bid_em_up

David, that is all you expect them to make, and all you need them to make in order for it to be profitable to bid these games.

Let's say that on ten hands your chances of making game are: hand 1: 10% hand 2: 20% hand 3: 30% ... hand 10: 100%. Then your best strategy when vul at IMPs is to bid game on hands 4 to 10, right? So that's seven game contracts, and, of those seven contracts, on average you expect 70% of them to make. OK? :unsure: This logic is somewhat flawed as the discussion pertains to when to bid game with borderline hands. In other words, 10 hands: Hand 1: 40% Hand 2: 40% Hand 3: 40% ... ... Hand 10: 40%. By bidding these games, you should win approximately 40% of them, and lose 60%. It is my belief that the actual ratio of bidding a 40% and it actually making is slightly higher, since these numbers usually fail to take into account any defensive errors that might occur.

Was he playing a "short club" system? :(

It is whatever my name is...... "You're driving a city bus." If I remember correctly, I heard the original question as follows: A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, saw her sister chatting with this guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing, so much her dream guy she believed him to be just that. She fell in love with him right there but failed to ask his name or number and so, did not know how to locate him. She asked her sister who he was, and the sister also did not know who the gentleman was. She later married the man. How did she find him? In this case, if you come up with right answer.....remind me to steer clear of you. :(

I havent found the actual hands, but only the results. Then again, I may have "log hands" turned off, since I didnt need to log them as they were available in "my hands". But thx anyway.

Just stop using it? :)

hmmm, truth? or urban legend? http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/sister.htm knew I had seen it before somewhere :)

I will assume you didnt notice, but my first post was written at 12:45 am. Sorry if it wasnt completely clear that I was referring to auctions such as: 1N (2H) 2S completely non-forcing 1N (2H) 2N 3C 3S absolutely invitational or 1N (2H) 3S 100% forcing. The last time I checked (and it has been awhile, so I could be mistaken), the sequence 1N (2S) 2N 3C 3H shows a hand that is while not quite good enough to force to game, it is not supposed to be totally bust either. Remember, you do not HAVE to bid over 2H/2S, pass is always an option. So, the majority of times it will be an invitational hand or a hand that contains enough values to play at the 3 level, as such, it is not necessarily to be treated as absolutely non-forcing, but considered to be quasi-invitational for lack of a better description. Again, I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain this is how Ron Anderson describes the sequence, in his book, The Lebenshol Convention Complete. The only real "invitational" sequences you give up are those in minor suits and even these can be dealt with via certain other methods. (Dangit, now I gotta go digging through the storage unit hunting the book). Huh? How can a hand that by your own definition of your 2N bid (Invitational WITH stop) not have any trump tricks? Must be that new and improved logic I keep hearing so much about, but I certainly dont follow it. :) Oh, I am fairly certain you miss them all the time. Or at least, you miss the opportunity to make them anyway. :) Penalty doubles are only low frequency if you remove them from your arsenal of available bids, or dont make them. And, how in the name of decent bridge, can the NT opener possibly begin to "back in with a takeout double of his own", when he doesnt know if responder has any values or not?? As I stated, for me, giving up a natural 2N invitation is no great loss. In your structure, it is almost as bad (or even worse) than the leb sequence, as your 2N invitational bid is only IF responder has the stop in the overcalled suit along with invitational values. What are the actual odds of this? And if and when responder actually does hold this hand, I reiterate, you probably should be doubling them for penalty instead of inviting via 2N the majority of the time (unless you are red and they are white). Take your sure plus instead. (As a side thought, how often do you play in 2N/3N -1? after a 2N invitational sequence, when you could have been plus by simply defending?) If anything, I would expect X to show invitational with stop and 2N to show the takeout/invitational hand without stop. At least then you would stand some chance of defending if and when it is correct to do so.

Ummm, ok. Even though I think thats a mistake. Can you not delete much older hands (say more than 3 months old) to reduce the file size and leave the rest? Are the hands "stored" via BBO on my machine? Just a question :)

Since about 10 am this morning, I have been unable to get "my hands" to retreive any data. My first attempts had a message from uday stating that it was under going maintenance and would be available in about an hour. After waiting more than an hour and retrying, I get the search page, but when doing a search, it comes back with "no data found". It also appears that many tournies are missing from tournament result pages. Just letting you know, in case you werent already aware of this. :P

Or you have seen it before :lol: I didnt get it right the first time I saw it, but remembered it when seeing it this time. Kinda reminds me of something my ex might do, making it easy to remember......and hard to sleep well at nights. :P

Either that, or you are bidding it too often :P

The fallacy in this logic is that most other invitational sequences in 2/1 or SAYC are defined by wider ranges that might be available for either opener or responder. Assume 2/1 for a minute, and it goes 1C 1H 2H 3x? This auction has a much wider opening range for the 1C opening bid, than a 1N opening bid that is clearly defined as 15-17 (or 16-18 or whatever you use), making the invitational sequence a necessity. In the NT sequence, I will say again, the extra Jack/Queen that partner may or may not have is unlikely to materially affect the result on the board. If you deem the hand to be worth an invite, then you may as well just bid 3N. Part of the reason for this.....the NT opener is not going to be able to evaluate his fit for your unknown 5 card suit, when making his decision to bid 3N or pass 2N. He will frequently pass a good fitting 15-16 count, where 3N always makes or alternatively, he will bid 3N on a 16-17 non-fitting hand and go down. Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together, and by definition the NT opener will usually have at least a minimum fit (2 card, frequently 3), you simply are better off just bidding 3N without giving any information away.

I find it hard to be polite about statements such as this. It's likely that you have a very selective memory, but if your 3NT contracts always make, then all that says is that you don't bid 3NT enough. And I find it hard to be polite about people addressing that which they apparently know nothing about. No offense, but again, IF you learn to evaluate these hands properly, 3N will make much more frequently than it will go down. And yes, the ones that do go down are easily forgotten, usually because it is a normal and reasonable contract. Heck, I was in a 28 count NT game that went down yesterday. Do you think I will remember it six months from now? Obviously, some people tend take things too literally, instead of buying a sense of humor and reading things as the smart-aleck/humorous comments they are intended to be. And if you think I dont bid 3N enough, you obviously dont know me at all. :P

Is there an echo in here? :D

I can certainly understand why your partner would think that. Wouldnt 3S suffice? You are not forced to bid here. So 3S should show a hand with values, and only promising 4 spades, allowing partner to further describe his hand. Not that I am all that thrilled with the original X, but partner could just as easily have been on a 3 card spade suit for his original X, and 4S still may not be the best spot. On this auction I would expect spades to break 5-1 (if on a 4-3 fit) at a much higher frequency than normal.

In some auctions you cannot invite in some suits. You also give up a natural invitational 2NT. This is a two way shot. Either partner has a second stop or you have nine running tricks (perhaps you need some finesses). I am not claiming to be part of a top pair but I usually play quite happily without Lebensohl. We play this simple structure: X = takeout - double and bid is forcing (usually forcing to game but if we can get our suit in at the two-level it is only a one-round force) new suit natural and not-forcing 2NT natural and invitational - shows a stopper jump new suit to three-level natural and forcing (slammish) cue-bid asks for a stopper 3NT natural to play shows a stopper 4min = two suiter 4Maj to play This seems to work ok. So I think you can happily play without Lebensohl. Having said all of this I frequently play Lebensohl in other partnerships and it solves the same problems. Why do I even bother? The poster asked "Is leb a good convention to play"? I believe the answer to be yes. And said so, while at the same time attempting to show that although I do not know it for a fact, it is my BELIEF that the majority of expert partnerships will play some variation of Leb UNLESS they have some other method of dealing with these sorts of auctions. These include Leb after weak twos and/or leb after reverses. Until you are familiar with Leb over NT interference, the latter two are much more difficult to understand. The poster asked, "Does Leb show only one stop or does it show more than one"? I answered, A leb sequence only promises one stop by the 2N bidder. Whether or not the NT opener has one is a moot point (and has nothing to do with the original question). Of course he can have one. Then again, maybe he doesnt. The whole point behind Leb is stay out of 3N when neither opener and responder have a stop in the overcalled suit. Yes, you "may" give up a sequence that is invitational in a minor suit, although there are ways around this. Certain agreements can differentiate whether the auction is forcing to game or simply invitational, depending on responders next call. Giving up a "natural" 2N invitation is no great loss, imo. If you have this, you should be whacking what they bid for penalties the majority of the time. BTW, there are also flaws in your mentioned methodology that I can see just on a quick glance. How are you going to bid the following hand after 1N (2S) ?" xxx KQxxx KJx xx 3H? Natural and non-forcing according to what you stated. X and then 3H over partners 3C/3D? seems to be 100% forcing on your methods. I could live with this, although I don't consider this to be a "forcing" hand. 3S? maybe, if you really want to be in 3N. 4H? yea, right. Knock yourself out. But then again, maybe I am not reading what you wrote correctly. (Or you omitted something). How do you whack opp for penalty when its right to do so? Doesnt appear that you can, to me. This doesnt even begin to address the fact that while this may work fine for you and your regular partner, I would lay you 100-1 odds that you cannot sit down at a table with a brand new partner and say "Cascade over NT interference, pd?", and expect them to have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, nor can you give them a cursory summary and expect it to be remembered or successful at the table. (In other words, this is a treatment that you use instead of leb, as I originally referred to.) :D

It evolved in that fashion because it is easy to remember "Direct Denies". When it was originally espoused some 20+ years ago, you would frequently run across pairs that were playing "Direct Promises stop" and "slow" denies. You may still encounter some pairs that do, but it is no longer mainstream. It is extremely useful in the fact that it lets you describe your hand more accurately (forcing, invitational, or non-forcing). It becomes even more useful when combined with such things as leb after X of weak 2, and leb after reverse which allow responder to clarify whether or not they actually hold decent values or not (but dont worry about those too much right now). A single stop is sufficient (all that you promise anyway) when showing a stop via a Leb sequence. Leb is not quite as efficient when dealing with two suited overcalls. Somewhere around here, I have the book on leb, which describes when it can be used and when it cannot. If I remember correctly, it can be used against two suited overcalls where at least one of the suits is known, but not in cases where both suits are unknown (but it has been a while since I have actually read it). And unfortunately, it may be in storage at the moment. While I dont have any cold, hard facts to back this statement up, I cannot imagine any top pair not playing leb (unless they have some other method of dealing with a similar hand). Go ahead and add it to your arsenal. In the long run, it ranks right up there with RKC, transfers, and negative doubles, as one of the few conventions that absolutely must be played, imo.

I dont know, but it all sounds kinda quarky to me.

Or more correctly phrased. "Since dream boy showed up for her mothers funeral, he might likely show up for her sisters funeral as well, giving her another chance to meet him." Psycho logic.

Foo, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody here is saying (at least I dont think they are) that you should invite with the "average" eight count, as you keep referring to. Instead we (or at least I am) are saying that if you are going to invite, it is better to just bid game directly. Please note.....there IS a difference. A big difference. If you have a hand that is going to invite anyways, the extra Jack that partner may or may not have is unliikely to make much of a difference in the result on the board. Look at the following examples and their possible outcomes, First lets deal with the direct 3N bids and their possible outcomes: 1) You bid 3N direct. It always makes. Average plus or better. 2) You bid 3N direct. It always goes down. You get below average on the board, but not a complete zero as others will either invite and have it accepted or bid 3N directly as well. 3) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It makes. Your chances of cold top on the board are decreased because of the invitational sequence, but the board should still score much better than average. 4) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It goes down as a result of abnormal defense due to invitational sequence but would likely have made on direct 3N. (You're minus when you should have been plus). You originally would have won or tied the board in 3 out of 4 cases by bidding 3N directly, but now always lose in case 4 and reduce your chances of winning in case 3 as well. Case 2 was the only originally losing case. You effectively convert 2 of your 3 original winning options into possible or probable losing ones. Now deal with hands where invite is made, and declined: 5) You invite and its declined. You would have made two no matter what. Board is probably average. 6) You invite and its declined. You make 3 (or more), no matter what the defense does. What should have been well above average (by direct 3N) is no more than average and quite possibly average minus, since others may accept. 7) You invite and its declined. You go down one (or more) regardless of defense. This board is average minus at best. 8) You invite and its declined. You go down 1 due to invitational sequence. You would have made two (or three) if not for the invitational sequence. You lose the board. Since others may or may not invite, the board is average minus at best. 9) You invite and its declined. You go down more than 1 due to invitational sequence. You lose board entirely (except for those in 3N going down more). In all of these cases(#5-8), the invite breaks even in one case (#5), and loses (or rates to lose) in all the rest. Did I miss any? Oh yes. I did forget a couple. The case where you dont invite and opp balances. Now you are almost always losing the board, if their balancing bid makes and you have no shot at making 2N/3N any longer, but if you had bid 3N directly, you would have been -1 or 2 (at favorable) winning the board for -100 against their likely 110. (Alternatively, you may win the board, but only if your side can whack whatever they bid). All I can say is I know what works for me, and has for 15+ years. I will give another example and let you decide what to do: [hv=s=s63hkq103d1076ck632]133|100|[/hv] Do you pass? Do you invite through stayman (your partner will deny a major and pass 2N if you do)? Or do you bite the bullet and bid 3N? Heck, put it up as a poll if you wish.

I suspect that Marty no longer plays competively because it is more profitable for him to do otherwise. :D I will not claim that he isnt/wasnt a good card player, but will instead just say that I am not a fan of the man, or his methods/theories. I agree with Josh that he is not the first person I would run and ask for advice regarding this kind of discussion (or any other discussion, for that matter, unless of course we happened to be discussing suicidal preempts). :blink:

Unfortunately, if I were to respond to this the way I would like to, I probably could be held liable for slander, and I really cant afford it...... I knew there was a reason my profile says "NO BERGEN", I just couldnt remember why. Thanks for reminding me. ROFLMAOWPIMP

Why do you want the lead coming to your hand? Bid 2C. NT needs to play from the other side of the table, if thats where the hand belongs. Additionally, your values are concentrated in clubs, and 2C portrays this better than 2N will.

I wonder what it is exactly that you're saying here. If partner opens 1NT (15-17) and you have a random 9 HCP, then I believe it's right to bid game. However, if you bid 3NT and opener turns up with a 15 HCP minimum, then your expectation is now worse than it would have been if you'd passed 1NT (unless you're vulnerable at IMPs, in which case 1NT and 3NT are very close). 24 HCP does not make game good in this sense. First of all, you must understand that I am not talking about casual or pick-up partnerships, but instead regular partnerships where you are aware of the others strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. Is partner a strong declarer? Is he a weak declarer? Is he the kind of partner who always accepts an invite no matter what he has? Is he prone to opening 14 counts 1N? All of these are, of course, factors in what I am saying. Given that I try to play with competent (at least, in my opinion) players, I expect partner to be reasonable about these things. On the off chance that partner is on a bad 15 count, then yes, I am worse off. But if partner has enough sense not to open A53 A764 A32 K84 as 1N, (since it is better either for suit play, or if in NT, to have the lead going to the other hand), then I (usually) dont have much to worry about. If 3N goes down, it goes down.....but then again, I see 27/28 point NT hands go down as well. Whenever partner is on a normal 15 count (a hand that actually has tenaces), then opposite any 9, 3N will usually have reasonable play (read as more than 50%). As long as partner is a competent declarer, there isnt much to worry about. This doesnt even begin to include the mental energy the partnership saves over the long term by not agonizing over these decisions.