluation system fails in such circumstances seems to me an unfair criterion to say it's unsound.

I use the "Dealer" program, which works pretty well. Never used Pavlicek's tool.

Hamman was provoking, as he does- quite unpleasantly, IMO - throughout the entire book.

I responder denies a minor suit cue, but he has anyway slam interest, he must have hcp close to opening, and it's likely hcp are concentrated in the majors. Of course it's easy to construct a hand that fails to meet this statement, but bridge is a % game, and I think that, *on percentage*, if opener uses RKCB here, he'll seldom will be in a contract too high, if indeed responder has bid reasonably.

IMO 4S would show a missing control in the minor suits, since pard has already expressed the will to explore slam by bidding 4H. 4H by responder denies minor suit controls, so I think 4S should mean signoff, not the reliquishing of captainship. I believe that once responder has showed slam interest, using RKCB seems well appropriate, and in fact, here it works quite fine: when opener hears of pard's 2KC+Q, he asks for the club K, and when responder denies, he signs off in 6S

It seems to me some people use 1D-2C as either clubs OR a balanced hand of some specific range, to be agreed between inv, GF and slammish

Yes I had modified to < 11 hcp in the second run. I can control honors location in the simulations and I can rerun again the simulation if you and other posters consider it's better to do so :-) However, I think that allowing for some "imperfect preempts" to be included in the simulation is - in a way- more realistic. In real life we meet all the time opps that preempt on occasion with hands close to 1M opening, on others on hands close to a 4M opening, and most of the times we do not know which style they use until the hand is over. I am sure Justin you have played several times vs opps - even good opps - that would not bid the way you would, and I think that's the beauty of bridge. :-) So, I argue that, even if some part of the simulated hands are not 100% model preempts, well, that approaches more real life, no ? :-)

Along the same line is: do you play good-bad 2NT ? E.g. 1♠ (2♥) P (P) is now 2NT pupper to 3C ? In this case, 2NT cannot be natural :-)

I have rerun the simulations, no 6322 anymore, only 6331 with good suit :-)

Gonzalo, in a way you are right but consider the following: 1) I am not an expert so you would not be able to trust my analysis 2) RELATED TO POINT 1- being a "scientist" (well, sort of... LOL), I believe in showing the raw data besides their interpretation: your interpretation may be different from the one given by the analyst. For instance, showing the first dataset (now substituted) allowe Justin to comment about the 6322 hands, so that I was able to rerun the simulation changing the criteria. Had I only posted the results, that would not have been possible. ========================== Bottomline: displaying the whole dataset is a bit "chunky" ;) , but, IMO, more honest from the intellectual viewpoint.

I am not sure ;) I mean, the simulation does support that 4H is usually the best spot, but it is not clear whether - if we bid immediately 4H - we can stop in 4H without North getting excited... I mean, when south bids immediately 4H, it seems that many times North will not sit for 4H and will go looking for a hopeless slam. In many hands, it seems to me that if south passes, nort will make a 2-suited call bypassing 4H, and south will offer a signoff in 5H. So there are 2 different risks in the 2 scenarios: a. south bids 4H, north assumes he is stronger and keeps bidding b. south passes, nort looks for the minors and we end in 5H instead of 4H I personally prefer the "pass first" scenario, at least when north is weak we do not go for a telephone number (e.g. herts stached in west's hand and we lose control with ♦ ruffs). If pard has a little something, h'll certainly reopen, given his marked spades shortness; if he doubles, I will probably bid 4H rather than penalty pass. But, I'd like feedback from the BB Gurus here :-)

I've been taught weak 2 and weak 3 show only ONE place to play. Actually, in "Preempts from A to Z" by Andersen-Zenkel, a side 4 bagger is mentioned as a serious flaw for opening a weak 2 or weak 3. But I am no expert, so I'll just mention the authors.

Ok, Justin. I think of course it's a matter of style, but I wonder whether opening 3M with a 64 is mainstream :-) Here in Italy I see a lot of people opening 3M with 6331 with, say AKJTxx, and much less people doing it with 64. So I'll rerun the simulation changing the constraint so that a 6 bagger preempt is 6331, but I won't include 64 hands :-)