raspeball

So maybe to get a meaningful result, you would need to know some details about what the bidding actually means? A much simpler situation might be easier to analyze: Say you compare a hand where both sides opened 1nt(Could be both to the same contract, or to different contracts). Both sides bid to either 3nt or 4♥/♠. The two tables had different auctions. Possibly also add some restrictions to the distribution and combined total strength of the hands. Limit the amount of interference allowed (Only lead directing doubles) Allow the program do some interpretation on what the bidding actually means (So that it can recognize transfer auction, stayman and puppet stayman auctions)

Thanks, Another approach could be like this: Compare only hands from the knockout stages of major tournaments. Compare the result from a match. Use only hands with game going strength.(So each table reaches at least game) Use only hands where the opponents do not interfere to much (Maybe a simple overcall, or a double somewhere is allowed) See who wins the most imps, compared to how long the auction is. Try to analyze the data, and see if this indicates something. Obviously there are lots of reasons why the result from such a study might be inaccurate, but it could be an indication of what strategies are successfull.

Do anybody know if there exist analysis comparing how much the length of the auction affects the success rate of the final contract (Based on real life data with strong players)? This could (easily?) be done by comparing tables where the same contract was reached, but where the length of the auction was different. It makes sense that the shorter bidding sequences should score better on average, since less is revealed about the hands, making the defence harder. (Of course, on the other side- Short and less revealing bidding, will cost in ending up in poorer contracts).

Thanks for your reply. I have not thought a lot about this, but I thought the transfer bid could also be bid with stronger hands with not to much extra shape (The 5-5 hands, or 6+ very strong hands could jump to 3 at the second turn, just to make it simlple). I think the gain in the transfer is that opener gets to show his second suit directly, and that he does not have to worry about responder passing. I dont see a need for any fancy responses after the transfer: - If you accept the transfer = You would have passed a nonforcing bid showing 5-4. - If you bid above the transfer= Same meaning as in standard. You would need to agree what the openers third bid shows after responder accepts the transfer, eg: 1♠-1nt; 2♣-2♦; 2♥=14-16?. 5-4-4-0 or 5-4-3-1 (I have not thought a lot about this :)) 2♠=6♠ and 4♦ (Different strength than if you transfer to spades first and then bids diamonds) 2nt= 5♠,4♣, 2-2 or 3-1 in unbid suits¨, approx 17+hcp. 3♣=5-0-4-4 or 5-1-4-3.approx 17+hcp. 3♦=5-5. Approx 14-16hcp (With stronger hand bid 3 ♦ directly) 3♥= Maybee 5-3-4-1, Forcing game? 3♠= 6♠, 4♦. Forcing game. Higher bids could also be used for something :) The sequence also gives lots of options: 1♥-1nt 2♦-2♥ 2nt= Could be 6 weakish 6 card ♥suit. Mild invtation to 3nt/4♥. 3♣/♦= 6 card ♥. 4+ suit in bid suit. Mildly invitional 3♥=6 good ♥. 3nt=6♥. Choice of games. Of course it is also possible to include the direct jump to the 3 levels as intermediate, and leave the delayed bids as the stronger hands. Also the point ranges can be adjusted, based on how light you responds.

Hello, My partner and me are currently starting to play a simpliefied Gazilli. I am not convinced that the gains are that big, especially since I will most likely forget it occasionally. I have read about using transfers in this position, but cannot find the link again to this. I think it was something like this. Transfers are used in the sequence: 1♥-1♠ 1♥-1nt 1♠-1nt The rebids are after 1 ♥ opening: 2♣ 4+ ♦ 2♦=6+♥ 2♥=5+♥, 4+♣ After 1♠-1nt 2♣ 4+ ♦ 2♦=4+ ♥ 2♥=6+♠ 2♠=5+[♠], 4+♣ All bids shows about 11-16hp if 5-5 or 6-4. Can be stronger with 5-4. Bids above 2M shows gameforcing strength. Initially I think transfers are simpler than Gazzilly, but I have never tried this. You seems to gain a lot on the hands with 6 card majors. Have anybody tried something similar, and have experience with both Gazilly and transfer rebids?

Seems clear to bid 1♠ over 1♥. When partner bid 1♥ vulnerable vs not after you first have passed, he needs to have a decent hand. Also since north are a passed hand, it is clear to respond since south knows north passed initially. Given the above, the south hand do not have enough offense to make a take out double. When south make the double of 2♣ it is not an option to bid pass or 2♥ as was one of the options in the poll. The choice is between 2♠ and 3♠. I would choose 3 ♠.

Why did north not bid 1♠ over 1♥?

Yes the 3♦ showing 5-5 in major game-forcing is nice. There appears to be two ways to make a slam-invite with 6 hearts is that correct? 1nt-2♦; 2♥-3♥ 1nt-2♦; 2♥-2♠ 2nt/3♣-3♥ Is that correct? Is there a way to show 6 card heart and game-invite?

Also interesting ! I guess GF with 6-4 could also be included in the hands that transfers to a major, and rebids 3 minor? Some sorting out to be done after the 2nt rebid showing semibalanced hand with 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2 typically. (Do you want responder to show his long suit, and then weakness?)

Thanks. That's a interesting method! It solves one of the problems with similar methods when you hold 5 hearts and 4 spades game-invitational (If you still want to use garbage/crawling stayman) I assume that the two last bids have a typo? 3♦ = 5+♠ GF Should this be 5+ ♥? Or did you mean a hand with 5 ♥ and 5♠ game-forcing? 3♥ = 6+♠ INV Should this be 6+ ♥?

That makes sense. Have anybody used this method, so that they know what the 3♣/♦ rebids might be used for?

The reason i posted (Maybe not to clearly stated in my first post :) ) was that I was surprised by the method that Joel were using. It seems like secondary transfers is better than what he used. If you use 1N 2D; 2H 2N as game-forcing with one minor (I assume it meant: 5+♠ and 4(5)+♣/♦), you loose a bit of space when opener wants to find out what responder have. It seems like the method of using 1N 2D; 2H 2N as 5+♠ and 4(5)+♣ and game-invitational strength + is superior to Joels agreement. When this was discussed recently on Bridgewinners, it seemed like many preferred the above sequence to be game-forcing transfer (And the arguments given were convincing to me.) So my question really is: Does the method that Joel uses have other advantages compared to the two alternative methods?

When i watched the Over My Shoulder with Joel Woolridge ( - see hand 15 starting 2 hours into the video)he explains his methods like this: 1nt-2♣ 2♦-2♠= Mild invite 1nt-2♥ 2♠-2nt="4 card minor, unspecified, gf" I was wondering if anybody had played like this, and what merits there are to this. I assume this means that : 1nt-2♥ 2♠-3♣/♦ is 5-5 in spades and the suit bid, invitational to game?

This simulation is interesting regarding the need for having a natural 2nt available for responder after bidding stayman. link. Your assumption that it is more important to be able to check for majors in matchpoint seems to be supported by this simulations. But it does not seems it is as valuable in IMP. So I think in teams it makes sense to use 2nt for other purposes. Say you have a hand like this: ♠Kxxx ♥xx ♦ x ♣Kxxxxx If opener have fit to clubs this hand could be great, but with a non fitting hand not so good. You bid: 1nt-2♣ 2♦/2♥-2nt=4 spades, (5)6+ clubs. Could be mildly invitational to game(Opener bids past 3♣ with club fit), or gameforcing. Advantages: ….Seems like this could reach a few good games based on fit that could be hard to reach otherwise. (Agree that this is a low frequency hand). ..More ways to describe the game going hands. Other sequences: 1nt-2♣ 2♦ ? 2nt=As described above. 3♣=4♠,(5)6+ diamonds.Mildly invitational to game, or gameforcing 3♥=4♥/5♠ 3♦=5-5 in majors? (Or other bid that you are missing in your system) 3♠=4♠ and 5♥ You could also swap the meaning of 3♦ and 3♠ .The advantage is that this leaves responder more room with 5 ♥ if he is slaminterested: 1nt-2♣ 2♦-3♦(5♥,4♠ forcing game) 3♥(heart fit)

Here is an intersting idea from Richard Pavlicek:link: 2♦=0-4 HCP (no ace) or 8+ HCP or A+K 2♥=5-7 HCP or an ace (no A+K)