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)

I guess you don't have a direct balanced invite? (Like 1nt-2nt, or 1nt-2♠?) In an earlier tread you said that you used: 1nt-2♣ 2x-2nt=To play. Do you still play it this way? Alternative meanings for this sequence could be: ……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club gameinvitational + ……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club weak or gameforcing ……..* Gameforcing, ask for further description of openers shape.

I think you would gain more from removing the balanced invitational bid after opening 1nt, than say after the sequence 1♦-1♥;1nt(Since in this sequence both opener and responder have given information regarding shape already). So in one way it makes sense to have a narrower range on the 1nt opening bid, than on the second sequence. If you like to open all 11 hcp hands, it would then make sense to have the following structure: 1x-1y:1nt=11-13. 1nt=14-15 If you play transfers over 1♣, you could split two ranges into the 1♣ opening: 11-13 or 16-18 is possible. But then again: Is it a good idea having a system that limits the number of 1nt openers? (Does not sound to great to me..). But if opening 1nt on a 3 point range is ok(with no balanced invites), it should be ok to have a 4 point range for the 1x-1y;1nt sequence (So if 1nt is 15-17, then 1x-1y;1nt could be 11-14), since you have room to include the balanced invite anyway here.

Bumping another old thread back to life (Maybe i should change my name to Lazarus?) Interested to know if anybody found some useful insight on this: 1: Are 3 point ranges playable without balanced invites to game? Seems like there are interesting things that could be done if you can live without it? 2: The 2.5 point range also seems interesting, but I guess then there are some compromises that makes your system worse in other parts (Less defined openings, that are more vulnerable to competition).

Ok. Yes, then you dont have a problem. But I usually uses this sequence as weak with play: 1N - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ as 4♥+4♠ and weak (Opener passes or bids 2♠). According to Wikipedia I gave the wrong explanation of what i play(According to Wikipedia my version is called crawling stayman).I think most of my partners would not be willing to give up 2♥ in this sequence as weak.

Bringing life to this old conversation. I am interested if anybody have some thoughts on what NT structure fits, if you want to use 1nt-2nt as puppet. My initial thoughts has been (Just copying some existing treatments). 1nt-2♣ 2♦/♥-2♠=5 card spade. Invite. 1nt-2♦ 2♥-2♠=Forcing 1 round. Invitational 5 card ♥ Normal transfers after 2♦ and 2♥=Normal transfers (But with game forcing transfer for responders second bid: 1nt-2♦;2♥-2nt=Hearts and clubs. gameforcing) 1nt-2♠=Range ask or clubs (Weak or gameforcing). Responder shows short suits 1nt-2nt=Puppet ala this tread. 1nt-3♣=Diamonds. Weak or gameforcing 1nt-3♦=? One option is 4-1 in majors and 4-4 in minors (3♥ from opener asks where the short suit is) 1nt-3♥=5-5 game invitational ........Sidenote: .......1nt-2♥ .......2♠-3♦=5-5 majors, gameforcing(I like this sequence since it leaves room for opener to bid 3nt with no/poor fit .......for majors (2-2 in majors), or responder to show a void: .......1nt-2♥ .......2♠-3♦ .......3♥(Sets hearts)-4♣/4♦=5-5 majors, void in suit bid) 1nt-3♠=5-5 minors, gameforcing. There are some holes in my system: If responder have 4 spades and 5 hearts with invitational strength there is no bid to show that, so i have to improvise and choose the smalles lie (Use garbage stayman) Invitational hands with clubs or diamonds. +Probably quite a few others :)

I think now it is better to use standard puppet after all, like some of you have been telling me for a long time. :) I found this old conversation link. The reason this is better, is that you find out at once if opener has 5 card major, leaving responder more room. Showing the 5 cars suit mainly hurts if you were interested in the other major, and have less than 3 card in openers major. The gain is that responder after a normal puppet sequence can show more hands: The hands with 3-1/1-3 in majors and 5-4/4-5 in the minors were shown by this sequence: 3♣ = no 5M 3♦ = (31)(54) 3♥ = 4♠ 3♠ = 4♥ 3N = To Play3M = 5M The downside offcourse is extra chances for lead directing doubles and more to remember. EDIT: Still possible to do some fancy stuff if you want, letting opener bid 3♦ with 5 card♥ and 3♥ with 5 card♠. This allows responder to choose who should be declearer, and also give a cheap slamtry: 1nt-2nt 3♦(1)-3♥(2) (1)=5 card ♥ (2)=mild slamtry (1-3-5-4 or 1-3-4-5 ??)

I now think that it is better for responder to bid 3♥/3♠ with 3 card in the suit bid, and 0-2 in the unbid major. This wrongsides if you have a 5-3 fit (Or good 4-3 fit with weakness in the other major). But it reduces the chance that the opponent have a useful lead directing double if we end up in 3nt. The structere then becomes: 1nt-2nt 3♣? 3♦=4-3/3-4 in majors. Responses as suggested by nullve (But giving opener some freedom with how he wants to bid hands with 5 card majors). 3♥=3 card hearts. 0-2 spades. 3♠=3 card spades. 0-2 hearts 3nt=3-3 in majors (And normally 5 card+ in a minor) If then also using transfer extentions that forces to game, a hand with only 4 card support can be shown there. I like: 1nt-2♥ 2♠-? ... 3♠=5 card ♠. Choice of games ... 3nt=4 card ♠. Choice of games (In the structure I am thinking about it will most likely only be 4♠ and 2♥)

This is OK as long as you have another way in your system to show 5-5 majors and game invitational strength. Another way to give responder chance to show more hands is to use responders second bid as transfer as well, one option is (there probably is better structures available): 1nt-2♥ 2♠-? 2nt=Transfer to clubs (Both game forcing and invitational plus is possible here) 3♣=Transfer to diamonds (Both game forcing and invitational plus is possible here) 3♦=Transfer to hearts(invitational to game+?) 3♥= 6 card spades, invitational to game/slam 3♠= 5 card spades. Choice of game, or some stronger hands? 3nt=4 card spades, choice of games. You loose the 2nt rebid to show 5 spades balanced and game invitational. But if your system allows, that hand can hand can be shown with normal stayman and rebidding 2 ♠..

Yes. That is possible. I think one of the swedish systems ~30 years ago (Super Standard?) used transfers to show 4 card majors. If you use the sequence: 1nt-2♥;2♠-3♥ to show 4 card spades you need to put the 5-5 major hands elsewhere. As you say, stayman is one possibility. One solution that i have seen is: 1nt-2♣ 2♦-3♦=5-5 in major. Game invitational or stronger. But then you loose the natural 3♦ in this sequence.

Thank you for many good suggestions and correction of ideas that don't work! I think my prefered variant so far is something like this: 2nt= Forces 3♣. Can be used if responder want to play 3♣. If responder is game-forcing he has one of the following hands: * 4-3 in the majors. * One 4 card major suit(0-2 in the other) (Changed from previous version where this showed 3 card major and 0-2 in the other). * 3-3 in the majors. With all these hands responder can show his hand, and opener does not have to reveal more than wheter he has support for responder. Hands with 4-4 in the majors bid 2♣ initially. Hands with one 3 card major and 0-2 in the other have to find another way to bid their hand (If responder have singleton or void in a major it could be a good idea to show the short suit instead). Responses: 1nt-2nt 3♣? 3♦=4-3/3-4 in majors. Responses as suggested by nullve (But giving opener some freedom with how he wants to bid hands with 5 card majors). 3♥=4 card spades. Not interested in hearts. 3♠=4 card hearts. Not interested in spades 3nt=3-3 in majors (And normally 5 card+ in a minor)