foo

Again, while I am =not= advocating this sort of aggressive opening style, IMHO there are a number of systemic issues here and the situation is not as clear cut as some may say.. Clearly if we knew as soon as we picked up our hand that We had no chance of game and no fit, we'd usually choose to defend. The given example: AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx + xx AKxxx AQx xxx Has a decent chance of setting even a 2 level contract. OTOH, if we must play it the best place for Us is either 1N or 2S in our "Kaplan fit" However, unless we cheat we don't get the option to choose between aggression and conservatism when we first pick up our hand... So we have to analyze our hand and play the odds. AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx What is Responder's most likely shape? 2 2/3 S's + 4 H's + 3 D's + 3 1/3 C's => 3433 or 2434 w/ 3433 being 2x more likely What is Responder's most likely values? (SK;HA,HK;DA;CA,CK) + (SJ;HQ,HJ;DQ,DJ;CQ,CJ) => 2 from set "A" (60% A+K + 20% K+K or A+A) plus 2 1/3 from set "B" (~31% Q+J ~23% Q+J+J ~16% of J+J or Q+Q+J) => 10 HCP A+K+Q+J So by far the most likely auction if we did open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx is 1S-1N;?? ...which we can pass to show a sub-minimum the same way we do when we open light in 3rd chair and this auction occurs. This doesn't even begin to adequately cover all the issues needed to play such aggressive openings in a "natural" system, and awm and others are right that being this "edgey" is going to hurt you sometimes, but hopefully I've shown that the issue is not as simple nor as clear-cut as some may claim.

Zar count does say to open AQxxx x Kxxx xxx with 1♠. Your conclusion is that even though you wouldn't do so, to consider opening 1♠ is not completely crazy. My conclusion is that this is the billionth reason that Zar count IS completely crazy. I am not making any conclusions. I'm simply pointing out that a= quite a few good players, many of them very good players, would open AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx just as awm and his partner would. b= there is at least one form of objective measurement based on reasonably sound analysis and that has some degree of popularity that agrees.

Comment 1: Opening these sorts of hands in the context of a 2/1 GF system is (generally) frowned up on these forums. The fact that people do stupid things with some hands really doesn't justify making an equally egregious mistake with others. Comment 2: Its a lot safer to open these hands playing "standard" where an auction like 1♠ - 2♣;2N - 3♣ isn't forcing Reply1a: Of course it is and it should be. "Up the middle bridge" is what the vast majority of players should be using; not attempting to emulate the bidding habits of world class players. Reply1b: There is at least one hand eval method that says AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx should be opened. AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx 9+3+4+9= 25 Zar +1 for all points in 3- suits +1 for having 4+S's in a borderline hand= 26-27 Adjusted Zar Please note I am =NOT= saying I agree that all players in all partnerships should open this (Nor am I advocating Zar. For instance Zar says KQxxx.x.KQxx.xxx should also open 1S. Not my cup of tea.) I'm merely noting that to consider opening it is far from crazy. Reply1c: Opening this 1S is a far less egregious mistake than opening quacky 12 HCP 8+ loser hands 1m. Reply2: Actually, I'm not sure of that. Standard's strength is the ability to have delicate auctions when Responder has invitational values. Responder being able to do this presumes reasonably sound openings. Aggressive initial action "throws a large stone" into the Standard "pond". In contrast; since 2/1 GF requires so much more for a 2/1 already, the slight stiffening of requirements for Responder's GF 2/1 to cater to the possiblity of aggressive initial action is a considerably smaller "stone". I am =NOT= advocating this, but as an experiment a reasonable aggressive initial action form of 2/1 GF might be a= Opener promises 2+ Quick Tricks, 3+ controls, and 7- losers. b= Responder's GF 2/1 promises 4+ controls and 4+ cover cards

I somehow think you are missing Arend's point completely. A similar situation is (1m) - Dbl - (1M) - ? What would you play Dbl and 2M as? ??? You think We often want to play in Opener's suit? Or are you trying to say something else? as for (1m)-X-(1M)-?? X= Unbids =or= Unbids with tolerance for GOP's Major 2m= worth discussion. Vs a Strong NT pair, "natural" is reasonable! 2M= If 2m is Natural, then the only Cue Bid available is this. LR+ or GF values. (However, one must also protect against the old Contested Auction 1M Response Psyche...)

Well, even if They are playing 4cM, the odds of Us ever wanting to play in ♠'s is remote after a 1N overcall. That seems to argue that any calls we use to show ♠ when We open 1N should show something else when We overcall 1N....

Theory says "Systems On" is not optimal. 1= you want the Opening bidder on lead 2= Unlike when We open 1N, a 1N overcall situation usually involves at least one strain we have no desire to play in. 3= Unlike when We open 1N, the odds of a game Our way are far less. All of the above argues for some form of bidding where Advancer's calls are more or less natural and the cue-bid is Staymanic. For all that, as Frances noted some very good pairs play Systems On or a slightly changed variation of Systems On. One reason is memory overhead. Another is that "natural + cue as Stayman" does not allow Us to describe as many hand types and probe as delicately for fits. Pick your poison. YMMV.

I think that there is a major issue with opening that kind of crap playing 2/1 game force. If your 2/1 responses need enough strength to offer a reasonable chance of game opposite a misfitting nine count then your 2/1 are going to be few and far between. In turn, your forcing NT structure is going to get severely overloaded. The 2/1 response structure doesn't support a light opening style particularly well. The given hand is not as, err, bad, as some might think. {Let's keep the language clean given the guidelines of the forums?} People open quacky 12 HCP 8 loser hands with 2- controls 1m all the time playing Standard w/o doubts or hesitation when those hands are =worse= hands than the one awm posted.

We find that we usually win by opening 1M with hands like: AQxxx.x.Kxxx.xxx We don't feel particularly comfortable with styles that advocate 1M with a range of 8-21 hcp because we find it difficult to control the subsequent auction. We don't like "four-card major maybe canape" styles because we feel that a big part of the advantage of "getting in early" is knowing opener's longest suit which kind of goes by the wayside if you open 1♠ with four small spades and a longer minor. We also feel that light major openings interact poorly with styles where responder must immediately decide whether to game force (i.e. 2/1 GF or GF relay) because the degree of strength necessary makes such a GF too infrequent. ...and there's no problem opening disciplined light 1M openings w/ 2+ Quick Tricks and an easy rebid like the one above in a longest suit first based 2/1 GF style. You just have to make sure you and GOP are on the same wavelength. If you are going to open hands like the above in a 2/1 GF context, then Responder has to make sure they do not shade their 2/1's in terms of controls and trick taking power. ...and your Declarer play has to be appropriate to how aggressively you are bidding. We're also not big fans of the weak NT opening at vulnerable, having gone for -200 at MPs opposite no game way too many times. YMMV. IME, _disciplined_ 1N= 12-14 openings are a win over the long run at all vulnerabilities in any form of scoring. Disciplined 1N=12-14 openings, a decent 1N response structure, and good judgement will find good games (and avoid bad ones) that are more difficult to make the correct decision on in Strong NT systems. When there is no game for Us on the board, disciplined 1N= 12-14 openings give Us an advantage in winning the partscore battle. TBF, this is negated to some extent by the fact that Weak(er) NT's mean We will play 1N on some hands where We should be in a suit contract that Strong(er) NT pairs will not. IME, the pairs who most tend to get in trouble are the ones who use 1N= 11-14 as an undisciplined semi-preempt.

I vote with Fred. 1N is automatic by me here. 1N is the best description of your hand. I assume it turned out badly since you are asking about it. a= Don't Result b= Are you playing a decent structure over a Balancing 1N?

<Advertisement mode on> Adam, your post is basically an advetisement for an KS-like 2/1 GF, 1N= 12-14, 5cM, sound minor opening system with asking bids and relays in certain auctions. Diving into a well developed KS system's 1m auction is =much= more dangerous than diving into a Strong C or Strong D auction. ...and it is much more flexible than any of the Forcing 1C or 1D systems. <Advertisement mode off>

WITW is "Recursive Diamond"? "1D" "Alert!" *curious voice* "yes?" "A D bid commands me to make the cheapest D bid available after each of GOP subsequent calls until a later bid commands me to stop recursing or we have bid past 7D {this is obviously known as 'a D stack overflow' or 'blowing the stack'}" *very confused* "huh? Is that legal?" *both opponents, pitifully, in unison* "Director! help? our head hurts..."

"Is the reverse by responder in a sayc like system forcing to game or just one round force ? example1: 1♦-2C-2♦-2M. Does it matter if the first response was a one level ? example2 : 1♦-1H-2♦-2S." The 1st example is a 1RF because responder showed more than a min w/ his 1st response (a 2/1). The 2nd example is GF. So the exact answer to Flame's 2nd question is "Yes, it matters."

Enraged??? I had hoped merely for nice, quiet wild horses... you, know... a few neigh-sayers If they are enraged, then I think that I am saddled with the unbridled aggression of at least 5♦... it be-hooves me to go for 1100 or more... and maybe I will stampede the opps into error.... or am I only going to stirrup more trouble than I can rein in. lol... Ouch, Blech, Groan, Ick, etc... Folks, meet Attila The Pun. ...Oh, and S should pass that pile of disaster-waiting-to-happen unless GOP is a passed hand... pa-2N;3C-3H;4D {6+D w/ Slam Interest. Also Minorwood 1430 here in my partnerships} -4S;6D or 6N

This is as tight a summary as I can come up with quickly. 1= in SA a Reverse BY OPENER AFTER A ONE LEVEL RESPONSE is a ONE ROUND FORCE ONLY. Some (most) of Responder's rebids set a GF, some of Opener's rebids set a GF. (1m-1S;2H or etc) 1a= Any new suit introduced by Responder sets a GF. 1b= Any raise of Opener's Reverse suit (1C-1M;2D-3D) sets a GF. 1c= The only responses that do =not= set a GF are responder rebidding their suit as cheaply as possible or rebidding 2N. These responses say "Opener, I may pass your next bid unless it is GF" {There are various gadgets that some play in Reverse auctions that can change much of this. This is the default.} 2= in SA a Reverse by Opener after a 2/1 is GF. (1D-2C;2M or etc shows ~15+ HCP) 3= in SA any Reverse by Responder after an initial response that might show a minimum shows at least an opening hand and is GF (1m-1H;1N-2S or 1m-1H;2m-2S or etc) 3a= Therefore a Reverse that does not go past 2N after a 2/1 is a 1RF, not a GF (1D-2C;2D-2M or etc could show a 10-11 HCP hand with 5+C and 4+M)

I suggest that the client SW have no hardcoded limits in it and that the server side limits be in a config file somewhere on the server (eg, not hardcoded either) so that it can be easily changed depending on network bandwidth, server horsepower etc. However, that doesn't answer the fundamental question as to whether the existing BBO infrastructure has the horspower, bandwidth, etc to handle the projected load?

OK, what would be a reasonable server upgrade that would make this problem go away?

Jan, Roland, Uday, Fred: Just what additional non-personel related infra-structure would be needed for BBO to have every thing they needed, except possibly people, to handle the projected load this August if we wanted to pursue the "holy grail" of recording as many of these sessions as possible on vugraph? Are we short on network capability? Servers? Does the BBO SW have some limitation in it? etc Also, I'm going to risk being marked a heretic here and note that if given the choice between a vugraph w/ little or no commentary and no vugraph at all, I'd pick having vugraph available 100% of the time! Even w/o commentary, just the fact that there is a permanent record of such caliber bidding and play is invaluable.

Fred, Have you & Brad punted on weak 55 D+C hands where 3m might be safer than 1N? If not, how are you bidding them?

I agree w/ Roland that this hand is not good enough to X then bid C's. Give Opener all of the remaining D values: AQJxxx There's 6HCP for a 1st seat WvsR 2D opening. Assuming a 5-10 HCP range, the average Weak Two by a disciplined pair will be ~ a Q stronger. {if the Weak Two in question has a range stronger than 5-10, this hand is no problem.} SA, HK, and CK are likely to be out. GOP rates to have 1 of them and another 50% of the time. SQ, SJ, HJ, and CQ are the "filler HCP" likely to be out. GOP rates to have 2 of these cards. That means our hand is good for 10 tricks ~50% of the time. {Opener could also have a maximum Weak Two, in which case the 3 level is likely to be the limit of the board.} If We have a H fit, we have a very real chance of missing 4H here. OTOH, a= if We do not have a H fit, GOP needs significant extras for Us to make 5C. b= 3N seems like a very long shot, and c= "The Rabbi", the stiff K, does not rate to be a good holding on offense but is likely to take a trick on defense. ...and some say natural weak 2D bids are not effective. Certainly has given us a problem here! 3C is the safe alternative that unfortunately has a decent chance of Us missing a game. Especially if we have a H fit. if 3N is =not= To Play and instead shows H+C, =and= you feel like taking the risk, that is another possible alternative. Pick your poison based on things we do not know here in the forums.

1D-?? Put me down for 2D! Inverted Minor Raise. Much as I like to have 4 pieces when I raise partner, I do have K98 and I dislike all my other bids even more. This also maximizes the chance that GOP will declare any NT contracts.

Richard, I am not saying I like or dislike the sequence or the method in question. I'm pointing out that it has many of the same flaws as other sequences that people have "picked on": it is a revealing sequence that tells the defense a great deal about our hands and in particular the NT hand. In addition, it makes the NT hand dummy. Given the amount of heat in some of the comments about the necessity for fast unrevealing auctions, etc... ...to be in favor of this sequence while at the same time being a forceful advocate of "pass or blast" is to some degree contradictory.

No, it just changes your options if the system designer is smart about it. I have a friend here who specifically doesn't use invitations after 1NT opening bids. He plays auctions like the following 1N-2♣;2♠-2N: Relay to 3♣ to signoff in a minor (Stayman on 2416 hand for example) or do other various strong things. 1N-2♣;2♠-3♠: Fit for spades, choice of games (for example opener will bid 3N with 4333.) He has lost options that most people are used to, but gained other options in return. Ah, but now we are considering a different discussion. Now the conversation is not "Should we systemically be able invite or should we systemically be forced to choose with invitational hands?", now the conversation is "Is this sequence better used for invitational hands or for some other hand type?" That might be considered a subtle distinction in speech by some, but it is a large distinction in bridge terms. I'll note in passing that the 1st sequence not only puts the 1N opening on the table as Dummy, it also reveals extraneous information about the (presumably) stronger of Our two hands. Both of these are usually considered less than optimal by most theorists. The second means We have to pass or blast to 4M when holding an invitational hand with a 44 major suit fit for Opener. (Unless your friend has a different way of inviting in this situation). 4M in the 44 fit is one of the most important contracts in Bridge. Being wrong about whether to be in it or not is highly likely to have a noticable effect on long term scores.

It would make for a fun thread. I'd clearly put Rosenberg first. I think Rodwell is something like 10th or so, but I also think Rosenberg is so far ahead of everyone else that even whoever is 2nd isn't close. Where textbook accurate Declarer play is concerned, I agree with you that Michael is probably #1 by a significant margin. I'm not sure I would call either Eric or Geir outside the top 10 in this regard. Also, testbook declarer play is not the only technical skill in Bridge. The overall #1 player in the world has not only this in sufficient quantity, but in addition all the other technical skills at a high enough level that when we "collapse the vector", that is "boil all the facets into one overall score", that person comes out ahead. Nonetheless, the three I mentioned are all =very= good players; and I'm glad to see we were not that far apart in our opinion.

This seems like slightly circular logic, or at least a cop-out to some degree. "Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together," We should just punt trying to find or use such methods and just pass or blast? History shows that when this was true of NT response structures, experts avoided opening in NT as much as they possibly could... ...and Theorists worked very hard to fix the problem so that pairs could evaluate how well hands fit together in this situation. Especially in the Majors or when Responder held a shapely hand. That's how we got Marx AKA Rapee AKA Stayman. That's how we got Carter AKA Jacoby and Texas Transfers. Etc, etc. It could certainly be argued that at this point in history we've swung the pendulum to the other extreme and now are often bidding too much with too little to obtain best results. That doesn't mean we should throw out all the work and good ideas of previous theorists. That means we should be more careful about when and how we use the tools available to us. My POV remains that =we should have as many choices as possible=. Systems that allow us to invite do not prohibit us from being able to blast. OTOH, systems that force us to pass or blast do prohibit us from being able to invite. Always using pass or blast or being forced to only use pass or blast is reducing the number of options you have on a specific board from 3 to 2. That's a bad thing in the long run IMHO.

What she said. On both points and the ps.