yunling

Hi, Thomas Andrews' Deal is good for this purpose but it requires some scripting. http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deal/

Suppose you opened 2♠,showing ♠ and a minor 2♠-(3♣)-X Is this double 1)Penalty? 2)Ask you to pass with 4+♣ and bid on with 4+♦? And will your answer differ if 2♠ promises 54 or 55? What if opponent's overcall is 3♦? Thanks.

Maybe not a good example :( my bad. But I think the loss in the constructive bidding is significant. On the other hand, disruptive 2 level overcalls is something like a gamble, since it is not very space consuming and give away a lot of information. It gains from unfamiliarity but playing against well prepared opponents it is may not turn out to be a winner. 1H-1NT-(2S) probably work well but I don't think it is as good to play 1S-1NT-(2x) this way.

I'm not convinced that it works well here. It is quite possible that the weak hand will correct to 2♠ when it comes back to you, so only with hands able to stand 3 level can you use pass-then-bid strategy. There are many hands, though quite strong, cannot bid 3 level on its own, say ♠Axx ♥AQJxx ♦AQxx ♣x You'll stuck after 1♠-1NT-2m-2♠ Thus if you use disruptive overcalls it is hard to handle these hands.

I suspect if 1D will perform well in competitive auction since it doesn't promise a suit and responder connot raise.

Can you find a link for the past discussions? I only found discussions using it as 2-card invite but its not quite alike. I don't see why this is a drawback. With a huge 5332, I'm comfortable with rebidding 3NT. They don't benefit from the 1M-1N-2m-2M auction, on the other hand. I think the main drawback of this agreement is when opener has an unbalanced hand with some extras on which it would go 1M-2M-4M in the field but you are forced to bid 3m.

Don't know if this topic fits for "Natural System Discussion", but I'm talking about a standard 5 card major system. When 1M-2M raise guarantees 3 card support, opponents can balance quite aggressively, especially in MPs, and not often caught since they are somewhat protected by the law. So I came up with a mixed strategy, having 2M raise as 7-10 with 3 card support or 9-10 with 2 card support. This makes it dangerous for opponents to balance and don't do much damage to your constructive bidding. Also, there is less need for opener to stretch to bid after 1M-1N-2x-2M since responder is not very likely to have a 9 count, which is also a small benefit. Is this idea crazy?

CJ, 同伴没有争1H所以右手必然有些H张数，他又有S张数，还有D张数，那必然是C短了，攻C穿死开叫人。

I'll just try my luck and pass if the preempt is more aggressive than average. Otherwise 3♦.

2♦, both 3NT and 5♦ seems far away. When the auction goes 1♦-1♥-3♦-3NT, you probably need misdefence to make the contract.It may work against weaker players, but I don't see how it can be a winner at expert level :(

Yes, I'm wrong here. Some hands can take more tricks in NT than in any suit contract. But I'm still not convinced that a combined 25 binky-hcp.suit and an 8-card fit can make a game.

It's not quite exact——to be more precise, it's something like KQxx=4.6 and Axx=4.4, but we can't be so exact during the play——but it is not "clearly wrong" either. Even in NT, A is undervalued and touching honors is always a negative. Besides, opening 1NT does not mean that you belong to NT contracts. You need a mixed strategy for both NT and suit contracts.

No I'm not talking about upgrade or downgrade on a specific hand, I'm explaining about the nature of this evaluator. If you put a lot of hands into the evaluator, you will find that binky-hcp.suit can never be lower than binky-hcp.nt, thus "every hand values more in suit than NT", which is clearly not the way we play everyday. When we say 25HCP=Game, the game can be 3NT or 4M, so it can be used for "general purpose". It is not the case for binky points. A certain number of binky points, adding two hands together, is correlated to a certain number of tricks taken. So while 25 binky-hcp.nt=3NT, with 25 binky-hcp.suit, you are only expected to win 9 tricks in a suit contract. To make 4M you need something like 27. Thus, the value for binky-hcp.suit cannot be directly used to adjust our "general purpose" evaluation, unless you do a subtraction.

I suspect if this is true. The value for binky-hcp.suit is not evaluated on the same scale as the traditional point count. In fact it is a bit too large. Consider a fairly normal 10 count which, I think, no one would think of an upgrade: J432 K432 Q32 A2 The value for binky-hcp.suit is 11.2, which suggests an upgrade. So if you want to use this method for your hand evaluation, probably you should subtract the value by 1. In my homegrown evaluation method it will be 7.25 for AKxx, 4.5 for KQxx, 4.5 for Axx, and 0 for 4432 shape so the hand has a total value of 16.25 thus no upgrade.

I don't think it is 100% forcing. Consider 2♣-2♦-2M in a precision context which is passable, the situation is quite similar here. If you don't jump with this hand, then on what hand would you bid 3♠?

Two-way stayman is inefficient. If you really dislike transfers, my suggestion is to play something like 2♣=normal stayman 2♦=ask 2-card major

Just put (41)35 hands into 1♦ and (43)15 hands into 1♣/1NT. It's Rainer's suggestion if I remembered it correct.

No way. I suspect if it is suitable for a 14-16 NT.

It depends on how often you rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit. If you almost never do it, then you should correcting to 2M 90%+ of the time.

A 14.5 hand for me, very close and I will.

2♥. In my evaluator, this hand worth 12.75 before adjustment, which is just enough for a game force. Also, contrary to common knowledge, the value goes up considering partner's shape.

不罚OPP的1NT，反而要自己打3NT? 神叫牌啊。

No it is not a some % interval, it is just sample variance. By running DD analyses, he gets a distribution of number of total tricks given the total number of trumps. x±y means that the mean of the distribution is x and the standard error is y. I agree with jogs that it shows trump number plays a smaller role as they increase.

Interesting comparing this thread with http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/61568-disater/ :o

Simulation by Matt Ginsberg(published in Bridge World, Nov 1996) Length Samples Total tricks 14 46944 13.85±0.63 15 47281 14.86±0.64 16 120525 16.10±0.70 17 102184 17.02±0.75 18 69792 17.99±0.83 19 37561 18.78±0.87 20 15845 19.50±0.99 21 5041 20.11±1.20 22 1286 20.69±1.48 23 237 21.22±1.83 24 45 21.78±2.27 LoTT works fairly well when total trumps is 18 or shorter, but with longer trumps, LoTT overestimates the total tricks and has a high variance. At this level I think SST is more important.