Flame

Ben what you say could be right, but since Arclight is the only one who actually read the book, he has the right to say that this is not what the book say.

ArcLight, your bridge reviews are excelent, I trasnt them and because you didnt like the book i didnt put it on my list, but lets say that this example alone wasnt convincing enough that the book isnt good, the right play missing 4 cards is going for the drop (9 never) but knowing the numbers you know its not nearly as strong as other "rules" like finnesing K with 10 cards, so even a small change of the odds matter, one common known odds changer is the non trump lead, you cant say exactly how much it change the odds, but you should know it does. Im not sure about this case, i tend to agree with you that the author ment that even 4 diamonds changes the odds in the direction that support trump finnese, which is not right according to the restricted choice thory. Keep up the good work.

I do not agree with Roland on this, E/W were damage, East double is risky but players are allowed to take risky actions, East decided the risk was X% and decided it worth it, while if he knew Nroth was showing a strong have with 5 spades he would think the risk is greater and not double, this is legitimate and if the agrement was to play polish the score should b changed BUT, as we can see by south bidding this wasnt an agrement, north just dont know enough, and therfore the score should stand. In an individual turney as it seems to be its quite obvious that it wassnt an agrement.

Why? 1. The more red we are (redest is when we are vul and they are not) the more we want our 1nt to be strong, the less red we want it to be weak. 2. The more white (whitest is when we are non vul and they are vul) we are the less chance for them to interept our 1C, because they have less to gain and we have less to lose, therefore 1C 15+ is better the more we are white, when red they have more to gain by interapting and therefore, we need the weak varient to protect us(they might have game so they should act crazily) and the stronger version to be stronger(17+). 3. The more we are white the more we want our 1 limit 1 level to be agreressive and light.

Playing this when vul and normal moskito when non vul might be a good idea.

I asked same question on begginers board not long ago. I think std is high (but K from AK), but playing low is more common and with pickup i would play low.

5♦ and will not be surprise if it goes down. playing mp if 4♦ is to play i'll bid it, especially non vul.

I didnt read the book, but i agree with those who claim that learning in depth the simple matters is a great learning technic which will in time get better results then going fast. Its not easy to do since we all want to run rather then walk.

Let me explain something, i have no doubt that the first method is safer then the second, the question is how much safer, how risky the second way is, how true is free saying they wont pass and then double (they can double 1S first too). If its not too risky it might be worth it because the other responses might pay off.

Normal polish with opener weak bal and responder weak 1♣ - 1♦ 1M* - p 1M - could be 3 cards. This somethimes helped avoiding big number Awm suggested 1c the bidding will go 1♣ - 1♠ * 1NT**- P 1♠ - 0-5 or 12+ hcp no 4M 1nt - 11-13 or 17-19 bal P - 0-5 Do you think the second method is very risky ? we might be very weak and get doubled. How much does the secondary range helps avoiding the double ?

Im teaching beginners, its a group of 60+ years old, now that they know a little bit of bridge, some of them want to read a book. This book must be an easy one, should be based on 5 card M and 15-17 NT system. They know the opening bids, and on good day they remember some of the responses and even what stayman is. Can you recoomand a book ?

Don't use dont, its one of the worse conventions, landy is just fine. You can lower your demands of the suits, especially when both non vul.

Is this better then puppet stayman ?

I dont like the bidding since the diamond fit wasnt found on time, and south didnt know about it when he bid 4NT, but i dont think reaching slam here is a your problem, just bad luck to have your values badly placed.

The interesting question to everyone, do you think this can help counting in bridge ? do you think the process of counting here and on diffence is the same ?

Hi Hoki First of all i dont think this is the main issue, i think the main isssue is that you better teach the common way rather then what you think is better. About your question, the main resson you cant correct to spade without a price is that it wont show your hand, it will still show spade support and 5 hearts, yes many times it wont matter but sometimes it will, partner will take action assuming you have 5 hearts, espeically when thiking about slams or about compiting over opponents 5m bid. You will also miss some apportunities to play 3nt since partner think you have 5Hs. also on action such as 1S-2H-4D* splinter, its not easy to say what 4S mean now you might have problems on many slam biddings. and again im not saying i know why this is wrong, im saying if all the top players think 2H should be 5 cards and you didnt find a decent book that specificly say 2H is 4 cards, then you should assume the is a problem you never thought about, and teach 5 cards.

if you understand its 6-4 you wouldnt pass 4NT and get to the right 5D... 6-4 is usually not enough at this position so i would expect more, 6-5 would be more like it, I dont like the 7-4 it wont do you much good here , and almost never best to play on clubs here, i htink your partner should have bid 5D instead of 4nt.

for me a 4NT here show good diamond and not as good second suit which could be 6D4C or 7D5C or 6 good D 5C, or it can be great diamonds with H supprt like 7D 3H. I expect partner to treat it as 6D4C and if i correct 5C to 5D he should understand i have Hearts too.

Glad you responded since he mentioned your name as someone who told him its ok to bid 2H with 4 cards. First of all i think you are wrong and bridgewise its wrong to bid 2H on 4 cards and you cant always correct to spade without a price even on 3433. I don't know you or your bridge level, but imo unless you are a top world class player, you should stick with the normal methods when you teach, first because its almost always your mistake when you think you know better, and second because the students should know what the world play, what their opponents and thier potential partners show. With this said i have to say i think you and other BIL teachers are doing an amazing teaching job on BBO.

Chamaco first of all my claim is kind of matematical here, you have bidding seqences avaliable, you can decide what the different is, if you think 1x P should only be right 0.0005%. About your point, its stronger in limit oening system like pecision then 2/1, since when ur partner is limit u know opps has something , and also because 2/1 partnr might take u to game very quick.

The number of totall sequences isnt important, becaused as you said all those ones with passes inside soesnt count. What imortant is the number of the non passed seqences comared to the amount of the hands they are suppose to show. So when you play transfers you have the same number of sequeces but alot more to show with it. This can be mejure, what need to know is what the probebility of responder to hold 0-5 hcp when the bidding go 1X (P). it can be checked quite easily, i would guess 3%. This mean your system has 3% more hand to deliever with the same bidding space. This again not good math and neglect some details but i got to run.

I think squeeses arent as big as people make them. Most spqueeses you will find and execute at the table are simple suqeeses, and those are pretty easy to learn, ofcourse i will never think of teaching adv squeeses, i think not even double squeese.

Two good solutions: a. open 1NT b. play gazilli Two bad soluations: a. bid 2nt over 1nt b. bid a 3 card minor suit.

I always guess wrong in these situations, and i guess its better to guess wrong when partner made a mistake then guess wrong when he didnt, so better trust partner. another helpfull tool is to have some signs like always switch hands when you use the switches. :rolleyes:

When designing a system we sometime streach a bid including more types of hands in it then we can hadlde effectively. for example we open 1x with hands that can miss a game when partner pass. Same thing happend when we responde 1x to 1m opening on light hands, we know partner might bid 2nt and we wont be in best spot. In both these examples we have a non perfect situation, but what conenct these two is that the problematic hand type has less frequency, the 18-19 bal is rare as well as the too strong 1 opener, the rare case does not effect the more frquent case, responder will not fear to bid light on 1m because we might have strong 18-19 because this is rare, responder will not fear to pass 1M because this is rare, and when the bad situation come we might get a bad result but again its rare. And now i get to those forcing 1 level bids, to show that the mechanizm is just the opposite, responder must replay to 1 level even with 0 hcp , this mean we let the rare hands dominate the system, on most hands responder would have been better to pass with a weak hand but the rare hand prevent him from doing that. I term freqency that i use isnt exacly right (especilly playing imp rather then mp)and i could better say overall effect of the hand type. Id add that this is just a thoretical point and i have almost no expirence with forcing 1 level opening and it might just be that the 1M or maybe even just the 1S is too much.