RichMor

3♥, WTP ?

For case #1, RHO bids 3♠, a cue bid is probably best. IMO, that shows a 2 suiter with Hearts and obviously a good hand. That implies that a direct 4NT shows the minors. I have no useful opinions about how advancer should react to a cue bid. Probably natural is best; 4NT regressive for Hearts and asking for cue-bidder's minor. A direct 5 of a minor suggests a good suit and some slam ambition. 5♥ suggests a final contract. Advancer's actions above 5♥ are murkey at best. I would take 5♠ by pard as slam positive for Hearts and 5NT as slam positive for the minors. It seems impossible that pard will make any of these calls facing the actual hand. On the actual hand I would probably take a shot at slam whatever pard bids; 6♦ over 4NT, 6♥ over 5♥, and raise pard's 5m to 6. For case #2, my opening, I would open 2♣ if NOT playing 2♥ as a negative response. If forced to play negative 2♥ I would open 1♥ and expect a bad result. On the side, yes 2♣ - 2♥ / 3♥ is forcing. If not then reasonable bidding is impossible.

I bid a 'practical' 3♠. We don't want to play 5♦ at matchpoints if 3NT is reasonable.

I think you could pass in three tries. Some of the questions are a little harder. say i fail three times. i then sign up under the very original matmat2009 username. how many times can i take the test now? You can take the test as many times as you want.

how many times can i take the test? I think you could pass in three tries. Some of the questions are a little harder.

I would vote for: anything from Lawrence - a good clear writer anything from Miles - a good but sort of complex writer nothing from Hardy - no offense meant but he wrote simplistic books for average club players who wanted to try 2/1. something from K Rexford - he's always understandable :blink:

Nope, I could not begin to guess what you might have been thinking. :blink: Opening 1♥ is well.....................sort of weird.

This is my profile too. I am a frequent drop-in player but I don't want to plan and schedule games in advance. I don't need a graded rating system for pards or opps. I would like to be able to see some kind of 'minimum competence' flag in the profile of the other players. Something I could see and believe. It should be possible to set up a voluntary minimum competence test, something based on an intermediate online quiz. Q1: Some of the red suits are: A. Hearts B. Spades C. Hugo Boss D. All of the above Nobody has to take the test. Anyone who doesn't want to take the test can still play. Once you take and pass the test you get a little 'seal of approval' in your profile. It doesn't go away and is not dynamically recalculated like a Lehman rating. But those who take and fail an intermediate-level test and still rate themselves as Expert could be avoided. Fred, does this make any sense ?

3 NT; solid minor and stoppers in the unbid suits. 8642 is more of a stopper than a suit. Semi 'WTP'.

There was a reason why I quoted my musical reference on the morning of the 25th. As to your reference, I vastly prefer the overproduced Don Was Bonnie to the Was Not barebones Bonnie. And this response was composed to the sound of the US scoring their third and fourth goals. glen, Roughly in order; 1. Well, we seem to agree about either/or weak openings. Nuff said I guess. 2. 'Fortune favors the prepared mind' or something like that. We hope that all teams have the same resources for preparation; coaches, trainers, computer support, etc. In real life some NBOs have more financial resources to prepare their international teams. Dunno what to suggest about that. Even when resources are equal between teams, requirements may not be eaual. Imagine the semi-finals of some international team tournament. Each team fields 6 players in fixed partnerships. The pairs of teams 1, 2, and 3 use variations of SAYC, BWS, modern Acol, SEF, etc. The pairs of team 4 each use a different artificial weak-opening system. Teams 2 and 3 face each other in one semi, 1 and 4 in the other. All pairs have the same resources and same abilities to prepare for their opponents methods. (Teams 2 and 3 could decide to ignore team 4 methods, hoping not to face team 4. Dunno if a responsible captain would favor that.) Team 4 doesn't play against itself and need not prepare any defenses to their own methods. Team 4 needs to prepare for the somewhat similar methods of teams 1, 2, and 3. Teams 1, 2, and 3 need to prepare for the methods of each other and for the methods of team 4. This seems, at least to me, to favor team 4. 3. 'Base countermeasures'. OK, bidding is still about finding our best spot and hindering the opps from finding theirs. Offense versus defense. With no database of personal experience or match records, I have no idea if I will be 'looking forward to a good result' when the opps open a Suspensor-style 1♠. Maybe a sports comparison works. Basketball, professional and international, has a shot clock. The team with the ball must hit the rim within 24 seconds(in the pros) or turn over the ball to the other team. This was not always so. Long ago a team could get a small lead and then just pass the ball around and dribble it forever. This really happened. Teams with short and quick players with good ball-handling skills were successful. The shot clock lead to changes in the way basketball is played; changes I would call fundamental. Short - under 6 feet - and quick players are now rare in professional basketball. Full disclosure: basketball became more popular after the shot clock was introduced so a fundamental change can be a good thing. This isn't a slam-dunk agrument, but it's not bad. 4. Bonnie and Donny. Actually 'Fundamental' is not my favorite recent album. It seems like a case of different for the sake of difference. I like 'Luck of the Draw' and 'Longing In Their Hearts' much more. Haven't checked all the liner notes so I don't know who produced them. Back to work.

No, I agree that preparing 1 defense is easier than preparing 3. However that does not "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests", but just makes some contests easier than others. <snip out last part> glen, Think I need to back up and take another run at 'fundamental'. A simple and limited meaning: 1. basic: relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something. 2. central: serving as an essential part of something. (from MSN Encarta) With that definition, I agree than 'preparing 3 defenses instead of 1' is not a fundamental change - but it seems like a significant change. And '6 instead of 1' is more significant - but still not fundamental. I mean to use the term 'fundamental change' only for scenarios featuring artificial weak-opening systems. That is what I have tried to do in previous posts. Since I have not been asked to represent my country in any international events(still hoping but it's probably not happening) all I can do is imagine what it would be like to compete against one or more artificial weak-opening systems. This is what I imagine: 1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades. 2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits. 3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution. The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years. Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen. Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again) This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge. This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

Right now we have: Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the systems of all the potential opponents. I don't see why adding the word unusual (or the less used ususual) and bolding the word "all" twice results in: "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests" Glen, 1) Because unusual is not the same as usual, or even the same as ususual. I bet you and your regular partners have discussed your defense to mini, weak, and strong 1NT openings. You may even play diffferent defenses based on the strength of the opening. Which defense applies when a 1NT opening is split range? Are you sure your pard is on the same wavelength? 2) Because all means more than one. I believe that preparing a defense to one ususual system is easier that preparing defenses to three very different ususual systems all being played by various pairs in a multi-team event. Do you disagree ? RichM

IMO 4♥ = 10, _P = 5 Playing natural methods, neither 2♠ nor 2N would be forcing; but I presume this should be in the 2/1 discussion. Nigel, What about 4♠ ? If we expect pard to hold a balanced hand, game forcing values, and 5 Hearts then why is Hearts better than Spades? On the given auction, we may have an 8-card fit in Spades but we don't in Hearts. thanks, RichM

David, Thanks for a good post. But I still have a few questions in my simple mind. :) 1) The second paragraph refers to 'undesireable' effects of unusual systems. Undesireable to whom? To the pairs playing unusual systems, I think the effects are highly desireable. In an event where 'anything goes' for bidding methods, wouldn't the optimal strategy of the unusual system players be one that maximizes misunderstandings between the opponents ? Additionally, when the opponents hold the balance of strength the gain from misunderstandings will increase. 2) You state than preparation is the way to eliminate undesireable effects. While that is most certainly true, it seems to change the nature of the game. Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the ususual systems of all the potential opponents. Doesn't this change the fundamental nature of bridge contests? RichM

OK, got it. I used to be an OKB member. Thanks.

Comment #1: 3NT is not our best spot. Comment #2: The example hand makes sense in the context of 2NT/3NT expressing doubt.

Helene, Could you explain the first part - 'objective rating'. I have not seen previous proposals. Thanks, RichM

1. Don't agree with the auction so far. The hand is good enought to rebid 3♣; good controls, Spade texture, upgraded Heart Queen. Nothing wrong with 2♠, but 3♣ is a little better. 2. What to do now ? Depends on what pard's sequence means. If a direct 3NT is weaker that a 2NT/3NT two-step, then this hand should bid again. I would continue with 4♥ showing good 2-card Heart support and 6 Spades.

Incomplete and maybe incomprehensible: 1. It was named for Jeff Rubens. 2. When the opps overcall our 1NT opening, responder's bids starting with 2NT are transfers; NT to Clubs, Clubs to Diamonds, Diamonds to Hearts, Hearts to Spades, and Spades to NT sort of. 3. A transfer response shows at least invitational values and a 5-card or longer suit. 4. A transfer cue to the opps' suit is Stayman-like. I don't remember if it shows a stopper in their suit, denies, or is ambiguous. 5. A 3 Spades transfer is a punt. It denies 4+ cards in other major(s) and denies a stopper in the opps' suit.

Ken, OK, Clubs could be 'manufactured'. After a 4♣ call, what bids by pard will tell us that: Clubs are manufactured ? Clubs are not manufactured? 3♣ could be manufactured in two possible scenarios. 1. Opener has self-playing hearts, GF values, and wrong for a 2♣ opening or a NAMYATS opening. If the partnership allows this meaning, then Opener's next call will be 4♥. 2. Opener has a monster with spade support and wrong for some other call. If he has that hand, 4♠ will be his next call Thus, at least 4♦ is available (and maybe 4♥) to handle the "really had clubs" position. So, I would expect a 4♦ call by Opener to set trumps. For that matter, I would probably use 4♦ as Kickback here, personally. Ken, Thanks. It all seems very reasonable. Do you have any concerns that option 2 - monster with Spade support - could conflict with control bidding ? For example, is the sequence 1♥ - 1♠ 3♣ - 4♣ 4♠ - ? possible when opener holds a hand like ♠Ax ♥AKQxxx ♦x ♣AQxx

Ken, OK, Clubs could be 'manufactured'. After a 4♣ call, what bids by pard will tell us that: Clubs are manufactured ? Clubs are not manufactured?

Dunno if FP is a dominant system, it sure is a dominant topic. Here are some simple views: 1. A system based on weak openings (the term 'WOS' for weak opening systems seems better than 'FP') should have an advantage on hands where first or second hand can open. Since the opening is usually well defined in terms of strength, openers partner has a good idea of their sides total assets. 2. The same system should have a corresponding disadvantage when first or second hand has constructive values, say 13+ HCP. If all constructive hands start with one call - a bid or a pass - then accurate game, slam, or part score bidding is more difficult. So I think WOS is reasonable concept with pluses and minuses. But in practice it's different. Most WOS systems I have seen use artificial weak openings. Is this an accident? Probably not. Auctions that start with artificial openings and responses create ambiguity for both sides. Seems to me that the opening side, often with less strength that the defending side, benefits more from any ambiguity. And it seems that designers of WOS system probably know this. Once defenders learn how to counteract the current WOS openings, then the WOS system users should change the meanings of their openings and responses to restore ambiguity. Around and around it goes. Maybe we should have 2 games; one called Bridge and the other called Babel.

ArtK78 wrote << There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. >> Well put. I think this is the center of the issue. If innovators are not allowed to play new and unusual methods then the methods will never become old and familiar. Progress stops and we all revert to Culbertson. On the other hand, if players of unusual methods get favorable results from the opponents' unfamiliarity then we will see an unending stream of 'new for the sake of new' systems. Sort of like pop music. ("I miss that old time rock and roll"). Wish I had a sensible opinion about whether the FPs or other HUMs should be allowed or restricted, but I dont. ;) I do have this opinion: preparing a defense for the system-of-the-week is not a good way to spend my limited mental energy.

Adam, 1) Does it really matter how "many (fuel efficient) models" a manufacturer offers ? One is enough if the manufacturer sells a lot of them. If the customers want some variety then design a common platform(engine, transmission) and slap on various body styles. 2) As to the profit margin on various types of vehicles, can't a manufacturer set a fixed profit expectation on all models ? Cost plus $2,000 or whatever. 3) As to the quality of a small car, it's whatever the manufacturer wants it to be. My first Honda Civic was a 1973 model. It was not exceptionally high or low quality. It had no luxury features but it started, ran, and didn't break down. It cost $2,400. My current car is a Suburu coupe. It is an upscale model with more features than the old Honda. But the basics are the same; it starts, runs, and doesn't break down. It cost about $20,000 in 2000. Make any sense ? RichM

True. I have seen some ads that say GM (or maybe Ford, don't remember) sells several models that get around 30 miles per gallon. But almost all the ads I see on television from the 'Big 3' are for trucks or Cadillacs.