bglover

OK... I was responding to your last paragraph in your previous post "Note I am not accusing you, 2over1, of not being a good bidder. But I do think you are confusing tools used to teach system (HCP), with the system itself. Do not judge a system based on its misapplication!" That sounded like (and still does) someone who had not read the entire thing... but I accept what you said. I gotta say that I agree with you and Richard, but I am always stunned by the number of good players (and I mean GOOD) who subscribe to the 16-points-1C -all others-1D theory. It is more prevalent than you two obviously believe (and I just don't get why). And it was that experience that led to me making that giant 2 suiter with 15 hcps. I guarantee you at least half of the precision players I know would open that 1S! Not that any of the three of us agree with that, but that doesn't mean that we are right (although I believe we are) and they are wrong. I have had long discussions with truly expert level players on this topic, trust me, and will be glad to clue you in on who they were (won't do it publicly here), and then you too can ask them how they would bid that hand... But, this original post was on limit raises and the efiicacy of doing so on three cards... It would be nice to see others address that issue... I've put in my 2 cents,

I am going to suggest to you the same thing I said to Richard: Read what I actually wrote! I PERSONALLY would not open that hand 1S! This is now the 3d time I have stated this! My goodness, I took the time to point that out for a reason! I TRULY did not want to have THIS very discussion! Now... READ MY LAST POST BEFORE THIS ONE! Why did THREE GOOD PRECISION PLAYERS ALL OPEN THAT HAND 1 DIAMOND?????? Because they all said the same thing..IT IS ANTI SYSTEM TO OPEN IT 1 CLUB. I am not answering any more of these. This was NOT the point of my regular post. I purposely made up an extreme example to make a point and now, just as I feared, people are focusing on the wrong aspect of it. If anyone actually took the time to read all that I wrote instead of focusing on the wrong issue this might have been helpful and illuminating to the original post (i.e., why I thought it was NOT good idea to make a limit raise on three card support and that slam should not be out of the question even using a limited major suit opening).

Since I agree with you 1000% I am going to give you a hand I picked up a few years ago: Void Void AKQ10xxx KQJxxx I showed this hand to three precision players (two on this site, contact me for names if you want to know who), and asked them what they would open. All three said 1D. Nuff said.

Please actually read my post: I said I didn't agree with it but that it was a by-the-book bid. I know of at least 3 Precision players (quite good players) here on this site that would open this hand 1S. The fact that you or I don't agree with it is not the point and I really don't care to argue this point because I agree with you, but the book does not.

I think your reasoning is sound in theory but may be dangerous in practice. One of the downsides to strong club limited major openings is that you are required to open massive trick takers one of a major if the hand doesn't contain at least 16 HCP. I personally don't like this aspect of Precision and its progeny, but long ago accepted that it is part of the system. This hand should be opened 1S playing Precision: AQJ10x AQ10xx Qx X Now, I am not interested in people writing they personally would open this 1C. I would too. But in theory it is CORRECT to open it 1S. This hand has a reasonably chance for 6 oppostie any number of decent hands partner may hold, and the odds increase even better if partner is known to have 4 card support. The limit raise using 3 pieces only serves to use up needed exploration space for this hand. The knowledge that partner has 4 card support when making a limit raise is probably more important than knowing the hand is limited to 10- a bad 12 points (even a good 8 if the hand has a singleton). This segues into another aspect of limit raises that has been lost over the years (what I have come to call the "forgotten bid). For the few of us left who prefer limit raises to Bergen (yes, I am a limit raise fan) may I suggest you incorporate Mathe asking bids into your limit raise structure. Mathe originally proposed limit raises when Roth-Stone was being developed back in the late '50s. As part of his limit raise structure he included a bid asking partner if his limit raise contains a singleton. The bid is very simple and extremely useful. If the auction goes 1H-3h then a 3S asks partner if his bid includes a singleton. If the stiff is a spade, partner bids 3n, if its any other suit, he bids naturally. If no stiff, he rebids 4H. If the auction is 1S-3S, then 3n is the asking bid and partner responds naturally. If limit raise users incorporate this bid into their systems they will find more fit slams than before, guaranteed. You lose nothing as 3n can never be to play after a limit raise. Try it, you will like it.

There is an easy and obvious solution to this: Require all partnerships to temporarily change their name information (the information we see when we put our cursor over their names) to state what their basic system is for the tourney. It wouldn't be onerous at all... or, with the addtion of notes, simply add this information to the notes area (each partner clicks on one another's name and puts notes in for each other). One extra minute before the tourney starts will solve a myriad of complaints... glad I could he,lp.

Couple small points to this very interesting discussion. A few years ago someone did a computer similation comparing weak 2, Flannery and Multi to see which was most effective. The winner was the weak 2 bid by a fairly substantial margin, which was a kind of suprise. The argument for replacing the bid in the 1st place has always been that 2D offers little preemptive value, and yet it was still the clear winner. Does that mean we should all switch back to a weak 2 bid? Course not, we use whatever bid helps us within the framework of our bidding structure. Now, given that my preference is a natural, five card major system, Flannery helps to clear up a number of tough bidding problems created by the 4=5 major hand and that is why I personally prefer it. It has enough frequency that it is not worthless, as I found Roman bids to be, and it often leads to good results when the bid is used. Multi certainly occurs more often than Flannery, and that is perhaps the best argument I have heard to use it instead of Flannery. Multi will occur three or four times a session in a 27 board movement where Flannery will occur once or twice. Now, given that, one must look at the number of good boards specifically attributable to the bid itself. (If I don't play Flannery or Multi would I have reached the best competitive contact using my natural methods?) This is the only poll that matters in this context. I am not going to presume to know the answer to it. As someone else noted, Multi isn't the greatest convention ever created, and neither is Flannery. But, I will say this: I have watched more and more top players use Multi and have problems with it. This is my own observation only and I know I will get a lot of flack for it. I know several very fine players here on BBO who have opted to drop it from their systems due to a higher-than-anticipated number of bad boards and have gone back to weak 2 diamonds. Now, I tend to believe that the reason people have trouble with Multi tends to fall into two categories. 1. I have seen a TON of abuse of the bid (mostly by bidders who, in my opinion, should be less concenred with adding conventions and be more worried about bidding basics better). 2. Timid bidders holding good hands who, when their partners open weak immediately devalue their hands too much and miss very makeable games because they are afraid now that partner is TOO weak. This option seems fairly prevalent and is the main reason why i refuse to incorporate Multi into my system. I do believe, in the hands of 2 players who handle it properly, it is an effective tool... and because of its frequency could be a better alternative to Flannery (or use 2d multi and 2h flannery as some do). However, given the number of problems I have seen with GOOD players handling the bid, I have elected to just leave it alone.

Actually I think Roland has missed the biggest advantages to playing Flannery vs. bidding suits naturally. As I stated in an earlier post, the biggest advantage to playing Flannery come in (a) part scores and (:D in slam bidding. The bid provides partner a WEALTH of useful information to make excellent judgment calls in both of these circumstances (to repeat what I said earlier... there is little advantage when it when your side already holds the majority of strength and will reach game in a major anyway). To ignore these two points is to basically not address the issue at hand... it is a CONSTRUCTIVE bid providing partner with an immediate advantage in competitive auctions. Like any other convention, if you misuse it or don't use it wisely (i.e., you have that wealth of information and don't know how to put it to best use), then sure, it's as worthless as a plugged nickel. That was my point and perhaps I needed to spell it out better. I have been playing the bid literally 30 years now, I am not a novice to it by a long shot. I have found it a very useful tool and it has lead to many tops (but then, I have excellent hand evaluation skills too and can put that information to good use). Put that tool in another player's hand and it may not be useful at all... the point being of course that the convention isn't going to solve your own deficiencies as a player. Now, as to your point regarding experts' opinions on Flannery. I have had 2 recent conversations with BBO stars (which I think adds them some legiimacy) on this very subject. Both play Multi and are unhappy with it and both are considering dropping it and swtiching back to Flannery. This does not surprise me, as I have seen many disasters with Multi even with experts using the bid. Does Multi have a higher disaster rate than Flannery? Sure, it is bound to by the nature of the bid (weak hand facing weak hand is going to lead to some disasters let's face it). But, I have seen MANY good players who play Multi have MANY bad boards with it.... I believe this is the essence of Mike's reasoning for using Flannery given a choice... not that one is better than the other but that Flannery is meant to get you to GOOD BOARDS while Multi is meant to INTERFERE with opps to PREVENT them from getting to good boards and he prefers the former.

You are right... means nothing.... He made a bad bid, mislead his partner and now you are blaming the convention instead of the player... and trying to justify your argument by saying he is a stud so it must therefore be the convention. Weak sorry.

Well if you gave the hand acurately then the answer is simple... that hand too good for a flannery bid and thats why game was missed. Like many limited-opening bids, system abuse will lead to bad results. Actually, we all have had partners who abuse system and then get a good result for doing so.... I have 1 partner who unfortunately consistently abuses conventions and only remembers when abuse works to our advantage and so continues to do so. Yes, it is only a 1 point overbid... but opener deprived himself of the chance to reverse.... I suspect that is why you got the good result..

I am a strong proponent of Speed pairs... 5 minutes per board. When we ran a speed tourney last week we have 70 tables... so there was presumably a lot of interest, but it was not a success according to Rain. Lots of time issues... I attribute this more to the fact that we didn't highlight the speed aspect of this tourney as much as we should have. Speed bridge can be a lot of fun but, also, is not for every player. Players who feel pressured by the 5 mins/per board format should not enter it. I am hoping that we run another speed pair but better advertise the SPEED aspect of it. A smaller tourney with pairs equipped to handle the shorter time limit could be run concurrently with a "normal" event, giving people the option to play one or the other.

I have been playing Flannery for about 30 years now, after playing various Roman bids for about 10 and finding them generally useless (due to lack of frequency more than anything else). I can honestly say that I can remember 1 disaster using this convention (partner was 1165 and broke) but the number of top boards (reaching a playable partial usually in competitive auctions) has been remarkable. Sure, most hands where 4 of a major is cold you are going to reach using most any methods. Where Flannery is most useful is in partials and in slam bidding. It also makes using 2/1 a LOT easier. Knowing that partner has 5 spades in the 1h=1s auction is INCREDIBLY useful and allows partnerships to have clearer auctions (for them) while not bidding out pattern too much to help the defense. The main gripe I hear people say about Flannery is that it roadmaps the defense. My answer to that is DON'T ABUSE THE 2NT asking bid. It is THAT specific bid that conveys lots of information, not the original 2D bid...

I appreciate all the input so far but... My question (comments, whatever) weren't meant to be specific to that hand (it was an extreme example and I said so to start). My original post was oriented more towards 2d seater passing with NEAR OR OVER OPENING VALUES. This is where I feel the most pressure is put upon partner-- passing a GOOD HAND in 2d seat and then balancing... I don't like it! Would love to hear from others, especially those who are prone to using this very strategy (at least one replier I know employs this strategy frequently).

I just saw a hand something like this: KJxxx XX QJ10xx x 1st seat opener bid 1H and this person elected not to make a Michels but passed instead, there was a 2h raise passed back to this hand, who then balanced with 2s, passed out making 4. The reason the hand made 4 was his partner was holding the AK of dimonds and the ace of spades, certainly not enough to keep the bidding going after his partner had only balanced. Had 2d seater elected to bid his suits early, the double fit may have been located and the game bid. This brings up a pet peeve of mine...partners who elect passing and coming in later. I have seen this kind of thing happen over and over in my years of playing. By sacrificing the one level, as here (this person could bid 1spd), you often miss decent fit games because partner is at a loss to know your strength after a balancing bid. I realize this hand is an extreme example of this principle at work, but this practice is very common. I admit, I know very good players who pass with opening strength (or better) in overcall position and I always find these auctions awkward when I play with them. Are people waiting for their partners to double so they can defend? Are they just watiing for the auction to further develop? Whatever the answer, I find that passing early often leads to poor results. I insist my real-life partners not do this... Online I don't have that luxury.. Thoughts?

I am a strong proponent of Speed pairs... 5 minutes per board. When we ran a speed tourney last week we have 70 tables... so there was presumably a lot of interest, but it was not a success according to Rain. Lots of time issues... I attribute this more to the fact that we didn't highlight the speed aspect of this tourney as much as we should have. Speed bridge can be a lot of fun but, also, is not for every player. Players who feel pressured by the 5 mins/per board format should not enter it. I am hoping that we run another speed pair but better advertise the SPEED aspect of it. A smaller tourney with pairs equipped to handle the shorter time limit could be run concurrently with a "normal" event, giving people the option to play one or the other.

As my piano teacher used to say... practice, practice, practice.

Well, back to an old thread.. Was just watching the following hand: Aj10 KQJxx xxx Kx Opener was playing 2M rebid promises 6th trump. Sure enough the auction goes 1H-p-2C-p-? By default a 2nt rebid followed by 3n... down the 1st five tricks. His partner's hand was: Kxx Ax xxx AJ10xx Opener said to his partner "how do we avoid this?" Now, we know how I avoid it... the real question I have is this: Do you get enough GOOD results by defautling to 2M promises 6 to offset these disasters? Does the theory that rebidding only with 6 pieces improve odds of finding correct game or does it lessen it? I would like to see some numbers here if available because my gut tells me that the advantage to rebidding with 6 doesn't exist...although when I play SAYC I insist on it due to system agreements.

I wasn't going to post here cuz I don't play many esoteric gadgets... just the standard ones, but if I only had one convention I had to have it, too would be the various suit-showing doubles. I do think some other ones are useful, particularly playing 2/1 GF. With that in mind, inverted minors are an almost 100% necessity. The ability to explore for 3NT after 1c-2c (instead of 1-3) is perhaps underrated by some.. and you get to look for those ever elusive minor suit slams. Altho I partially covered this topic in another thread, let me say this: too many gadgets lead to too many bad results, particularly in casual partnerships. I cannot recall the number of times I've played vs. expert partnerships using every doodad under the sun and beaten the hell out of them because they couldn't keep their agreements straight. Don't get me wrong, we need some gadgetry to distinguish certain holdings (NMF or checkback being a great example of this concept), but once people start trying to minutely improve bids that work fairly well by adding several layers of complexity to distinguish small differences in hand, then the gain is too often offset by the confusion the new bids create.

Many play that 1d-2c is 100% force and that 1d-3c shows specifically 6+ suit and 11ish values... Now, if opener rebids diamonds then responder passes, and if opener bids 3n pass also available. Other bids can be cues in looksing for nt or slam... This treatment pretty common.

Your real question is "Do I pass, double or bid 3d?" 3D is out on suit quality issues... X may well force you into a 4-3 heart fit on your bad 13 count. BUT failure to act may cause you to miss a big plus where partner needs you to double... I risk double and the 4-3 fit at the 3 level. Why? Because partner often has a hand that cannot act in direct seat (such as good spades or not enough hearts to overcall on his own). You may not go plus, but then opps were making 2s anyway... Best of a bad lot to me.

Well, i did assume the hearts were bad and i said so.. So, over 2d I did say I would bid 3h.. part of my message got garbled when i edited it and I didn't preview it... But back to your basic premise... Ya, that hand isn't worth a 2/1 assuming the hearts don't have an honor... That side suit is nice but not as nice as you think.. likely to produce 2 trix and 1 ruff once opps get in. Now, the suit improves immenesly of partner has 2 of them (1 is not enough) and I did say over 1n pray partner bids 2c... Then the hand's value goes way up (partner has minimum of 2 clubs) and if partrner rebids 2h, promising 6, the value also goes up because value of 3d heart goes way up now. I should point out that i play that 2d guarantees 4 and 2c can be made on only 2... so therefore I have a 2s bid over 2d availabe.to show both hearts AND clubs... since 2s isnt natural... that, of course, is part of the reason i can bid 1n and wait for developments... Alternatively, as a side thought, if I do bid 2c initially then I must insist on clubs...partner will get the message if I bid 2c, then 3c then 4c (over an attempted NT bailout). Then maybe we play 4c instead of 4hts and its not a disaster....

Lesson learned the hard way using DONT, CAPP, etc. If you bid bad hands vul over 1NT you get in trouble. White vs. red you can take a few chances... The second hand is not, in my opinion, worth a DONT action vul. Bad distribution, bad suits, a modicum of working points. Partner will expect more than you have here. Hand appears to be better suited to defense in any case should opps play 3NT. Now, does not mean responder blameless... Bidding that suit (with partner quite possibly with a stiff or 1 piece) VUL is just nuts... So, assess blame 60% to the DONT bidder (I can't assign stupdity points here... DONT wasn't a stupid bid, just maybe shouldn't be made, five clubs vul was). As to 1st hand, I do not believe responder's hand is worth a 2/1 response at either vulnerability. 1N and bid clubs with it. But, f partner has no clubs or 1 its value is duious as a game force...If I'm playing SAYC and can bid a limit with 3 pieces MAYBE its a 3 bid there, but am assuming the heart spots are bad. For now, bid 1N, pray partner rebids 2C (in which case I bid 4hts on double fit. I certainly do not warrant that a 2/1 hand absent fitting cards.

Well, i will only say that a 2n bid is likely to get a 3n bid. Now, having gotten that out of the way, I personally tend to rebid 1n as well with 11-14 OR if the hand has a no trump flaw, in which case I bid the my 2d suit... I assume when partner bids 2c he is usually doing the same thing and I do not want to go looking for a 5 (or 6) club game on this bidding.... Another Stevism: Good bidders bid minor suit slams, bad bidders bid 3n. Does that mean I haven't bid my share of 3n's when I should be in 6m? Nope, matter of fact, did it today cuz I made a bad bid. But, I will say this and say it emphatically... You are MUCH MORE LIKELY to find that minor suit slam if there is a reverse or a jump shift. That's part of the reason why I advocate the reverse here...I SMALL lie conveys a lot of GOOD information and partner is well placed to make a GOOD decision.

This is too easy.. and a nice way to illustrate why I do this: Kxx AKxx xx xxxx I can paint 100 dimond- club hands that are gonna mke 3n here yet if I was responder I am passing 2c if auction goes 1D 2c.. im just glad i found landing spot that is safe now. This is a great example of this bid in action... if my partner reverses into diamonds after clubs I'll bid 3n after I have bid 1h but I am definitely passing 1d-1h-2c. Is 3n a lock? No, but I likes my chances.

I have often found that pick I up a hand with xx in a suit and have relative comfort with all other suits. I don't want to use blackwood until i have specific information regarding that suit. This approach is very safe, particularly for small slams, and imparts a minimum of information to the opponents vs. lots of cue bidding (my main objection to cue bidding in general of course is that it helps paint a road for the defenders).