mikestar

Zar, you understand me correctly.

Ben, Thus far I have only been discussing initial valuation. As to revaluation in case of a superfit 2 points per extra trump is fairly equiavlent to Zar's simplified 3 points per extra trump. I'll publish details about revaluation later.

Zar, Yes, you still open with 13--that is the whole point of my advocacy of 1-3-5 you can use the same magic numbers youv'e used for your whole bridge career. It may be 1-3-5 is slightly less acurate than Zar it may be that is is slightly more accurate, but the difference is in any case nowhere nearly as great as the difference between Zar points and other point count method. Let's assert without proof that 1-3-5 is only 85% as accurate but is twice as easy to use because you have been programmed for years to think in terms of 13/26/33/37, instead of 26/52/62/67. If this were true. which should a beginner/intermediate use? And if 1-3-5 is 98% or 102% or Zar's accuracy the answer is obvious. My own experience is that Zar points works great as an after the fact analytical tool but gives me a brain cramp at the table because of the unfamiliar numbers. IF the superiority or Zar points is sufficent, this price is worth paying, but if I'm fairly close with something else that I can count in my sleep, the price isn't worth paying.

Because it is possible doesn't mean it's appropriate. Culbertson himself passed hands that had opening-bid playing strength by his own evalualtion methods but had insufficient defense (honor tricks). Bergen's method intentionally underates unbalanced shapes to reflect his judgement about how much defense is needed and how much negative revaluation in case of misfit should be risked. You would open a 6-5-2-0 hand with 7 HCP and 2 contols at the 1 level, Bergen would not, insisting on 9 HCP. This is not a difference in the evaluation of the trick taking ability of the hands, this is a differnce in opening bid philosophy--Bergen chooses to be less agressive than you in this area. (Bet he's more aggressive with preempts!)

The first entry will serve as an example. 1-3-5 gives 4-4-4-1 3 distribution points vs. 0 for 4-3-3-3. Dividing by the 3 points per trick for the 1-3-5 scale, this is 1 trick. Zar counts 11 points for the 4-4-4-1 vs 8 points for 4-3-3-3 for a difference of 3 points. Dividing by Zar's 5 points per trick, this is 0.6 tricks. So 1-3-5 rates 4-4-4-1 0.4 tricks higher than Zar does. The same methodology was uses for all shapes. I excluded superfreaks (too infrequent to matter much) and those cases where 1-3-5 and Zar agree withing the limits imposed by the different scales-- a three point scale and a five point scale cannot agree exactly for fractional trick values, but if 1-3-5 says something is 1 1/3 tricks and Zar says it is 1.4 tricks, this is not really a disagreement about the item's value.

I've never published the method--but Tysen advocates something very similar and slightly more accurate that has been seen before. To do testing, simply change the Goren distribution figures from 1-2-3 to 1-3-5 and chance the HCP to 4.5-3-1.5-1 --even with no further adjustments it tracks more closely with Zar points than the other methods. The figures usch as .133 were used to describe the degree of discrepancy between 1-3-5 and Zar--these are not used at the table. At the table I would count HCP 4-3-2-1, distribution 1-3-5 then compare the number of aces and queens in my hand, adjusting 1/2 point plus for each excess ace or 1/2 point minus for each excess queen. This is quite simple enough for a beginner and uses the same point count targets as all beginners are taught. As for the discrepancy shapes, some Zar evaluations are a bit strange -- you are the only authority who asserts that 6-5-2-0 is better than 6-5-1-1, absent inferences from the bidding.

Zar points are clearly more accurate than Goren 1-2-3 and Bergen (Rule of 20). Bergen is not intended for overall evaluation, but for the specific purpose of determining whether to open. While Marty advocates requiring 11 HCP to open both 5-4-2-2 and 5-4-4-0, he never asserts anywhere in his writings that these hands have the same value once a fit is found. And of course Goren has responder count 1-3-5 when raising partner. A modification of this I've used for years is to use the 1-3-5 count for the original suit bidder as well. This actually tracks fairly closely with Zar distribution points. Comparing 1-3-5 with Zar in terms of the trick excess over the baseline 4-3-3-3 shape, for 1-3-5 we get tricks = count / 3; and for Zar we get tricks=(count - 8) / 5 Excluding extreme shapes (over 8 cards in one suit, over 11 cards in two suits), only the following shapes have a discrepency of over .133 tricks (the maximum discrepancy due to the different granularity of the two scales): Shape (1-3-5 tricks minus Zar tricks) 4-4-4-1 +.400 5-3-3-2 -.267 5-4-4-0 +.467 6-3-2-2 -.333 6-3-3-1 -.200 6-5-1-1 +.400 6-5-2-0 +.200 7-2-2-2 -.200 7-3-2-1 -.267 7-4-1-1 +.200 8-3-2-0 -.200 Vs Zar, the 1-3-5 count overrates three suiters and more extreme two suiters and underrates most one suiters. IMHO, the 1-3-5 ratings may actually be slightly more accurate. My experience is that three suiters play fairly well with a good fit and its very difficult to overvalue 6-5's (again with a good fit). I also find that one suited hands share some of the weakness of balanced hands because they are less flexible than two suiter. Normalizing Zar's 6-4-2-1 HCP+Controls scale to 10 points per suit instead of 13 yields 4.6-3.1-1.5-0.8. A 4 1/2 - 3 - 1 1/2 - 1 scale is not a terribly bad approximation of this. The point of all this is that here is a method a bright beginner could use which produces trick values close to Zar without using different point count targets than the 26/33/37 that less experience players tend to think in terms of.

Let's analyse what partner may have. I'll make only one assumption about our agreements--we won't open 1D with 6 or more clubs (barring the x=x=5=6 hand). If partner has a four-card major, he bids his major and X is a big winner, so our only concern is when he doesn't. Will partner have a stiff or void in diamonds? Only if he has 1 or 2 four card majors--so we can exclude this. Two diamonds? Yes if we bid some of out NT hands via 1D. The only problem hand is 3=3=2=5. Will partner leave us in, expecting a stiff instead of a void--maybe, especially if his clubs are strong, but he may bid NT if our agreements allow, or may bid a three card major. Three diamonds? Could be (3-2)=3=5 Here he is less likely to leave it in, because the 4-3 fit may play well opposite 4-4 majors. Four diamond? 2=2=4=5 may pass with good clubs. (3-1)=4-5 is almost certain to bid the three card major. Five+ diamonds? Now he either has less than five clubs and won't pass or he is 5-5 or better and either won't pass or the enemy probably runs. So our losing cases are 2=2=4=5 and 3=3=2=5 with possible losing cases of 3-2-3-5 and 2-3-3-5. X should work out well anytime partner has a four card major or real diamonds. X is clearcut.

With 11 or more cards in two suits, I never let my partner play in NT. We have a 7 card spade fit even if partner is void and this is unlikely. Even then spades are fairly likely to play considerably better than NT. In NT the spades are worthless opposite shortness, as trumps they will win several tricks.

1eyedjacks description of lebensohl over reverses is correct. I'd just like to add a point to it. Many partnerships also bid 2NT with bare game values (8+ to 10) and follow up with a game bid or the fourth suit. This allows direct 3 level bids to show 11 or more and at least mild slam interest.

Even assuming partner isn't too strong for 3D, I believe pass is correct at either scoring. The hands are a miracle fit and you can't play for miracles. Imagine if partner's majors were interchanged: 5D is probably down off the top, never mind 6. Your don't have enough trumps and have too much defense for 5D as a sacrifice, so there is no reason to bid.

I find Ben's argument convincing. I also think Kit Woolsey's idea of inverting 3S and 3NT when hearts are agreed is sound--the spade cuebid has the same role wiht hearts agreed as the club cuebid does with spades agreed.

Ron, Thanks for the very lucid explantion--you're right, it makes a great deal of sense and beats the hell out of Capp.

I think 6C is the correct MP contract--it is virtually laydown, while spade and NT slams require Kx onside in spades--terribly against the odds. 7C isn't so bad as you can take the ruffing finesse and don't need the K to be doubleton, but do you want to be in a grand that depends on a finesse? If you are going to play in spades or NT, why stop at six? Assuming the very likely heart lead, its 5 or 7 in those denominations barring 5-1 spades. This is one of those cases where accurate bidding was punished and inaccurate bidding was rewarded--there a'int no justice!

Ron, Back before Capp became so common, I used to play Astro. Asptro seems like a technical improvement. Could you explain the subequent bidding a bit, especially with major 2-suiters?

Aside from the question of the 19+ 2C, I'd like to hear more about your system, especially the 1C sequences. Are you using any Polish elements in you 1C structure?

Raptor followed by a jump in daimonds if partner doesn't bid spades is reasonable if you and your partner have a firm agreement that Raptor is 100% forcing. Otherwise, forget any kind of science and bid 5D as Peter suggested. At the table I might well prefer 5D even with a firm agreement as above. "When in doubt, bid a lot!"

The complete alpahbet of asking bids from Eric Jannerstein's Precision Book: ALPHA: new suit after a positve response (except 2C over 1NT)--asks for degree of support and controls (0-3 or 4+) BETA: 1NT over 1M or 4C after using ALPHA or singleton suit after impossible neagative--asks numer of controls, answer by steps. GAMMA: minumum bid of responder's suit below game (after positive response) --asks trump length and honors. DELTA: jump in new suit after positive response--a BETA ask that sets the bid suit as trumps. EPSILON: new suit after GAMMA, DELTA or ALPHA or ZETA when the answer establishes trumps--asks for control of bid suit. ZETA: 2M over 1D--asks for trump support by steps. ETA: bid of the non-singleton suit after impossible negative, simlar to ALPHA adjusted for the four-card suit. THETA: 2 of a suit after answer to 1NT BETA--ALPHA with focus on support alone, as controls are known. A side question: does anybody still play Impossible Negative?

In their recent book Bridge Conventions in Depth, the Granovetters argue against playing "sytems on" (transfers) in advancing a direct seat 1NT overcall. Their argument is that it is even more important to put their stong hand on lead than to have our strong hand declare. This logic argues against transfer advances--but argues in favor of transfer overcalls, and transfer responses in competition. The lead positions in order from best to worst : 1. Their strong hand leads up to our strong hand. 2. Thier strong hand leads up to our weak hand. 3. Their weak hand leads up to our strong hand. 4. Their weak hand leads up to our weak hand. #1 and #4 are fairly absolute. Many players will disagree with the Granovetters about the ranking of #2 and #3--and, whatever is correct generically, there will be many more particular hands that go the opposite way than in #1 and #4. But if one accepts the Granovetters' view as correct, the general method is: Opener uses natural bids Opener's LHO uses transfers Responder uses transfers Opener's RHO uses natural bids Responder should switch to natural bids in X-P-P-Y sequences. 1eyedjack's points about level are also well taken. The strentgh of the opening bid or overcall is also relevant--there is much less reason to put a Moscito opener on lead than to put a SAYC opener on lead.

Ron's point about cultural differences is well taken. However, in any culture, there is a huge difference between: "I think convention X is poorly designed and you might want to reconsider your decision to use it." And: "How on earth could you be so blindingly stupid as to play convention X? Has there been a lot of inbreeding in your family?" I imagine the latter is a severe insult in any culture. Of course, that latter might be fine between close friends who know it isn't meant seriously--but a third party reading the forum can't know this. Obviously drawing of lines needs to be carefully and won't be nearly so clear cut as these extreme examples. And I certainly think that when in doubt, the moderators should err on the side of free speech. But there is no doubt in my mind that line drawing needs to be done.

I have never been part of an unmoderated forum that didn't sooner or later perish from flame wars, character assination (even outright libel), grossly off-topic posts, and extreme vulgarity. I come here to read and post about bridge. I am glad that posts which: Use the f-word twice per sentence. Accuse everyone who gets an unusual result of cheating. Argue about the war in Iraq or the divinity of Christ. Assert that someone is stupid, dishonest, perverted or whatever because they don't agree with the poster or the poster doesn't like their style. get removed before I have to read them while looking for bridge. If sometimes the moderators call it a little too close for my tastes, they're human and rational people will differ about judgment calls--particularly judgement calls that must be made in a limited amount of time. I have no knowlege of what has been edited, but the moderators have let some things pass that I would have removed. My philosophy that even a borderline insult is inappropriate among civilized people. This is not intended as criticism of the moderators--no doubt adhering to a standard as stringent as mine would seem excessive to many who otherwise agree with me.

The term "censorship" is being misused a bit here. BBO is a private organization, not a government; nor is anyone editing posts for fear of government sanctions. The editing that is done here may be well or ill advised, and I may or may not like it or agree with it, but it isn't censorship: legally it is no different than my insisting that guests at a party in my home do not discuss politics and religion at the party--though they are totally free to discuss these things in public. Libel and slander are are another question--it is settled law in the US and most countries that asserting "John Doe is a bridge cheat" (or any other odious thing) in a context where it is likely to be believed is not protected speech unless it is true--and the burden of proving truth is (in practice) on the speaker.

Peter, I believe you are correct. While A's at major regionals or NABC's would kill you, you won't get much more preemption from club players or Sectional B's than you would with a more orthodox 2C opening. In fact many club players open 2C on 19 (but without the disciplined approach suggested at the site you gave). They manage to survive as they don't get preempted agressively enough.

It seems to be a good fit for your system constructively, but you may be at a disadvantage in competitve auctions--good opponents observing that your 2C could be a fairly average 19 and will preempt to the sky. Were I playing against you, I would use my Precision defense a level higher. The Romex Dynamic NT works with an 18-19 minimum because it also has an upper limit from the failure to open a GF 2C or 2D--but this is incompatible with your desire to use a weak NT.