mw64ahw

Playing a standard approach 3♣, 2♥, 3♣, but 2♣ for the 2nd one if forcing.

Many thanks for your comments Mike I thought I would try and put some context around this post. I had two observations from playing my existing TW approach, namely: 1. I was missing 3NT/4M games with intermmediate semi-balanced hands, which I didn't open 1NT 2. I was missing 3NT contracts with 6+♣ and sufficient hcp between us (may be less than 25) The aim of considering this variation is to have an approach that shows: 1. intermediate semi-balanced hands so that game is reachable opposite a stong enough partner 2. I can play a super accept opposite 6+♣ similar to that with 4-way transfers. I have some work and simulations to perform to optimise the structure and then comapare with other TW approaches. Further points to note are that this TW variation accompanies: 1. a 5+ Majors approach so 1♣ can only ever have 4M 2. an unbalanced ♦ approach based around 3+♦ or semi-balanced long ♦ 3. 1♣-1♠ is GI. I address some of your points below David made a similar observation and I agree that I would want to show support immediately with 4. The concept originates from the following bulletin, which is the basis for this attempt at a variation. https://www.bridgewe...20over%201C.pdf I have added to the original draft structure by suggesting that 2♦ is used to show the intermediate supporting hand, although this may be better as a Max 16-17 intermediate hand as it would allow responder to invite game with a sub-Limit+ hand. The game invite can be made with a Limit+ hand when support is shown with 2♥ over the transfer. This hand KJxx x Qxx AQxxx isn't an issue as I play a 3+ unbalanced ♦ so I excluded from a 1♣ opening. i.e. you can only have a short Major with 6+♣ So after 1♣-1♦ I would complete the transfer with any Minimum hand with 2/3♥. If partner has 4♠ they can then show 4♠ via 1NT or relay to 1NT otherwise. When Minimum with short ♥s 6♣4♠ opener breaks the transfer with 1♠ When Intermediate with 6♣4♠ 1-3♥, opener again breaks the transfer. Responder can retransfer with 5♥, raise ♠, sign-off in ♣ or super-accept. The potential issue is having an intermediate semi-balanced hand with 4♠ opposite a 1♦ transfer when you would bid 1NT rather than 1♠. I don't think this should be a problem given you find an 8 card ♠ fit when responder has 7/8+ points or end up playing in 1NT with sufficient hcp and hopefully get a ♠ lead. I use a similar approach with my partner, but the new variation suggests loosing this benefit. I will have to compare to see if the gains from the new approach outweigh the benefits of my old one. Many thanks again for your comments and let me know if the logic still fails to make sense.

More so than other versions of TW? Is the only difference going to be bidding 1♥ with 4♥, having interference and then needing to bid 2♥. This may let the OPs in with ♠? I'll have to run some stats. on interference.

Thanks - this is what the AI simulator produced in terms of bidding and I am trying to sense check back to this TW variation 1. I hope I get this right after 1♣-1♦ as its a new TW variation for me . 1♥ 11/12-14 (possibly 10 with 4414) (4432), 5m(422), 6♣3+♥. (I think this could be 6+♣2+♥) 1♠ 6+♣4♠ 10+ --continuations are where the simulator is still learning, but I agree with others that 3♣ above is the wrong bid 1NT 15-17 5m(422) may have 4♠ 2♣ 6+♣<3♥ (I think this could be 6+♣<2♥) 2♦ 15-17 4414 or 15-17 4♥? 2♥ 15-17 4♥ or 12-14 4♥? 2♠ 17+ <4♥ 2NT a) 6+♣ better than 3♣, b) 6+♣ 3+♥, c) 5♣/♦4♥ GF 3♣ 6+♣ 3♦ 4414 better than 2♦ GF 3♥ 4♥ 18-19 3♠ 4♥ cue SI (likely to have 6+♣) 3NT to play 4♣ 4♥ cue SI (likely to have 6+♣) 4♦ 4♥ cue SI (unlikely bid) 4135 & 4144 hands will be opened 1♦ 2. 1NT is OK - I need to run more simulations to find the cut-off between 1NT & 2NT looking at trick count rather than hcp. NB 1♣-1♠ is GF/GI 3. Agree 3♣-3NT is a poor calibration, although both 3NT and 4♣ happen to make in this case

As an afterthought would 2NT instead of 1NT by South have been reasonable looking at counting tricks rather than hcp?

Trying out a variant of Transfer Walsh where the ♥ transfer is completed with 11-14 & 2-4♥ w/o long ♣s this auction occurred. (NB: 1♦ is 3+♦ unbalanced/long ♦s) Is the auction reasonable/optimistic or unwise given a combined 21 hcp or should 3♣ be passed? Progress - I've worked out how to include bidding explanations![hv=pc=n&s=s92h8762da762ckj5&n=skj76hajd5ca98762&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1d(4%2BH)p1s(UB 4S6%2BC 12-14)p1np3c(6%2BC no Dctrl)p3n(3%2BC w honour/Dctrl)]266|200[/hv]

I always appreciate a comment from David The hand itself was fairly similar, weaker hcp wise, but a touch more shapely. The poll is a subject that has been touched on a few times recently - do you ignore a weaker than proscribed hcp count and bid the playing strength, with the risk of going down in 3NT or underbid and potentially miss game. My approach is to have bids that can show either, but others have questioned whether this is playable? Personally I find my approach removes potential misstatement of strength (hcp or playing) In this case with a MLT of 4.5, 9.5 playing tricks and a 1NT response by partner I judged a 4♦ bid to be reasonable leading to Pass/Raise/Correct/SI and made on this occasion. However, I guess that whether opener's 2nd bid is 2/3/4♦ doesn't make much difference to the end result with this hand, although you may end up with competition with a 2♦ bid. [hv=pc=n&s=shaj9854dkqj653c2&w=sajt63h7da4ca9743&n=sk87542hkqdt982ck&e=sq9ht632d7cqjt865&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h1s1np4dp4h]399|300[/hv]

5♣ - N was unlucky with 3 ♦ losers off the top, but with 3♦, 3.5 quick tricks and a good majority of the points I would have preferred to double

One I had last night with freakier distribution 2♦/2♥/3♦/4♦?[hv=pc=n&s=shaj9854dkqj653c2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h1s1np?]133|200[/hv]

Having a poll on something that is supposed to be standard suggests there isn't a standard, so you are reduced to conveying whatever approach you use. Perhaps Natural 2/1 GF would be a better description

Given 2♥ is forcing with South's hand a touch above minimum, but not GF, I bid 2NT with a semblance of control in the other suits. I tend to only rebid ♦ with 6+

Unlucky - A touch more shape from North and you may have been OK What does an auction after 2♣ look like? Do you still try for the slam? If so I suspect you end up in the same place.

2NT for me showing showing good support, an 8 card fit and a level of strength is clear, direct communication for the partnership while asking partner to reciprocate by confirming their strength. 2♣ in contrast shows strength and information that may be useful to the opponents, but not support, and introduces an unnecessary and artificial delay in reaching agreement. It also encourages further unnecessary disclosure by partner. 4NT by OP is artificial, confirms an 8 card fit and confers a particular strength, albeit for me, incorrectly on this occasion. 4NT is an example of evolution in the game as pairs looked to improve their communication. I am happy to keep trying to evolve. P.S. Given North's hand below the strength conveyed would have stopped in 4♠ using my artificial 2NT. A standard 2♣ bid should stop in 4♠, but I suspect South still tries for the slam without an additional artificial bid.

The hand is too weak for me to even consider an immediate Ace ask. 16hcp opposite a possible 10/11hcp, no ♣ control, a MLT of 6.5; the hand is flat, but may work opposite some shape. I assume 4NT is RKC, but the naivety of the bid feels more like Blackwood from someone who can't count. Having made the bid why chicken out now? Lets ask for Kings and see if a missing K is shown. If you're in luck the K♣ may be shown, followed by K♦ and wait for 6♠.or a NT bid. I have a limit plus Hxx+ 2NT to ask opener for their strength. This then gives a clearer picture as to whether to cue bid prior to showing/asking for Keycards.

Distributions and strength are right for the slam. I can get there playing Kickbo (4♦ 2KCs) instead of 3♥, but I guess that's not allowed either?

Not my choice-we were EW opening 1♠ with South stopping in 3♠

I'm a long way from developing a Deep Blue type program, but perhaps I'll aim for one of the world computer bridge-championships.

If interested this document was the basis for this particular plagarisation with my adaptations for Kaplan Inversion. Fixing the Forcing Notrump (examples included) v.03.pdf - OneDrive (live.com) In terms of modelling the problem - this is the challenge I am pursuing rather the drive to compete internationally (for the time being anyway) My background is one of financial modelling and my approach to setting up the model for simulation is likely to be more involved than most practitioners. You have highlighted a number of challenges Memory load/Cost of errors - these are human weaknesses, but can be built into a Monte Carlo simulation with random, but controlled frequency. As you imply I am sure that at some level of frequency any gains are wiped out and you would be better off playing a simpler approach.Gain from using the gadget - this is a straightforward comparison to the base system run over X simulations.Loss from using the gadget (there's always loss) - this goes with 2 above; you are looking for a net gain, but a statistical analysis by hand classification can pinpoint any specific weakness. The trick is to build in the cost via implementation of the scoring system in use. Intuitively one may say that finding a Major fit at the 2 level is preferable to a minor suit fit; this is your null hypothesis which can then be investigated.Loss from other uses for the bid(s) - this is the same type of problem as 2 or 3, but involves more than 1 base systemRipple effects on the rest of the system - again you are looking for an aggregate gain compared to your original approach so this is captured via a broad simulationDegree of difficulty created for the opps. - the competitive angle is a step up in complexity, but there is enough data available to calibrate to the standard of opponents as tournaments are graded. Again unpredictability of competition can be built in. A generalised approach is difficult, but the opponents system cards provide the constraints.

A fun hand from last night How do you open?[hv=pc=n&e=st7653h9dakqj2cq6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=?]133|200[/hv] How do you compete? The result at one table - can you bid it or even explain the bidding? NB: the final contract wasn't 4♠ on this table

The bidding would shut out the chance of reaching 6♦ although it would strike a chord on picking up the hand. I'm still trying to get my head round the probabilities of bidding and making 4M with a 7 card fit

As a jump shift in standard the hcp count is too weak with partner expecting ~3hcp more. I guess this will lead to 3NT failures. However I voted about right as this describes what I use the bid for i.e. 55 and intermediate with responder expected to pick a suit or move ahead with a Limit+ strength hand. With stronger hands I take a slower/lower approach with my bid being 2NT for 4+ ♦s/3523 allowing a 3♣ shape request.

I've run many simulations comparing with a standard approach and this comes out on top. My sole aim it to produce an optimal approach with no emotion attached to it. The various 5332 hands either bid 3NT directly with a controlled doubleton or go through a defined route to show either 4+ of the 2nd suit or 5332. In the ♦ case you can either bid 3♦ to show 4+♦ support (perhaps intending to play), opener corrects to 3NT if it is his weak doubleton. The alternative is to bid 3♣ to ask for further shape. In standard you have the jump shift to 3♦ with the strong hand and 2 fewer bids to find out whether you have 4/5 ♦, a semi-balanced hand, singleton or void if required. The intermediate hands may not be a strict 15-17, but also have correctly placed high card points and a pre-set MLT requirement. Yes, a minority of the time you will go down opposite a bare-minimum responder. There is of course always the option of skipping this bid and treating everything as a minimum. As to whether you find it playable or not that is down to the individual as the simulator learns and sticks to its rules. Personally I find that it is my play that lets me down not the bidding itself.

Straight to the crux of the matter - responder to show 5+♠ or opener 4+♦ directly. Strong with 4+♦/3523 - 2NT Intermediate with 5+♦ - 3♦ Minimum with 4/5♦ I'd bid 1NT. Responder usually follows with 2♣ w. 4♦&2♥ when weak or invitational so you are left with the in between hand which can pass. 2♦ with 5+♦ 2♥ weak with 2/3 2♠ direct shows the GF hand with 6+♠, while GF w. 5♠ goes via 2♣ to get a better idea of opener's shape. 2NT with 5♦ Limit+ (passable), 2NT via 2♣ shows both minors Limit+ 3♣ 6+♣ Limit+, go via 2♣ when not Limit+ to play in ♣ 3♦ 6+♦ Limit+ There is also the option of opening 1NT when 2542

a) I think you have a misread here 1♥-1♠-1NT is either balanced (5332) or 4♦ and can be a passed, with 2♣ simply asking which? b) I'm sure I'll be there in a handful of years time if not already

My quote on smugness was made with tongue in cheek, but on a more serious note what is the optimal way to convey 55 in the Majors with the above hand?: Is it best to: X and bid ♠ followed by ♥ (bear in mind I Xed on an earlier hand and got left it it at the 1 level for a bottom without partner having length in the opponents suit)?Bid ♠ then jump to 3♥?Jump to 2♦ followed by a raise and hope partner understands with no agreement on Michaels etc.?Jump to 3♦ and hope its not construed as a stopper ask?Any other bid?