joshs

I understand the whole (frequency * level) issue where you trade off the level of the bid at which you resolve exact shape against the probability of such shapes showing up. That said, I don't think the costs to including extreme shapes would be very much, or rather, that they come at the expense of only-slightly-less-extreme shapes which weren't very likely either. For example from symmetric relay (from here), your 1-suiter table resolves like this 2S high shortage 2NT middle shortage 3C equal shortage (7222 or 6322) 3D low shortage, zoom (5332) 3H low shortage, 6331 3S low shortage, 7321 3NT low shortage, 7330 Now a specific 7330 is only a little more common than a specific 8221 (by 4:3 or so), so it's not entirely unreasonable to continue the single-suiter table like this: 3N low shortage, 7330 4C low shortage, 8221 4D low shortage, 8320 4H low shortage, 9310, ... What does this cost you? Typically after using a shape relay (symmetric or otherwise) to resolve exact shape, relayer will have the option of relaying again to ask about strength (controls, points, keycards, etc). Using the "zoom" principle, where you would start answering strength if you hit the last shape in the table, before our single suiter table really looked like this: 3S low shortage, 7321 3N low shortage, 7330, and minimum strength 4C low shortage, 7330, first step of extra strength 4D low shortage, 7330, second step of extra strength ... So adding extra shapes will make it a little harder to resolve the strength of the 7330 hands (since you can't zoom), at the expense of being able to show more extreme shapes. This is a much more minor cost I think than Richard suggests - it's not like somehow our balanced hand relays lose their 3♥ strength ask since they finish higher than 3♦. Of course at some point you'll run into the issue of resolving shapes too high. When you haven't promised enough values to make more than game, so you don't want your minimum 8221 hand pushing past 4♠ for example. But that aside, I don't see why everyone's so enamored of getting a little extra edge in their 7330 auctions but don't care about their 8221's. Losing the runons is not the only problem. You also lose the ability to play 4M in your 8 or 9 card suit which you would have gotten to do if you had merely showed 7 cards. For instance in your scheme with 3820, the shape is resolved at the 4D level. You can no longer play 4H since the next step is a relay. You can decide to agree that 4S is the relay instead which a. is an accident wiating to happen, since this auction occurs only once per year b. This doesn't let you play 4S.... In general, shape resolution above 4C is a very bad idea (as is 3N showing shape but not strength). In any case here are my estimates: a. Being able to resolve unusual shpaes helps you once every 3 years b. Losing space due to the runons hurts you 5 times/year In general, when you have extreme shape, pretend you have an extra queen, find the closest approximation of your shape, and bid accordingly. (For instance, my min positive range is normally 9-12, but with 5-5 or 64- it becomes 8-11, with an 8 card suit, or a very good looking 7420 its more like 7-10. I think Kxx AKxxxxxx - xx is a "maximum" so I would show 3712, and if asked, show a max. Note: In my version of symmetric relay you can't even distinguish 3712 from 2713....) Summary: Bridge is about getting the common hands right. No one claims they are experts of how to bid wierd hands well, so don't worry about them.... And when you have an 9 card suit, how often are the opps silent????

New Zealand???? Sydney used to be in Australia..... B) Maybe its the West Island of New Zealand?

Yeah its 2.5 stoppers total between the 2 suits is the minimum (and doesn't promoise anything in opener's suits), and you prefer to have at least 1.5 in each of the 2. Frances's hand has something like 4 stoppers between the 2 suits. and 2 in each. I meant to say at least 2.5 stoppers in the two suits, including at least a partial stopper in each. My "other" in my "each of the other" was meant to apply to the suits "other than opener's" but I did not write a very good grammatical sentence....

My usual agreement on Strong Jump Shift auctions: 1. 2N shows a stopper in all unbids (e.g. 1m-1H-2S, and so on) 2. 3N says you really really think 3N is the right spot. This requires a minimum of 2.5 stoppers in the suits other than what opener has shown, and at least a partial stopper in each of the other suits. Really, you want 1.5 stoppers in each suit, so you often should chose something else without that. 3. Rebidding Opener's suit is a waiting bid showing willingness in playing at least one of opener's suits. This is occasionally made on a singleton when there is not a lot of space to do anything else (For instance after 1S-1N-3H you should bid 3S on x Axx Axxxx xxxx since you prefer to play in a suit if opener is 5-5 or 6-4) 4. Bids of the 4'th suit is natural, showing values there but doubt about 3N (maybe is too good for 3N and want to save space for opener's rebid) 5. Bids of a 3'rd suit is natural (Exception: 1H-1N-3m-3S is obvious not a suit, so one might play it as a stopper, or for some other purpose....) 6. Jumps to 4 of opener's suit shows a limit raise 7. Raises of the jump shift suit promise genuine support (4+ cards). If the jump shift suit is a minor (which might be a 3 card suit) then the raise is only 4 cards if it was interested in slam but would pass a 4M rebid Following the preference to opener's first suit, opener will: a. pattern out if below 3N b. bid 3N without any extra shape in his 2 suits c. show a 5'th card in his second suit, or a 6'th in his first suit. In the hand in question, 3N is sick. How is opener suppossed to know when to pass it, when if he doesn't have any help in spades and diamonds, the opps can probably take the first 6 tricks. 3H is almost textbook here since with the strong doubleton, 4H is almost certainly right if opener is 5-5 or 6-4. Quite frankly if opener bid 3N next over 3H I am still not sure I would sit (imagine x AQxxx AKx KQJx, then the opps have the first 5 tricks on a black suit lead, and spades are the normal lead here, since opener, with the strength is short in spades). There is a case for playing the 4'th suit as the waiting bid instead if its below opener's first suit....

The answer is maybe not if you open very light, but you should game force anyway (and quite frankly aces are good!) and this is not a close decision here. One of the main principles in bridge bidding (and the reason for palying 2/1 game forcing) is if you have a choice between: a. making sure you are at the right level b. making sure you are in the right strain You should choose strain. This is a complex hand that could belong in any one of 5 strains. Starting with a forcing NT, just leaves you stuck on the next round (what do you bid over 2m by partner? 2H doesn't show the values, and its usually based on 6H, and 2N can lose the hearts). Would it suprise you to end up in 2N down, when 4H makes, or in 2H down, when 3N makes? Besides if partner has a big 2 suiter, you might belong in a minor suit game or even slam. Besides, there is a game bonus.... There are two hand types which are trouble in 2/1: a. Game INV with exactly 5H over a 1S opener b. Constructive with a stiff in opener's major, and no strong suit of your own. There is not much you can do about b (other then switching to a strong club system), but with a, whenever reasonable, force to game. That will at least insure you get strain correct.

I am definitely bidding, as 3C is normally a 6 card suit. In my normal style, 3S by a passed hand here would imply club tolerence (actually shows a fit in some of my partnerships) so is relatively safe, yet this is a pretty defensive hand so x isn't rediculous either.

I am sorry, but I just don't think that 3 level balancing bids should really be that light. I expect something like a 3514 12 count (below my standards for a 3 level overcall when you lack shortage in spades), or a 10 count with 6 hearts. I think this is an easy 4H bid.

This is absurd. The easier your system is to defend, the less protection you get. It should be the opposite. Of course its absurd. Thats the point. Its completely absurb that the criteria for "natural" is "limited and non-forcing". In many ways Forcing is easier to defend against then Non-Forcing, since you are guaranteed another bid. (What exactly do you do with 6 clubs and an unbalanced 19 count when red vs white, over a could be short 1C?). Back when I was in New Mexico, there was a few pairs from NM and texas who played some wierd system where their 1D opening was an unbalanced hand with a major. I can't remember if they played it as forcing or not, but if it was non-forcing, why should that limit my options over it (where in fact thats harder to defend). In the US, most people play a weak only version of the multi 2D in part because this is much harder to defend against (you have to worry about 2D-P-P) than the version with strong options. This is all so backwards....

What do you call expecting bad things to happen to you, but expecting even worse things to happen to your opponents???

There is a much simpler way to get a good rating, than signal processing. Set the start rating of a player to 2000. The rating of a pair/team in the arithmetical average of the players involved. At the end of a tourney you do this simple math: Any player/pair/team that scored worse than you, but has a ranking value better or equal to yours, increments your ranking by 1/2/4 points. Any player/pair/team that scored better than you, but has a ranking value lower than yours, decrements your ranking by 1/2/4 points. Simple to explain and it has some nice side effects. 1) Playing the same group of people the ranging will stay stable, winning against weak player does not help your ranking. 2) If player get better or weaker, there score will rise or drop with their results. 3) Loosing against better player does not hurt your ranking. 4) Large tourneys are more selective than small ones. 5) Regional and national tourneys will adjust the rankings between clubs. Problems: If everybody starts with a ranking of 2000, a local ranking will be quite stable after 5-10 tourneys, but to establish a regional or even national adjustment,a lot tourneys will be needed. This problem will be smaller if results of previous regional and national tourneys will be used to determine start values for the ranking points. Club player that have no scores from regional or national events will get a starting value a little below the average of those club players who have a score. Well I am not sure this gives a very good ranking: Imagine 4 pairs playing, A B C D, all starting even: Event 1: A wins B 2nd C 3'rd D 4'th So the Ratings are now: +3, +1, -1, -3 Event 2: Same result as event 1 Ratings stay the same: +3, +1, -1, -3 Event 3: Again the Same Ratings still at : +3, +1, -1, -3 Event 4: B wins A 2'nd D 3'rd C 4'th Ratings are now: +2, +2, -2, -2 So even though A beat B 3/4 times and C beat D 3/4 times there ratings are the same.

I am slightly partial to: x= 13+ balanced or close to balanced. X then 2N=16-18. x then the other major is natural, 5+ cards. x then x is takeout. Over 2D-x-2M I play the same methods as over 1N-2M-? (so for me thats x-fer leb, but perhaps better minor leb is a better treatment here). 2H=Strong Club bid 2S=Strong Diamond bid 2N=Minors, medium hand or good defense 3m=Natural, Sound but Limited, usually 6 cards 3M=Shortage, both minors, good hand, extra offense I think the hand in question is barely good enough to x with. But I didn't notice the vul. Anyway, this treatment is not very common in the US. 2H for the majors is much more common. Being the conservative sort I like 2C for the majors best (sincet here is room to ask preference), and 2H 2'nd best and hate 2D for the majors (e.g. Capp)....

The only two of those bids that are BS are 1NT and 2D. All of the rest promise 4 cards in a known suit and thus are allowed even if BS rules apply over a Precision 1D. Does that change your opinion? I know you like your 1NT, but you could play that as Majors and have 2m NAT and then fiddle with 2M (choosing between PRE and 54 I guess) and get pretty much everything you now have. Nope it doesn't change my opinion. Quite frankly, I think a precision 1D bid is harder to defend adequitely that a multi 2D is (multi 2D has many less hand types, and only 2 frequent hand types), but its in a similar category. Some systemic bids have big gains and big losses. Others are more down the middle. Bids which do not immediately show there longest suit or hand type tend to have the big gains and losses (they tend to minimize the ability of both sides to find a fit). A nebulous minor suit opening a. makes it harder for the opps to compete since they don't know what your suit is b. makes the lead against a NT contract a little more blind at the price of c. not finding minor suit fits d. being VERY poorly placed if the opps pre-empt If you knew the opps were going to pre-empt, you would not want to open a nebulous minor. Even opening NT is a disadvantage if the opps compete and that has a lot less possible hands in it than the 1m bid did. If someone wants the advantages of a and b, I think they should have to suffer the disadvantages of c and d. To make them have to suffer these, I want to bid immediately and most effectively over there opening bid. In my case, my 1N overcall is forcing an unlimited. I might have a 18-20 count with a minor and a side 4 card major (or a 1 suiter) and I want to be able to bid again, hence 2m natural is not quite as good. Your scheme is ok, but I think x and then diamonds should never be natural (else what do you do with big 4432 type hands when you x and partner bids your 3 card suit), and I am from the east coast school of quite heavy simple overcalls and rarely xing without adequite support for an unbid major (at some point your hand is just too good....). You would never see me xing a 1H opening with say 1336 and an 18 count if playing standard takeout x's. Yes I can still overcall 2m on those, but if the methods enable me to two step the good hands, thats much better. I don't think the burden of proof is on me to defend using an ART defense to an ART opening. I am just doing the best I can given the available space to counteract the opps methods. Anyway, thats my two bits. For the record, I have played a non-forcing 2 card 1C suit (with x-fer responses) for about 8 years now, and people play all sorts of strange defenses over that in ACBL events... And my 1C opening is merely standard SAYC 1C (well 1 point lighter) + 17-19 balanced with no 5 card major (e.g. with a weak NT I open 1D normally) so its really pretty close to natural and when its not natural its probably not their hand, so some of these crazy defense are probably not a good idea.... But I think they are entitled by the rules to do whatever they want.

I have been playing the Berk-Cohen style of 2M forcing for years now, having been a convert from the traditional Constructive NF style. Here are my arguments against the traditional style: 1. If you have a limited hand and catch a fit/semi fit, this often lets the opps into the auction on hands that they would have been frozen out of. In fact if you have a major AND 2/3 clubs, you definitely want to keep the opps out. This definitely applies when your major is hearts.... 2. If you bid these only with "corrections" then you are not bidding 2M enough 3. Game forcing and INV hands with 5+ M are just hard to handle if you have to bid the 2D relay first. You are basically overloading 2D. Note: lets say you have KJTxxx x xxx Kxx and partner opens 2C showing 6. If you bid a forcing 2S on this hand, the opps tend to be much more timid and not come in frequently. If you bid a NF 2S then they x for the reds much more often. Note2: When the NF style originated there was no assurance that 2C was a reasonable contract (since it only promised 5) hence the frequent need to correct to a 6 card suit. In the modern style a. 2C is 6 cards so usually a reasonable spot b. If you tried for game and didn't catch a fit, 3C is usually a reasonable spot (even if its a 6-1 fit) In general, even at mps, I don't think finding the highest scoring strain for part scores is that important. 2C making 3 is as good as 2M making 2. And at imps the difference is insignificant. Bandwidth should be spent on finding the best game, and finding slams... Note: When I do play 2M non-forcing I play it as forward going. Basically 3 level values, with a 2 level suit, or a 3 level suit, with only 2 level values (but if partner raises you are happy). Hands like: a. KJxxxx x Axx Kxx b. AQxxx Axx Qxx xx c. KQJxxxx xxx xx x would bid 2M. With c I bid 2S and then 3S if partner corrects. I have a different sequence for INV, so this is just a correction. With a or b, partner usually passes with a doubleton, and corrects to 3C with a singleton, but may make a forward move with Hx and a max and I can bid 4S and 3N respectible with these hands if partner makes a forward move.

I am pretty much laying down the CA under the assumption that the opps know what they are doing. If they systematically raise on that hand, then declarer has 5 hearts. That gives him 3 heart tricks, 4 diamonds tricks and 3 spade tricks if he has the ace unless I take 2 non trump tricks first. I actually expect partner to have the CK from the discouraging signal at trick 1 (ok perhaps there is a case that the signal should be count, or even suit preference here, but it doesn't fit into my usual rules. At the point he signaled he could, at least in theory, have the K, so its attitude in my regular partnerships.)

I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if I am repeating something. For me, the main objectives are a. to not give anyone a rest advantage in the palyoff for USA2 b. take some of the randomness of losing 1 match out of the process Here is a bracketed double KO: Day 1: 16 teams play in the KO: 8 go to winners bracket, 8 to losers Day2: 8 Teams play in winners bracket (4 winners stay in winners, 4 losers go to losers bracket). 8 Teams play in losers bracket (4 continue, 4 are eliminated) Day3: 4 teams play in winners bracket (2 stay in winners, 2 go to losers). 8 teams play in losers bracket (4 continue, 4 are eliminated) Day 4: 2 teams play in the winners bracket (winner is USA 1, loser goes to losers bracket). 6 teams play in losers bracket (3 continue, 3 are eliminated) Day 5: 4 teams play in losers bracket (2 advance 2 are eliminated) Day 6: 2 teams play in losers bracket (winner is USA 2, loser is exausted) Comments: 1. This requires the matches are the same length (in particular the finals have to be the same length as the previous rounds). 2. I haven't thought about insuring no repeat matches, but I think should be easy. EDIT: I see that TimG already detailed this structure.

Why is that? Over a natural 1D bid you want to be able to a. Overcall in H,S and C b. Suggest playing NT c. Suggest playing in 2 or 3 of the other suits The one thing you don't frequently want to do is to play in Diamonds. Yes, on occasion you want to do it, but its not common enough to dedicate much bandwidth to it. The situation changes over a precision 1D (and gets even more extreme when 1D can be 0 Diamonds and 8 clubs). You just have more territory to cover and you have the same number of bids. You frequently have diamonds, or at least enough diamond length to make standard takeout x's less effective. The only way of handling this problem is to make 1 or more of the bids multi meaning. For instance if you were playing 1D opening as a standard 1C or 1D opening (and using 2C for something else), your expected length in clubs and diamonds are the same, so I am just as likely to want to overcall in diamonds as in clubs. (Yes, if they have clubs you can overcall diamonds later, but you can get frozen out of the auction when its your hand for game or slam. I for instance, over 1D openings that can be 1 card play modified woolsey: x=Takeout (may have just 2C) or a Strong NT or a very strong hand 1M=Natural 1N=Overcall in EITHER minor, relatively sound 2C=Majors, can be 5-4 2D=1 Major, premeptive 2M=That and a minor, about 8-11ish white and more like 11-14 red I am not picky about how one uses the 2D and 2M bids here (Iplay it like woolsey for consistancy), but I like having the 1N bid as an overcall in either minor and I want to use up a bit of space before responder figures out what opener has (there needs to be some disadvantage to non natural opening bids). Opening a nebulous suit, should not be a license to steal by freezing the opps with too much length in diamonds out.

Hey Jan, Hmm, while I agree that there is lots of disagreement as whether to TREAT a "could be short" 1m opening bid as natural or conventional, I do not think there is much doubt that these are conventional according to the rules that have been quoted over and over again in this post.... So I can't understand your claim that these openings are somewhere in between. They may feel like they are something in between but they are not according to the laws. In fact, the existance of an "in between" is probably a bad feature in a set of rules... As to your "more natural" claim, I don't even have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You seem to claim that natural is a measure of average suit length and thus a continuous measure (I am reading into the logic behind or claims, not quoting a stated methodology). I think natural is a binary measure (something is or isn't) according to a definition, and there is no such thing as more or less natural and the criteria certainly doesn't have to do with average suit length. The laws certainly treat natural and conventional as binary measures. Please tell me which is more "natural": a. 1H=4+H, either more hearts than anyother suit or 4 cards and no longer suit or 5+ cards and the same length in a minor, 10-20 points b. 1H=6+H and 5+C, 10-20 points I think b is conventional and a is not even though the heart length is much greater in b than in a.

The point is that if Alex had 3 diamonds and 2 clubs your line doesn't work....

This is nice in theory. In reality it is not legal in the ACBL since you can't offer any method of getting them to agree with your view. Its not a theory its what the laws of the game require. I read in another thread a view that online bridge is not bridge. If the SO is not willing to play according to the rules then I guess the game cannot be called bridge. We rightly don't have much respect for players that deliberately break rules. The rules also constrain SO. I don't think it is too much to expect them to follow the rules. Exactly where, from the laws of bridge (or from principals of logic), do you get that a 3 card suit is natural? In most of the world, a 4 card suit is natural (every hand has to have at least 1 4+ card suit). Since 5 card majors are popular, and some hands have no 5 card major or 4 card minor, bridge organizations, in order to not require any special sanction for 5 card majors "Defined" 3 card minors to also be natural.

Actually it was Salomon Brothers, but it was a great book (although I liked Lewis's Moneyball even more....)

Its never fun losing a 26 IMP lead in a Spingold match, but our opponents comeback did include a beautifully played hand by Steve Garner against us. At Unfav Vul in 4 ,th seat you hold: J98x xx T9xx AKx Your LHO (me) opens 3H, partner (Howard Weinstein) x ,s, RHO (Alex Kolesnik) bids 4H, and you bid 4S. This gets passed around to Alex who thinks a while before passing. The Opening Lead was the HK (A from AK) and you see: KTxx - AQJx QJT98 J98x xx T9xx AKx Plan the Play. Spolier ahead: Steve Garner, ruffed the lead, crossed to the CA, and ruffed a second heart and played the Trump K, Low, Low Q. He played the heart T (planning on overtaking if its ducked) as my partner won the A. Alex played the HA and Steve discarded diamonds from both hands. He then ruffed the next heart (he now is shorter than Alex in trumps). He played 1 high trump (pitching another diamond) and ran his clubs. Alex could ruff in but would have only diamonds left and would have to let dummy win the rest of the tricks. Note that it would not have helped for Alex to have unblocked the HA, and put me in with the 3'rd heart to lead a diamond through. If we did this, Steve would have been left with as many trumps as Alex and would have simply won the A, crossed to the CK, pulled trumps and claimed 10 tricks. The Full hand: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sktxxhdaqjxcqjt98&w=sqhkqjxxxxdxxxcxx&e=saxxxhatxxdkxcxxx&s=sj98xhxxdt9xxcakx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Also note that while on the actual lie of the cards, Steve could have merely played the Trump K at trick 2 and continued with a trump, and then played on clubs if Alex ducked. But if Alex had had 3 diamonds and 2 clubs, Alex could ruff the 3'rd round of clubs, cash the trump ace, and play the HA and a heart leaving declarer with a diamond loser in addition to the 3 tricks he already lost. Probably the best line is to play the trump K at trick 2, and after you see the HQ coming down cross in clubs, take the heart ruff and proceed as Steve did. Anyway, nicely played. I guess I should have opened 4H...

In Washington DC, 2N in this auction shows 6-4 in the minors...

For the record, I have always played these jumps as strong. It feels wasteful to have different agreements as the range changes from 10-15, to 9-14 to 8-13 and so on. How about if its 10-13? 9-12? Usually its better to have simple rules (like "a jump over a non-forcing 2 level opener is strong"). Now if you have a cutofff value such as "jumps are weak if the minimum for there bid is 10" in a similar way that we might play 2 defenses to 1N openings. But you need to have discussed this.... Of course my agreement is probably not optimal if the 2C opner was 16-19.... Now as to the frequency argument, I postulate a claim: A strong hand is MUCH more likely to have a strong suit than a weak hand Further, under the assumption that a 3 level weak jump shift is normally a strong 7 card suit (except maybe at favorable) but a Strong, but limited jump shift can be 6+ cards, these frequency claims are hardly obvious to me..... I think the weak is probably slightly more common than the strong, but I am really not sure.

On 2 the options were 2N and 3N. 3N shows the point count (3N shows 15-17) but its slightly offshape. 2N is more flexible but wider ranging. I am really not sure what is the better bid. Now that I recounted the points, I slightly prefer 3N...

1. x 2. I prefer 2N to 2S (so you can bid 3S over 3C), but after 6N having understated my hand so far I guess I will try 7C. Partner sounds like a 3 suited 19/20 count and not a tricks hand. Perhaps x AKxxx AKxx Axx plus another J or Q somewhere. Yes if the other card is the heart Q we belong in 7N at pairs... 3. Well I have always played support x's as a "raise to 2M with 3 cards". Its standard that new suits below 2M are natural and non forcing. Most play bids above are game tries as if partner had actually bid 2M. 4. I really think 2N is right... 5. Cashing the SKQ didn't feel right to me. I think I wanted to xruff this hand from the start...