pbleighton

"What do you want to do with this hand? Pass is automatic on what you have given us - double is terrible. Your pd is there to protect. totally agree with Richard." Well, I feel better already B). Partner did have a balanced, bad 12 hcp (she almost opened, and I agre with you in hindsight she should have balanced). I don't remember what my minor suits were like, but they were unimpressive. I would have doubled 2H with a 13 hcp hand such as QJxx-Kx-Axx-Kxxx. Would you double with this one?

I learned a valuable lesson today at my club, the hard way - the way I usually learn them :'( The bidding went (neither vul) P-P-2H-? I had a wretched-looking 13 hcp 3343, Qxx in spades, KQx in hearts. My inner chicken won, and I passed, and felt very bad doing so (why didn't you double, ****ole). You guessed it. We were one of only 4 pairs out of 18 not to bid and make 3NT. My partner was kind (she had blown a bid two hands earlier - it was that kind of day). Moral of the story......(aw, heck, I'll let you figure it out) BTW, if you want to learn hand types, try learning a strong club system - hand types will invade your dreams B)

Just because I am in that type of mood today 8) I will quote the following from the SAYC booklet (gospel of the damned.....): "Opener's rebids are natural and standard. Rebids with a minimum hand (13-16 points): Rebidding notrump at the cheapest available level" Roland, it appears that you are not playing "true SAYC" either ;D Have a nice day! BTW my 20% figure was actually "less than 20%", I was being generous, and also assuming that the compliance rate for those players who choose to play with an intermediate like myself would be less than the compliance rate of those you advanced/experts play with, but I guess not!

Richard wrote: "I am happy playing 2/1 as constructive, but non-forcing playing a light opening system" Do you mean non-forcing to game or non-forcing for one round? If the latter, do you use 1NT for all hands with GF values?

Roland writes: "So please, call your system SA or 5 card major with strong NT, because that is correct. But don`t call it SAYC" Right except for the following fact: SAYC includes conventions which many online players who ask "SAYC OK, partner?" don't play: a) Jacoby transfers B) Negative doubles c) Michaels d) Unusual 2NT e) Doubles for t/o through 4D, penalty 4H and up (quite specific) f) SOS redoubles g) Gerber h) Jacoby 2NT All of these conventions are mandatory parts of SAYC. My estimate of the percentage of online players who say they play "SAYC" who play all of the above is that it is less than 20%. At least half don't play ANY of the above (as well as other bits of noncompliance). So what does SAYC mean in the world of online bridge? It means 5 card majors, 15-17 NT, and 2/1 shows invitational or better values, and is forcing for one round, and usually winds up in game. In other words, any interpretation of Standard American (or standard anything else with 5 card majors and a strong NT). That's what SAYC actually means, the booklet notwithstanding.

Hi Roland: You wrote: "It is not a pure waiting bid. It denies any hand with 16+ HCPs or equal playing strenth. it denies four cards in any suit which was biddable at the 2. level. But yes, I would rebid 2 Spade with AKQJT with the same confidence then with 65432. And I will never understand, why it is so bad to rebid bad suits: If you have a fit in spades with 23456 opps. 789, you may make 2 Spade tricks after loosing three to the honours. But you would hardly make any spade trick in NT or if you play in another suit" Thanks for your reply. I now at least understand the logic behind your approach, even if I don't fully agree with it. My problem with rebidding 65432 is that, while a 53 fit in a weak suit is fine at the 2 level, it is not so good at the 3 level, and at game I would rather be in 3NT than 4 of a major. Yes, you can correct to NT much of the time, but sometimes you will wind up playing in 4M making 9 tricks, when 3NT is cold. BTW the weak NT (if partner agrees) seems to me to help this rebid problem (minimum 5332s with weak/mediocre suits get opened 1NT). Have you played weak NT in a 5 card major, 2/1 invitational or better system, and if so what do you think of it? Peter

Roland: You replies are very interesting, but I still have 2 issues outstanding. Please bear with me, so maybe I can understand your position (perhaps I'm being slow today :)). 1) "1S - 2C 2NT - ?" On this, you wrote: "These 10/11 HCP hands from responder are the reason why I play 2 NT as 16-18. Now he can easily rebid 3 NT with his hand. In my way, his pd with a weak hand (12-15) has an easy 2 Spade rebid and responder now will bid 2 NT showing 11-12. In my opinion it is MUCH easier for opener to decide between 2 and 3 NT: His pd has a range from good 10 to lousy 12, about 1.5 HCPs. If opener rebids 2 NT with 11-14 (12-15) this is a bigger range and it is a pure guess which contract will be right..." If I understand you correctly, the opener shouldn't rebid 2NT with a weak hand, that 2NT should show 16-18 (or 15-18, or 15-17). Do you also have a 1NT rebid after a 1/1 response also show 16-18, and 2NT after a 1NT response? Are you then playing a weak NT? I have just started playing it with one partner, and like it very much, but this diverges from SAYC even more than a 2/1 response not guaranteeing a rebid (well, big deal!). If you are not playing a weak NT, then it seems to me that on opening minimum 5332s you are either rebidding weak 5 card suits a lot, or bidding a lot of 3 card suits as a second suit. What do you rebid after 1S-2D, holding a 5332 with a mediocre spade suit? Bid hearts with 3, or bid 3 clubs, bypassing 2NT, which may be where the contract belongs. Would you please clarify your NT opening and rebids for me, as it seems key to your approach? 2) 1S - 2H 3H On this, you wrote: "Again, the same tool will work: 1 Spade-2Heart 2 Spade 2 NT 3 Heart" Do you mean that you would rebid your spades, no matter how bad a 5 card suit it was? Do your rebids of the first suit bid show anything, or are they your "waiting" bid, which could show AKQ432 or 65432? In summary, you approach makes sense to me if: a) You play a weak NT, and :) A rebid of the major is purely a waiting bid. If these two conditions aren't right, perhaps I need more explanation. Curiously, Peter P.S. My comment on 2/1 was meant as a joke, though it does resolve some issues. I like the Precision variant I am learning more than 2/1, though people at the local club don't want to play anything other than 2/1 ???

"unplayable in a practical way? No never ever. If you understand your bidding, you will only bid 2/1 with 11 HCPs or good 10. And then you are always safe to play in 2 NT. The bidding with weak hands is so easy: Opener rebids his minor and pd bids 2 NT or rebids his suit with nothing more to say. In the first case, the bidding will be: 1 Heart 2 Club 2 Heart 2 NT No opener can pass, correct to 3 Club, raise to 3 NT or repeat his major. NO Problem at all. You are very very safe and can stop below game. In the second case, responder repeats his minor and opener can now comfortably pass or correct ormove on... So practical problems do you have only in the way you play: 1 Major-2 Minor 2 NT shows now 12-15 HCPS. So with very normal 11 or 12 HCPS responder has to guess whether he should bid 3 NT or pass. That is a big practical problem. It is no problem at all to promise a rebid. Kind Regards Roland" I agree with you on the strength requirements for a 2/1 response, but: My first post said: "My only disagreements with Roland are: "1S - 2C 2NT - ?" I play this as weak, and non-forcing. "1S - 2H 3H Is this forcing? I believe most (including me) play it as non forcing. If forcing, how do you show heart support and a dead minimum hand? If you switch suits, you may get too high." On this one: "1S - 2C 2NT - ?" If responder has a good 10/11 hcp, a balanced hand, and 2 hearts, he is stuck for a rebid. 2NT is where the contract belongs. Do you rebid clubs, with no sign of support from opener? Do you raise hearts with 2? On this one: "1S - 2H 3H Is this forcing?" What do you do if you have a minimum? If opener had more than a minimum, he could go to game. If opener's 3H doesn't show heart support and a dead minimum, how can he show it, and how can the partnership stop in 3 hearts if that is where they belong? I think your approach can push contracts too high, or put them in inappropriate strains. I agree with your point about the awkwardness of my (and many others) approach, but I think its considerable disadvantages are less than those of your approach. Bottom line: that's why 2/1 was invented ;D

2over1 wrote: "I disagree with Erick's statements. I fail to see the logic why a minimum rebid by opener is ever forcing even after a 2/1 response." I agree, in practical terms (it's the way I play), but EricK is correct that many definitions (Bill Root's Commonsense Bidding, for example), say that a 2/1 response promise a second bid, with no qualifications. Unfortunately, this isn't practical, for the reasons 2over1 spelled out.

1) Bid 6H, in spite of patner's 4H. Ha had started a slam investigation, and was disappointed in you club response - he was hoping for diamonds. Go for it. 2) Favorable vulnerability - bid 7 clubs. 3) Pass. Partner probably has 6 spades, which means probably less than 3 diamonds, and quite possibly no honors.

"We have all seen it work but it is specious!" I disagree. However, the name works against it - "The Law" implies a greater degree of precision than it has, or than its proponents claim that it has. As a practical matter, it should be renamed "The Guideline Of Total Tricks". I have found (from my quite non-expert perspective) that knowing how high it is GENERALLY safe to bid is very useful information. I am not anywhere near as precise in my deliberations as Ben, but I use it to begin my decision process, then use vulnerablity, shape, hcp, scoring, etc. ("judgement"). It's nice for judgement to have a starting point. ;)

Can't double with a singleton diamond. Can't bid spades with 4 to the 10. Choices are Pass and 3 clubs. Vul, I pass reluctantly. NV, I might bid 3 clubs, but actually I would have bid 2 clubs the first time.

My only disagreements with Roland are: "1S - 2C 2NT - ?" I play this as weak, and non-forcing. "1S - 2H 3H Is this forcing?" I believe most (including me) play it as non forcing. If forcing, how do you show heart support and a dead minimum hand? If you switch suits, you may get too high. One note on rebidding a 5 card suit - I do it, but I try not to do it if the suit is less than KJ10xx, or something like that. My rule is that if I rebid, partner should feel comfortable raising with 3 small.

As I am still struggling a bit learning a basic form of Precsion, these are question for the future, but... 1) I have seen a lot of references to Symmetric relays, and have read a bit about them. Would you recommend them, if I was to play a relay system? 2) Playing relays starting with the opener's first rebid after a 1 club opening seems to be GCC legal. However, 1NT by the responder in response to a natural bid as a game forcing response is not GCC legal, nor, I believe, is any relay started by the responder's first bid. If this is true (tell me if it's not), is there any practical way to play relay systems after, say, a 1 spade opening that is GCC legal. 3) Would you recommend relay systems, based on your experience? If you would, is there a minimum number of average hands per week played and/or practice bid which would be required to give enough practice to make them practical. 4) Does Barry Rigal's book address this. If not, what other book would you recommend? I have seen reference to Jannerstein in other posts, but I haven't been able to find it.

Ron writes: "At the risk of dampening everyone's enthusiasm. System has little to do with whether you win or lose at bridge. No system is a panacea for crappy play and no judgement. You can win using anything, (well within reason), if you are good enough. I think the purpose of this exercise is to have a bit of fun and to see if early and light action can cause some strife." True enough, but would you deprive us of our rooting interests? B) You the man!

As I understand it, 2/1 responses over one of a major in Moscito, Viking Club, Dwayne Hoffman's KLP, etc. are nonforcing. My question is: what is the upper limit 2/1. If your partner bid 1 spade, and you had a good invitational-strength hand with a decent 5 or 6 card heart suit, would you bid 2 hearts, or go through the 1NT relay, or something else? Is it rally a bailout (to be raised preemptively only), or do you use it to seriously investigate game?

"Until someone is able to come up with a convincing proof that they've perfected a bidding system, I'm going to want to be able to tweak, optimize, etc. My belief is that this characteristic is shared by most people below a certain age group." Some of us "of a certain age" share this characteristic too! ;) Without disrespect to any of the Naturalists: GO SCIENTISTS!

"I still see Goren-Wei precision being played here on BBO (and the flaws still stand out). I personally think a strong club system can be an improvement over natural bidding, at least in uncontested auctions. But, a system more advanced than Goren-Wei that substitutes judgment for hard and fast rules for strict point count, obviously. The problem is that some of these advanced systems are very hard to keep straight." I appreciate everyone's input on this subject, even though the thread has moved on considerably from its starting point, as threads usually do ;) The subject of hand valuation in Precision is obviously much more important than limit raises. I believe you in your description of many Precision players, especially since I have read similar criticisms elsewhere. My approach to Precision in my limited time with it is the same as with SA or 2/1 - hand valuation is crucial, and HCP, while very important, is just the beginning. I don't see Precision as being any different than any other system in this regard. It is more structured in its openings than natural systems, but this is a result of the shoehorning of hands made awkward by the lack of a natural 1 club (and/or 1 diamond - in the off-shape Precision I play 1 diamond can be opened with a diamond void), rather than a literal reliance on HCP. As the author of one of my first bridge books wrote: Points! Schmoints!

Assume you are playing a strong (15+ or 16+) club system (5 card majors), which has a bid designated as a limit raise (~10-12 dummy points). In 2/1 and SAYC, it is almost universally recommended that this raise be made always with at least 4 trumps, in order to facilitate possible slam exploration. Hands with 3 card support, no matter how good the support is, will go through 1NT forcing or a temporizing suit change. In a strong club system, there is very little chance of slam opposite a limit raise IMO. Therefore, I am considering (and I've only recently started to play Precision, so this is tentative) that a limit raise can be made with 3 card support, provided that I have no interest in the other major and that the support is decent - I'm thinking Q10x or Kxx. What do you think of this? Do you know if this is common among strong clubbers?

Please post the times and allow kibitzing B)

A try from a 2/1 beginner: 3D should show extra values AND good diamonds, probably more than 4 cards, quite possibly 6.. He has 4 hearts (poss 5 but unlikely). Therefore, the 4S may show a singleton, which would degrade the value of your hand. Bid 4NT, and go to slam only if p shows 3 aces. This is quite possibly too chicken, simplistic, or just plain wrong, but I had to try ;D

"I use systematic LOBs playing any system . Furst and best book i read about systems was Culbertston's. His method opening ( 2+leve and biddable suit), i use all time, when i open with less hcp then by system, with some corrections ofcourse " Would you elaborate on this. I'm interested, but don't follow it at all.

When using semi-positive responses to a 1 club opening, would you recommend that the acceptance show/trigger, i.e after 1C-P-2D (6-8 HCP, 5+ hearts)-P-2H (or 3H). 4H is presumably fast arrival. What do you suggest as meanings for 2H and 3H?

It strikes me that I indulged in tech-speak too much in my previous post. Two clarifications: 1) I am not implying, nor do I think Misho was, that we should try to write the specs for a computer program. However, system design has many similarities, whether you are designing computer programs, bridge bidding systems, or cars. 2) To clarify "objects, methods, and properties". I will use a car example. A "car" object could be considered the parent object (comparable to the "auction type" object above, with engine systems, transmission systems, and wheel/axle sytems as child objects (comparable to the strength, distribution, and auction progress objects above). Misho mentioned methods and properties. Neither he nor I addressed them directly, but in case the discussion moves in this direction, here are car analogies. Methods are actions which the objects (parent or child)can perform. The engine object has a start method. The wheel object has a turn method. The car object has a start method, which has a relationship to the start method on the engine object. Properties are data about an object. The engine object has a horsepower property.

1) "...use objects of bridge bidding, its properties and methods" - do I smell a fellow computer programmer here? :) 2) This will get very hairy (and may turn out to be impossibly complex), but hairy can be fun. 3) Here is my naive attempt to put some hierarchical structure into the discussion: Are you initially restricting your analysis to auctions where the bidding started with a non-preemptive bid, and the second side to bid entered with a double or simple overcall? If not, the most important classification may be auction type: a) Neither side preeempted. B) First to bid was a preempt. c) Second to bid was a preempt. Preempts suck up so much bidding space that they must be treated differently. A preempt by the second side to speak is different than the first, since the first (usually stronger) side was able to at least give some information. It is therefore somewhere in between the other two types. I believe that his should be the "parent" object, with at least three "child" objects beneath it. Then game invitation, game force, slam try, etc. are objects under the above objects - you are going to need hierarchical relationships, or your individual situations will multiply beyond control. This will be essentially strength - more specifically the balance of strength between the two sides. Distribution/fit are objects at the same level as strength, both having parent/child relationships to the top level object auction type. The third "child" object is level of bidding, or number of bids, or some measure of where in the auction's progress you are. Theoretically this isn't necessary, but in practice it will be, or else again the number of situations will quickly multiply beyond control. Yours in bewilderment at complexity, Peter