benlessard

There is a red flag in the bidding for me here, the D lead despite north bypass of a club control and east failure to X 4D. IMO it strongly suggest that west has the J of clubs and the hes likely to have the QH too.

playing for the squeeze ♠Qxx or less or LHO having the Qxxx+ and and the K clubs is 51-52 %. However i think that in IRL its even better because after the Ad he will switch clubs more often without the K♣ than with it. However hes more likely to lead (T1) a S without the Q than with it so its not clear. Note that you should start with the J hoping West duck the Da. It will give you some additionnal strip and endplay chances.

I think the original version that has been played in Ottawa/Toronto for some years now is better. 2C is 20-21 bal or reg 2C (direct 2NT is 22-23) 2C--?? 2D H transfer or waiting GF (IIRC 4H+5m is possible) 2H S transfer could be 4S+5m if GF 2S bust vs 20-21 or ... the rest is minors. 2C-2D-2H-2S is some sort of Kokish and its a relay to 2Nt. Just the transfers over 2C are worth more than the possible weak 2D in 2C. So its clear for me to drop the weak option in 2C.

We play transfer rebids. 1S-1NT-2C (is D) etc.. One of the weakest part of our system is 1S-1NT-2S showing 5S+4C 11-14. Its really bad in itself but at least in our methods we can sometimes stop in 2red or in 1S. Opening 2S with those is not only bad for constructive purpose its risky and you lose one of best preempt in the game (im a very strong believer in weak 2M). Having 2D+2M as preempt is really not the same as having only 2D no matter if you play multi or whatever. Having to open 2H with 5H+4C is even worse since the odds of 2S being a better spot than 2H/3C is pretty high. A quick fix would be to play 2M is 6 carder opening hand and 1M-1y-2M show 5M+4c instead. As for 1C its one of the best constructive opening you can do, the frequency of this bid must at least be higher than a certain threshold.

Same here 12-15 is totally playable but the loss of precision must be compensated elsewhere in the system.

The 1C is somewhat similar in spirit to what I play but the rest is so-so. What I play 1C = 15+ mostly bal, clubs or 15-17 with 5M. 1D= 4 unb 11-22 NF 1M = 11-14 or 18-21 NF 1Nt =12-14 2C= 5C+4M or 6C normal weak 2 2NT is bad preempt in one minor or 5SM+5H 4 losers or less. For me since 22+ are rare birds we really dont need 1D and 1M to be forcing. Since all the D hands are in 1D... 1C-??-2D is "almost GF artificial " allowing us to stop low when responder got 0-2 pts. Because 1M openings are splitted 11-14, 15-17, 18-21 we dont need Gazilli. Opening 2M with 5M+4C and losing two 2level preempt is a high price tag for Gazilli. The problem I see with OP system is that 1C will be underused while 1NT will be overused. After 1C-1Y-?? those bids will be underused if there is only balanced hands or hand with clubs left for them. Also opening at 12 but responder not being able to pass is a bit annoying and dangerous vs good opps they will pass and X with a strong NT. With 1D not forcing it allow responder first step to a relay showing some strenght something that is probably not possible if 1D is forcing.

Not one person in particular but in bbo history of thread about 2C precision close to 75% of the players thought 2C without 6 was nearly unplayable or really a poor method.

Good one Jinksy. Also lol at those who think 2C precision/PC with 6C/5C+4M is terrible but somehow 2D with 6D/5D+4M is acceptable.

IMO passing is a joke. Partner may have Axxxx ?? ?? (A/K)xx and game is good. Playing partner for 2 cards here is just normal bridge. Even if game is not there, on many hands both 3M will make.

South is a passed hand, so hes at least 5-5 but wasnt able to open so hes far from guaranteeing 2 defensive tricks and him having no defensive tricks is possible. North got 3 sure tricks but but the 4th is speculative. A layout where both 3D and 3S go down is possible but the odds strongly suggest 3S for me.

3H is a bid that will often endplay partner into bidding 3Nt so it should show a good suit. 3NT with all those controls and source of tricks cannot be right. vs KQJxxx they need to lead clubs or a stiff D to defeat 6H. Otherwise I agree with 5NT PAS.

Glen do you think its wise to put the weak NT in 1D and the 17-19 in 1C or it should be the other way around ?

In bi-directionnal the binary model is working ok, its the +1 cost (realy doesnt give any information) that make it a Fibo model here. However a more precise model would be counting the bids that end in 3H (LTTC or -2) since they are a quite different than those who end at -1 or 0 (3S,3NT) ive used 0.001 to count them stating point 3nt = 0 (forced to pass) 3S = 0 (forced to bid 3NT) 3H = 2 (3S or 3Nt) 3D = 3.001 (3H,3S,3NT) but over 3H opener could bid 3S lttc 3C = 5.001 2NT = 8.002 2S = 13.003 2H = 21.005 2D = 34.008 (you have 8 sequence that lead you to 3H, but 13 each for 3S&3NT) For practical purpose I think the -2 are worth almost twice the value of the 3S/3NT endings. If we count them as 2pts we get 1NT =89.021 = 110 2C = 55.013 = 68 2D = 34.008 = 42 2H = 21.005 = 26 2S = 13.003 = 16 2NT = 8.002 = 10 3C = 5.001 = 6 3D = 3.001 = 4 3H = 2 This mean that of all the 110 sequences-pts there is 34 sequences that end in 3S,34 that end in 3NT and 21 that end in 3H (but they are worth 2 pts) for 110 pts Of the 110 sequence pts- 42 are under 2C-2D-?? for 38% 26 are under 2D-2H-?? for 23.6% 16 are under 2H-2S-?? for 14.5% 10 are 2S-2NT-?? for 9.1% 6 are 2NT-3C-?? for 5.5% 4 are 3C-3D-?? for 3.6% 2 are for 3D-3H-3S/3NT for 1.8% 2 are for 3H direct =1.8% 2 are for 3S/3NT direct = 1.8%

ok thanks a lot, if Ive understood correctly in the end there is always 3 branch, 3H-3S-3NT is a sequence but it cannot really carry information in theory. Since after 3H a 3S relay would "force" 3NT. However in practice there is a slight difference since the branch that end at -2 have twice the value I think. For a balanced hand bidding 3H will allow opener to bid 3S last train. EX if S is trumps. ending in 6S or ending in 6H have the same value. since opener need to guess 6S or 7S right now over 6D opener cannot really relay anymore but he can do a final last train by bidding 6H. But anyway your explanation is clear and convincing and im sure my maths was wrong.

If we take as example 1C--1S (strong, GF bal) 1NT--?? (ask...) Here any bids is available to show a bal hands GF. So basically responder will show his hand and opener will just bid the next step to know more. Some say that the frequencies of 2C,2D,2H,2S should follow Fibonacci sequence but its not what I get. Bidding the 1st step will cost 2 space not one because partner will bid the cheapest bid to know more. Bidding the 3rd step will cost 4 spaces. As an example 2C-2D-2H-2S-?? 2H-2S-?? so bidding the first step followed by the first step again is equivalent in space consumption than to bid the 3rd space. The frequencies should be the inverse of the space cost of the bid. For example to consume 7 spaces (you bid 3C and partner will relay at 3D) you can.. bid step 6 (3C-3D) 4+1,3+2,2+3,1+4 (2S-2NT-3C-3D, 2C-2D-3C-3D) 2+1+1,1+2+1,1+1+2. (2D-2H-2S-2Nt-3C-3D) etc.. all these sequences should have equivalent frequencies because they consume equivalent space. So the cost of a bid is cost = x+1 because the next relay is included in the cost. So we get 2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 ... For simplicity lets stop at 10 and find the lowest denominator. 2/2 + 2/3 + 2/4 + 2/5 +2/6 +2/7 +2/8 +2/9 + 2/10 So the first step bid cost 2 should twice as frequent than step 3 (cost 4) and three times more likely than step 5 (cost 6) a lowest denominator would be 420 420 + 280 + 210 + 168 + 140 + 120 + 105 + 88 = 1531 27%, 18% , 13.7% , 11% , 9% , 7,8% 6.85% , 5.75% = 100% So this series doenst follow a Fibonacci sequence. Im not good at math enough to be sure, could soemone tell me where the frequencies of bids in relays = Fibonacci started ?

Transfers over 1C are very powerful and its not just for rightsiding its also to give you more sequences. 1C-1D (hearts) & 1C-1H (spades) is gaining a huge step over the equivalent 1C-1H & 1D-1H (hearts) 1C-1S,1D-1S (spades) So its really obvious that you would gain on transfer sequence with the more probable hands 11-13 vs 17-19 hands, the frequency difference is huge. It will be hard to find an experienced system designer that will agree with your switch. If you really want to rightside your 17-19 hands do like me and play a strong club with transfers. We accept the transfers with 3 so 1C-1D(H or pts)--1H (show 3) 1C-1H(S w or GF)--1S are our most common start so we rightside 95% of the case were have a M fit and opener is 15+. Even hand where we dont accept the transfers. 1C-1D-1Nt (17-18 withouth 4H) 1C-1H-1NT (15-20, 0-2 S) we have a good chance to retransfer later. I don't really agree with the rest of your post also but its irrelevant in compared to this. Do you at least know the frequency difference between 11-13 and 17-19 ?

Your suggested solution look weak compare to what I play 1C 15+ (bal, with clubs, or 15-17 with 5M) 1D = 11-22 unb with at least 4D can be 4D+5C or (4441) 1M =11-14 or 18-21 1NT 12-14 2C = 5C+4M 11-14 or 6C Balanced hands ----IMO all 16+ bal hands are better under a strong clubs, the 15 count do better under a strong NT than under a strong clubs but the 14 do almost equally well under weak NT/strong nt. VUL its a bit annoying to open 1NT with 12-13 but its somewhat compensated by when we are not vul. Opening bal 11 count in 1D is pointless imo. So i think its a draw here. Im under for the 12,13,15 slighty under for the 14 but im significantly better placed for 16+ and my 2NT is free. real clubs ---- Im at a big disadvantage here. Not only 2C opening lead to some problems but when your opening 1C in your methods its real clubs very often if not its a big bal hand so good edge for you here. Real diamonds ---- Big edge for me here. Having diamonds in 3 different bid is a bit annoying for me. Also I have my weak 2D. Majors ---- again big edge for me, Ive got many of the advantages of a limited opening style. unbalanced powerhouse ---- again decent edge for me because of the strong clubs structure. IMO its a no brainer that you should switch your nt ranges 1C (11-13) and 1D (17-19). If you want to maximize your 2C opening, use 2NT for 22-23 and 2C is 21+ unb, 24+ bal or 20-21 bal with some ways to stop in 2M.

Ok playing a relay system the numbers should be asssuming there is 9 steps. The frequency is inverse of the space cost of the bid. cost = x+1 because the next relay is included in the cost. So we get 2/2 + 2/3 + 2/4 + 2/5 +2/6 +2/7 +2/8 +2/9 + 2/10 a lowest denominator would be 420 420 + 280 + 210 + 168 + 140 + 120 + 105 + 88 = 1531 27%, 18% , 13.7% , 11% , 9% , 7,8% 6.85% , 5.75% = 100% So this doenst follow a Fibonacci sequence.

The polish end signal is when trumps is not known and relayer still want some options. your in 3NT and opener showed a 5530. 4C is an ask/QP/RKC etc 4D is a puppet to 4H to stop somehwere 4M is something else (could be NF slam invitation) could be voids could be rkc 2,rkc 3 etc. the 40-20-40 is because you count the next relay step as being part of the bidding space cost. 1step = cost 2 2nd step cost 3 3rd step cost 4 4th step cost 5 So this make the cheapest bid least efficient. Not sure if this follow Fibo numbers im in a rush for time now.

I think the proper term is "Polish end signal" and its 4D in the original version, ive suggest and im sure others did that 3S should also be a PES to 3Nt. This may wrongside 3NT however However its clear that cheapest call artifical are often multiplier of bidding sequence like 2NT lebenshol or xyz.

Yes I know very well that symmetric bridge information (same amount of information going from A to B vs B to A) is not really optimal since picking the final contract is a one man job not a 2 man job. If bridge bidding was like at the end both players pick a contract and we make some sort of average between the 2 contracts than my guess is a pure 50-25-12.5 would be optimal. Same for spiral scan. If one player hold no cards and ask his partner for cards starting with A 1- no card A 2 card A but not B 3 A+B no C 4 A+b+c no D 5 ABCD These responses will be very close to 50-25-12.5... However captain is unlikey to have no cards so its possible scheme of 2 cards like 1- A or B but not both 2 no A, no B 3- 2 of the next 3 cards 4 3 of the next 4 cards 5 4 of the next 5 cards are better since they take into account that responder is likely to have some cards. captain next inquiries could be 1 asking for 2 next cards 2 Asking for 2 next cards but I need to know if you held A or B. Anyway these are really interesting problems but very hard one imo. Sometimes you are close to the limit where you risk to bypassing your last making contract. I think in a "perfect" scanning methods they change according to your overall strenght to the lenght in your suits and according to the safety of the "landing strip". So irl they are not practical.

Let's do a thought experiment. Two super-computer AI are bidding millions of hands after the start 1S-2Nt (2Nt is GF with 4 trumps support forcing to 4S, not suitable for splinter) . There is no opponents for the bidding & opener is going to play all the hands (so no rightsiding, no worry about lead directing X, no worry about leaking information to the defense and you cannot stop before 4S). The computers are programmed to reach the best contract & any bid they do over 4H is to play, so they have between 3C and 4H to give or ask information for finding what is the best contract. Computers like to work with one and zeros so thats what we are going to do to. A bit is one "one or zero" a byte (or octet) is 8 bit. If a bid is made its one if its bypassed its a zero. 2NT... 3C-3D-3H-3S-4H = 11110001 (four bids followed by 3NT,4C,4D that are bypassed, 3C-3H-3NT-4D-signoff = 10101010 (the last zero = 4H is bypassed) 3S-3NT-4D-4H = 00011011 a Bytes/octet or 8bit can carry values from 0 (00000000) to 255 (11111111) so in my example there is 255 bidding sequence that allow you to get from 3C to 4H (not counting all the final contracts possible). Any number of bidding steps can be seen as a binary string so 6 step is 5 2exp6 for 2x2x2x2x2x2 = 64 possible sequences. Computers have perfect memories so they can easily encode the meaning of each bytes (bidding sequence) and they will not have bidding misunderstanding. For them all the sequences have the same complexity and no sequences will have unclear meanings. In short they will not "think" in term of one bid they will think in term of one byte even if they are not in control of all the bids. What is very important to see is that bidding the first bid 3C (1???????) or bypassing it (0???????) represent 128-128 sequences or 50%-50% of the total number of sequences. The computers will of course need to maximize the use of all the possible sequence so they will spread the meaning of the bids according to the total bidding space. They cannot afford to have sequence that do not exist or don't have meanings, they also need need to try to make each bytes as frequent and as significative than the others. However note that the goal is not to sort bridge hands, the goal is to bid to the best contract, so some hands frequencies will not represent their "bidding" values/space, for example two minimum hands balanced hand facing each other is a frequent occurence, however since the final contract will often be 4S they are not valuable when the goal is reaching the best contract. So the bidding space will match the bidding value of a hand not its intrinsic frequency. My 2 main hypothesis are 1- That the computer will maximize the bidding space by using the responses frequency that would look like... 3C=50% (1???????) 3D = 25% (01??????) 3H - 1/8 (001?????) 3S = 1/16 (0001????) 1/32, 1/64, 1/128 2- The computer will start by showing shapes and finish by showing extras or not. IRL it make sense to show strenght early, if both are weakish you stop leaking information and quickly signoff, however this method is not optimal if you want to maximize the bidding space.

ill pass and take my bad score hoping that in the long run it will be less than the good score I get when my psych is working.

Maybe the timing is right for a psych. If your like me and in 1st seat its "rarely psych rather than never psych" than I think the timing is right you are W vs red, you have a parachute suit and you dont have a good "normal" bid. This is a very random auction however so its for sure running score and who you are playing agaisnt is everything and its not going to be for everyone taste. I think 1H/1S/1Nt are all fine at this vul but you should stick to your prefered style of psych. Overall in my career I was pretty lucky with my psych and pretty unlucky against them so when it come to psych Im biased and I think rarely is better than never.

Is it possible that fert 5-10 is to make fert over fert a dangerous proposition ?