benlessard

I agree that 2Nt was a mistake but i think 1Nt is the proper bid. With the A of diamonds in hand it would be a complete different matters but here you are heavy favorite to get a D lead for a bad result in a H contract.

Agree 100% that why relaying the balanced hand is pretty dumb.

Surely a 4 card major with a forcing 1C opening. Ill probably add a wider Nt range and 2C as naturalish

Unless the 1Nt rebid with a stiff H is possible responder can rebid 2H with shapes and 5 H anyway. With clubs he can also rebid 2C. In this case the only remaining unbalanced hands with 4 trumps are 2452 ,3451 and hand with S lenght these hands are highly unlikely and probably play better in 1Nt anyway. Note that on the hand 2H will be off while 3NT will make (if youre trying to make 3Nt). Imo the correct strategy for support X is halfway between hand that you would want to make a 3 card raise Any hand with 3 card support. I know some that will X with any hand with 3 cards support (terrible) and some that will only X holding Hxx trumps and ruffing power, wich is not flexible enough for my taste.

Whats the point of making a support double with a balanced hand then ?

deleted

Pot odds arent a poker concept, theyre just a probability ratio applicable to game of chance and when you can use probability to predict random events.

I usually like to make support when I can but here 1Nt rate to be much better then 2H. The K of D is protected you will avoid D ruffs. By bidding 1Nt you are still showing 2H so partner still can bid 2H to play but hell be more careful. Making a support X will encourage partner to play 2H instead of 2C when hes got 4 good H and 2 or 3 spades ( we are in MP).

Not what ive meant . What ive say is that your going to win imps with "simple & stupid bidding" and lose imps on "science hands". Most of the wins come from 1Nt---all pass. 1Nt----(P)-----2M-----all pass. 1Nt----(2??) etc. All the tough slams hands are those where you are likely to lose imps since youve youve lost a lot of bidding space by opening 1Nt and not being able to transfer. By transfering you open yourself to direct bidding (X, cuebid,) and to delayed bidding ( pass followed by X,2Nt,new suits) To my knowledge most top level weak Nt dont play transfers.

It would be fun to make computer created bridge problems. The programmation part is pretty simple its defining and coding the criterion that make a problem hard/ interesting that is tough. I think the problems should be 5-8 cards (but to start probably 4 card problems) The problems should be -1 or -2 tricks to the number of possible tricks. So make 6 of the 8 last tricks or 5 out of 6. The problem should have a limited number of solutions and solutions should have significative branching. (if LHO discard "y" dummy discard Y if lho discard "x" dummy discard "X" Any1 with enough time & knowledge to start this venture ? My programmtion skill are outdated but im still able to figure out some things. Possibly it would be a good thing to ask to those who create sudoku creator software.

Agree 100%. 1Nt----(P)-----2D-------(X) P*------(3D)----??? *(Opener could XX 2D to show a maximum hand without H support but you lose the meaning of the standard XX). Opener couldnt complete the transfer because he doesnt like H or couldnt superaccept H. Now your at the 3 level with a hand that could make 3H/3S/4H/4S/3Nt but could go down in 3H or 3S. Weak NT is a curious beast youll win most of your imps on stupid auction and lose most of your imps on science. Just for signoffing 1Nt---(P)-----2S to play is going to bring IMPs vs 1Nt---(P)-----2H (transfer to play) Playing transfer over a weak Nt is surely playable but no matter how much science you put into it, it likely that direct bidding will give the same reward. Weak nt isnt really for the system geek its for the practical players.

X is terrible, he already showned values with 2Nt, if north doesnt X then he has nothing good defensively that partner doesnt know. If south bid 3C the 1st time it will be more tempting to X 3S.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saqhjtxdkxxcatxxx&w=skjxxxxhqxxdxcqxx&e=sxxxxhaxxdajxxxxc&s=sthk98xdqtxckjxxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] If EW play snapdragon X, the 1S tend to show a stiff D or a 6th spade. If east find the D lead they can make 5 tricks. With the snap dragon agreement East can probably X 4C. 3Nt by N will probably make. N should try to get his 9th trick with the finesse of the ♦J with west singleton diamonds finding the club queen shouldnt be a problem. EW make 4S easy. I think north did well to bid 1Nt instead of making a support double. Do you agree ?

I dont like 4 or 5 lenght bids. Instead of having 4or5 and 6+ the cutoff should be 4 or 5+. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22302 This is perfect for 1- facing a passed hand when slam is unlikely 2- facing a wide ranging Nt. 3 facing a pretty weak Nt. 4- If you frequently open 1Nt with 5M If you want to keep transfers then i think 2C----2H----2S should be forcing and deny spades. 2C----2H----2Nt should show 4 or 5. The problem with 2C---2H----2S showing 4 or 5 is that responder cannot pass holding 3S and no ruffing power. 3433 will represent 35+% of the hands. Having 2S as a range check over 2H is pretty valuable.

Not really because 2D doesnt show H. 2D is balanced INV or INV with a long M or a long m or those semi balanced hands without 4M. Its similar to the Hitchiker 2D but its never GF (it could be slammish with both M) Its more of a range ask with M superacceptance than a relay. Keri is pretty pathetic compared to what we play. All INV hands with 4M (except 4M+6M) go into 2C---2D----2M AQ5 axxxx x q7xx This is near perfect for my method. 1Nt-----2D ??? here partner with a dead minimum (10-11) or an intermediate hand (12) with 2H will bid 2H and we will play there. With any other hand (13-14 or 12 with 3 card support) we will reach 4H,4S or 3Nt. The 3rd & 4 trump are very valuable but a dead minimum without ruffing power is still a dead minimum and the game we might missed are compensated by the time we are playing 2M making and 2Nt 3M is off. The bottom line when it come to invitationnal hands is if you avoid 2Nt and 3M contract as much as possible and play in the best game when game might be there you will do well. The downside is that 1Nt----2D 2S!----2Nt (showing a balancedINV without 4M) pass You know that responder has no M and that opener superaccept H but not S so its scream for a S lead. 1Nt----2D 2H-----2Nt (showing a balancedINV without 4M) 3Nt here opps know they have a H fit. At first we were playing 11-14 but since we didnt missed that much game and almost never go overboard (except with balanced inv) that we decided to play 10-14 with 5M this is a move ill never regret. We are opening 1Nt way more often than 12-14 weak Nt and are burying opps fit by the tons. There is no doubt in my mind that NV the wider weak Nt range 10-14,11-14,10-13 12-15 are the best range as long as you dont missed too much games and have a way to invite and stop low.

I think my sytem is perfectly designed for your need. However its bad for slam bidding because like yours its a system without transfers and without a 100% GF stayman at a low level. Here a quick summary. 3 level are GF with spades 3C is MSS 2NT is GF with H 2M to play 2D multi invitationnal. (or slammish with both majors) 2C almost a force to 2D. 1Nt-------2D ??? 2H Pass or correct I want to play there if you have 5 or longer H inv. 2S i want to play there if you have 5 or longer S inv. But if you have H i supperaccept. 2Nt i super accept both M but i reject a balanced INV. 3C I accept all INV please respond in romex. 1Nt-------2C ??? 2D almost forced 2H 5H and a minimum hand. 2S 5S and a minimum hand 1Nt-------2C 2D-------??? 2H inv with 4H 2S inv with 4S. 2Nt GF with clubs 3C GF stayman. rest is GF with diamonds. This system worked so well for invitationnal hands that we decided to play an elastic weak nt and an elastic strong Nt. Send me a PM if you want the complete details.

Yep 3C is a better bid since game is pretty much out of the picture. Still i dont think 2Nt is such an awful bid, I choose 2Nt because i was afraid of A♦ followed by a ♦ ruff.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sthk98xdqtxckjtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1C----(1D)------1H-------(1S) 1Nt---(2S)-------2Nt------(3S) Pass--------------??? 1H is 4 or + 1Nt (good13-14) tend to deny 3H.

They should keep a record of Matchpoint/total MP possible. It would be like a rating and could be used for selection of strong pair events.

You need a waiting bid, Most play that to rebid your suit as the waiting bid, some prefer 2Nt as the catchall bid. Some play that the cheapest call is waiting (alertable) These hand are pretty frequent so you really need a way to handle them.

Not if KJ96x. Playing low to the A before discarding a club is a nice trap.

I agree with all Fred points from page 1 to 37. People seems to forget how complicated defending against HUM can be. Its not a surprise that top level players arent fighting for a massive liberalization of HUM. 2Nt wich show a crappy m preempt take at least half a page for a very basic defense on the acbl website. http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2d.htm Imo defending against a multi 2D is at least 5 times more complicated. A 2H either M preempt is a lot tougher than a multi. Defending agaisnt a fert is much much tougher then over a 2H unknown M preempt. Look at how many page you have after your 1Nt opening. Imagine that the bidding goes (1S) fert----X----(P)-----??? How many page of system do you think its need to have a system as sharp and as detailed as what you are used to play over your 1Nt opening ?

i think X is terrible and pass is significantly better than 3S.

At first i thought Jx or 9x but even 6x is enough. Usually whne some1 put all the spot its fishy :)

4H. trying for slam here is probably wrong because there is a good chance of getting ruffed at trick 1. I tought that X might work since going for 500 is possible if you can ruff some clubs but partner is likely to bid 5C where 5H might be too high.