beatrix45

Fantunes system is very complex and well thought out. Maybe in their context they needed transfers over some of their weak 1NT openers? Maybe they disagree with my opinion? I only base mine on the analysis of some of the best of the North American players, plus my own experience. 1. Right siding the hand for game contracts loses importance opposite the weak NT. 2. Laying down a weak hand with a five card major kinda takes the suspense outta the defense. This can be really bad at MP's. 3. You can't play 2♦, ever.

I can second this in spades. If you don't have Mike's DVD's or downloads, I really think you should get them. The second thing is that remembering cards and probable suit distribution requires a different sort of mental skill/effort than what we normally do in school. As best I can explain it, it is like the difference between a digital and an analog computer. Acquiring it is somewhat like getting in shape physically. It takes practice and repetition. When you get there, it is very cool. You can recall played cards and probable suit distributions with very little effort when you need to. This leaves all of the rest of your overdeveloped, logical brain to do its usual work. You start to see inferences, tells, the whole deal.

Your weirdness example actually uncovers another entire level of dumbness. If playing transfers over a 1NT opener, 2♠ is an idle bid, so using it to refine game tries is not totally insane. However, any form of transfers over any form of weak or Kamikaze opening 1 NT has always been considered unsound at matchpoints, and very dubious at IMP's or total points. Weak players get these ideas from other weak players. The blind lead the blind. In olden times this route of an overestimation of one's abilities led inexorably to a seat in a ten or twenty cent rubber bridge game and a rude awakening. No more. Let them sleep. It's just a game. Except, of course, at my Thursday afternoon soiree at 20 cents (Canadian) per point. This time of year is lovely in the mountains. The game often lasts well into the night, but we have plenty of extra bedrooms and also the old bunkhouse if you bring your family. We have great hiking, horseback riding and some really good fishing. If you are in the neighborhood, please feel welcome to stop by.

Nearly always when I played on BBO, I used a male alias. It has helped a lot in finding partners for the ACBL Speedball games. Believe it or not, sexism is alive and well even in the bridge world. We both share an Expert- rating on BBO Skill 2.0. I like to think that excluding games where I was not drunk or one toke over the line, my rating might have been a little better, but there is no proof of that. At one time I did do a fairly intensive investigation of my actual and prospective partners for the ACBL Speedball. All I had to go on was a couple of months of recent BBO results for each player. All of the players who turned out to be any good averaged plus IMPs per board in pay for play BBO tournaments. Mostly it was between +0.25 to 0.50 IMPs per board. Averaging more than 0.50 IMPs per board was rare. You have to be really good to do that over any length of time. Such players do exist, just not me except for short intervals. In any event, processing BBO hand records to determine a player's skill level ain't that hard. Again. My main moan is the takeover of BBO Forums by the same fake experts, blowhards and self-important morons who inhabit small-time bridge clubs all over North America and Europe. I guess it is like the man said: "Everybody has to be somewhere."

The ACBL published the dreaded 'booklet'. My question is who wrote it? Somebody ought to know. As far as ranking players is concerned, I have been using a now apparently defunct website called BBO Skill 2.0. I have no idea how it works, but it seems to rank me and other players I know about right. Sorry if I jangled a few egos, but over the past few years BBO forums have been hijacked by hacks and fake experts. They still serve a social purpose, but they are no longer of much help to me. I live in a remote area and rely more on the internet than most. No matter. The real players must have gone somewhere. All I have to do is find them. One sure truth is that you very likely cannot improve your game taking lessons from your peers and certainly not by taking lessons from weaker players.

It matters because bad players should never presume to teach potentially good players beyond a certain minimal level of endeavor in any sort of affairs. God loves you if you spot talent, but he hates it when and if you ruin it by your own ego.

Who wrote the 'booklet'? What's wrong? The cat got your tongue?

Oh dear! I have just been insulted as being ignorant about bridge by an ADVANCED player. First, learn how to play. Then you might not make such a fool of yourself. Curious, nobody seems to know who wrote the dreaded 'booklet'.

I am still at a loss. Who wrote the 'booklet'? Names please, if at all possible. Why, for heaven's sake, did the author(s) incorporate a non-standard, non-intuitive, hard to remember, decidedly oddball (imo) treatment for the specific auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥? At a normal bridge club, I can settle 95+% of 2/1 issues in a ten minute discussion with a new partner I have never met before. On BBO you don't get those 10 minutes. SAYC is the preferred fallback position. Less to go wrong. Now this miserable 'booklet' is trying to throw a monkey wrench even into that.

Your pals Zel and Helene may be thoughtful, but they can't play a lick, at least not yet. You and some others on this thread, on the other hand, can play. Consider the following: 1. The idea of playing 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ as forcing has some merit, and it relates directly to the question posed by the original poster. 2. The complete analysis is a little complex, but you and others certainly deserve to see it. 3. The 'booklet' treatment amounts to a simple substitution. The traditional SAYC auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ is replaced with the forcing auction 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥. The old non-forcing auction of 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 3♥ is replaced by 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠. This frees up a level of bidding for the former situation (the whole idea of 2/1), but puts extra pressure on the latter situation. 4. The model hand for the new treatment is five running hearts, five running spades and two minor suit aces. A virtual laydown small slam with 28 HCP. Easy to explore. Over 3♥ forcing, you cue bid a ♠ ace or king. 3NT is non-serious. 4 of a minor denies a ♠ card, but is serious and shows the extra king or better. 5. By now you should get the merits of the 'booklet' approach, particularly for IMPs. The magic hand. Two fitting hands with a king extra on both sides of the table. Bid the slam. 6. The drawbacks? First, the old 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♥ hand is not very common. If balanced, it is often opened one NT. If unbalanced, then in the modern world, a splinter rebid seems the better treatment. An auction like 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 4♦ actually showing diamonds seems silly to me. It speeds up an already forcing auction to no purpose that I can discern. 7. The second set of drawbacks? Well, after 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠ - P - 2NT - P -? you are pretty much even. 3♥ shows your hand. After 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P -2♠ - P - 3♣ or ♦ - P - 3♥ you are slightly behind since partner does not know if you have two ♥ or three - something of a bother if his/her heart suit is ratty. The biggest issue that I can see is when responder has six+ hearts. Over 1♠ - P - 2♥ - P- 2♠ - P - 3♥ - P - ? you have the wrong hand making the crucial decision. 8. Imo, bottom line. One more thing to remember. Not worth it at matchpoints. Maybe at IMP pairs or long IMP matches. Probably worth it at Swiss Teams.

This has to be either a preemptive bid or a picture bid. I can't think of any real use for a picture bid over an auction that starts 1♣ - P - ?. That sorta leaves its best use as preemptive. That, in turn, depends on what partner might have for his/her one ♣ opener. Playing SAYC or 2/1 my response depends a little on vulnerability, but figures to be six or seven ♣ to the AQ with a singleton. See the Law of Total Tricks as a reference.

Interesting. The 'SAYC booklet' is unsigned. It could have been written by anyone. Taking your bridge lessons from average players may make you feel good, but it is still the blind leading the blind.

What is the SAYC booklet and who in the world is Adam? I have been playing SAYC since before it was called SAYC. On the 1♠-P-2♥-P-3♥ example I suppose one could agree to temporize with 2♠ holding a minimum hand. It seems playable, barely. It might actually give some advantage at IMP's, or not. However, nobody I ever heard of seems to have proposed it or even thought of it. Since you and your 'booklet' friend Helene are rated Advanced- and Intermediate players respectively, a little humility might be advised before giving bridge lessons based on somebody's 'booklet'. You are fortunate to have BBO forums of this type to learn from. Behave yourselves, and try not so look silly.

You might want to find a better SAYC booklet. If a single raise is forcing in these two auctions, then you will find yourself in a lot of games where the opener has a hand worth 12-13 'points' (e.g. dummy points) opposite a hand worth 10 'points'. A combined 22-23 'points' usually won't offer a satisfactory play for game. Using the single raise as invitational in these auctions is logical and has always been considered normal.

SAYC is better for matchpoints. 2/1 is better for IMPs because it often creates an extra level of bidding below game (but in a game force) where you can cue bid and investigate slam. Examples: 1♠-P-2♣-P 2♠-P-3♠-P or 1♠-P-2♥-P 3♥-P- Now, there is an extra level available for cue bidding. This allows some hands where both opener and responder have 'a little extra' to show it. Once in a while it enables them to bid a hard-to-reach slam. No much help in MP's, but a real difference maker at IMP scoring.

Imo, this is a really bad preempt at any level. Everything is wrong with it. 1. Vul vs Nvul 2. 7-2-2-2 shape 3. second seat 4. a stray, non-working queen 5. it is in the heart suit which doesn't preempt spades 6. it has both the high card and playing strength for an opening one bid Having opened one ♥, a 2♥ rebid is automatic unless I am playing a strong one ♣ opener. In that case, a 3♥ bid is possible, but personally, I wouldn't make it unless we had a partnership agreement that it showed a solid suit and maybe nothing much extra in terms of high cards.

I have given some thought as to how long a proper analysis of this problem might take assuming I were already set up to do this particular problem. It looks like 8-10 hours minimum, if I were very lucky. 1. (1hr) Generating 200-500 hands using the Pavlicek generator. Example: RHO has 15-17 HCP, no singleton and no 6+ card major suit. LHO has 10-15 HCP, no 5 card major and no singleton or void. Partner gets what is left. 2. (2hr) Remove any hands not fitting the actual bidding. A few of these will be removed because RHO would not have opened 1NT, but most will be hands where LHO might have used Stayman or at least not have passed. In a few cases partner might have a double. This should only take a few seconds per hand in most cases, but we have a lot of hands to examine. 3. (4hr) Analyze the remaining hands for their play. I would expect to have 50 to 100 hands left to analyze. Most will take only a minute or so, but a few will be difficult. This is particularly true when declarer or partner or your hand has a choice to make in the play. You cannot assume double dummy play. In the end, for a few hands you may decide to assign probabilities to the various possible outcomes. You probably should go back and use a computer playing program to vet your results. 4. (2hr) Translate your results into IMP or MP scores and summarize. Simulations can be a wonderful tool, but if you don't do them correctly, they are worse than useless. IF YOU INTRODUCE SAMPLE BIAS OR FAIL TO ANALYZE CORRECTLY, YOU GET THE WRONG ANSWER, FOOL.

Your post might be more convincing if you were able to spell Richard Pavlicek's name correctly. Have you ever actually used his hand generator? To do so correctly you have to cast a wide net that includes all possible hands consistent with the bidding. Then you get to winnow out by hand those that are not, in fact, consistent. In this case with this auction it is very labour intensive. For example, responder with 4-3-3-3 shape, decent spots, and looking at a combined 28-31 HCP won't Stayman. That done, then you have to analyze the remaining hands to see what might happen. Sometimes, declarer will have a choice of lines of play. I can see that you love your computer. Now, you need to learn some statistics and the game of Bridge.

The advice I once got from a white haired old guy named Oswald Jacoby was to preempt aggressively (or even psyche) against better opponents and to play straight down the middle against equal or weaker ones. The idea was to make the better players guess. They guess very well but do worse than if you just leave them alone. Of course, Jake himself usually played down the middle (unless he was behind and needed a board) since from his point of view there were no better players. The pair in question is actually a (slightly) lesser pair at the very top levels of the game. I don't see statistical analysis as the way to go here. There are too many hard to measure variables involved (state of the match, quality of the opponents, feel of the table, etc.). Examining hand records from the round of 32 on of major championships might prove to be useful though.

How about one spade?

Sorry mfa1010, but there are so many, many ways you can get jobbed on any given hand. Don't worry about one specific instance. You might mention it to the director, but do so with a properly respectful tone. This case actually sounds like it might have been completely innocent. The only way to get rid of cheaters is to build a body of evidence against them. Imo. unless this particular incident cost you more than $100 USD you have no real cause to complain.

Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies. Unless partner is a notorious light opener, I bid 3NT. My reasoning is that my 12 HCP all look useful, and they offer lots of secondary values useful in a 3NT contract. Make it as hard on the opponents as possible.

The fourth best ♦ is going to be led at the other table(s) most likely. You beat 3NT off the top if partner has the ♦ ace and RHO has Qxx. The other leads are not terrible, but unless you are up against better players and really need a board, they are considerably inferior, imo. Simulations are very difficult and extremely labour intensive to do correctly. I am utterly unconvinced by anecdotal so-called 'evidence' from such 'research'.

I completely agree with you that ordinary hands presenting ordinary bidding problems are by far the most important. The extensive discussion of this particular hand on this thread just seems odd to me. The north hand is a perfect 10-12 hcp Kamakazi one NT opener. If you are playing that system, then south can bid accordingly, ending in two hearts. Otherwise, north simply bid the hand like an untutored beginner, making every mistake in the book. She opened too light. She opened the wrong minor suit. She made a free bid of one NT in a competitive auction that by all bridge logic shows much better than minimum opening hand. The reasons for the poor outcome seem clear.

All but Louise.