BPO-006E

[joker_gib]

hmm...all this talk about how we can invite...I wonder if I was the only one who considered this a 4S bid.

No, my vote goes to 4S, we are playing IMP's,

we are red.

There is certainly no way, that we will find out,

if 4S has play or not, ... on a long auction it gets

more likely that they will find the winning defence.

 

Marlowe

Same for me !

 

Alain

[Gerben42]

I bid 4♠. This will make opposite some minimum hands and go down opposite some maximum hands. Worth a try, anyway.

 

If partner bid 1NT on a singleton ♠ even though he knows he shouldn't with me as partner, let's hope it's a singleton honor which he devalued when choosing his opening bid.

[pigpenz]

it will take us awhile to get into the nuances of BBO advances as probably not very many of us actually play it all the way.

[sceptic]

2S signoff? wow.

 

why wow, the times I have jumped to 4 spades or used nmf to get to 4 and gone down, , I did not think 2 spades was that unrealistic :D mind you, some of you may play ur cards a bit better than me lol

[inquiry]

As I noted earlier in this thread, this question had to do with evaluation and method. Is this a force to game hand (7 or 13 panelist thought so), or is this an invite hand (6 or 13 thought so). And if it is an invitational hand, how do you go about inviting using the “two way new minor forcing” method advocated by BBO Advanced (and if this means XYZ or not).

 

I don’t’ think we got a clear cut answer to any of these questions. : - ( For one thing, unlike the earlier questions, the pane did not speak with a unified voice. For another, those choosing to invite either went with 3♠ invitational (some saying if it was invitational), some used a 2♣ puppet planning on jump rebidding to 3♠, and one (henri) voted for 3♠ but raised the question if 2NT was a puppet to 3♣ he would use that bid followed by 3♠ to invite.

 

I guess I am surprised by the 3♠ bidders simply because I would have thought 3♠ was forcing and slam invitational. For one reason, because in xyz as I understand it, that bid is forcing and slam try. So this leads me to think something else must have been proposed instead of xzy.

 

Let’s start off with the invitational group.

 

Fred 3S. 2S is not enough, 4S is too much, 3S is just right.

 

mikeh 3♠ if this is invitational. If it is forcing (I could not see any definition in the system summary), then 2♣ followed by 3♠. 4♠ is very tempting, but partner should raise to game with anything but a soft minimum.

 

reisig 3S Invitational

 

ritong 3♠. invite. surprised ? :-) OK, if i have 2nt puppet to 3♣ available, i use it and follow with 3♠, because it amuses me and i find it is a nice tool for inviting, with one or two suits. means that both direct 3♠ & checkback followed with 3♠ are forcing, one with solid slam ambitions, the other asking for good hand.

 

Fluffy 2♣ then 3♠, looks like a book's example for a 7 card invitational.

 

Roland 2C. Puppet to 2D, and then I follow up with 3S, invitational with 6+ spades. 2S could be high enough though. 7 spades yes, but 2-2-2 in the side suits. It's too much of a gamble to leap to game directly. Partner is there to help you, so ask him for help when you're not certain.

 

The 4♠ bidders considered at this vul, invite was not enough. At least Gabor discussed that using 2♣ as invite or 2♦ as game force (xyz-ish) as other possibilities).

 

Beto 4♠. Let them find the right lead. I dont invite on hands like this. There are a lot of minimum hands that 4♠ is cold and there are also a lot of maximum hands that 4♠ is always down, so why put partner under pressure?

 

Frances & Jeffrey 4S and see if it makes. We clearly haven't discussed the continuations after a 1NT rebid in detail, so there's no point trying to find a delicate sequence to offer choice of games, or show this type of invitational hand.

 

Luis 4s. Vulnerable this should be universal. Won't make a prediction because predictions about a universal vote never work but is there any option? I strongly hate any invitational bid with this hand specially being vulnerable.

Sergey 4S. See no problem

 

Ng 4S. We are in Vul, so I try it. Invitational checkback (2C) or game forcing checkback (2D) does not help too much here, I would bid game anyway, so I don’t give information to opponents for the opening lead.

 

Jlall 4S. The only problem this set that didn't torture me. This hand is easily worth a game bid with 7 trumps and very good honors. Sure it's not a guarantee that we will make, but no invitational bid does justice to this hand. Slam is pretty remote, so I won't give up information trying for it.

 

Gerben42 4♠. Game will make opposite many minima and go down opposite some maxima, so inviting won't help much.

 

So all in all, this question left me as much in the dark about the method over 1x-1y-1z as before I asked it. But there was a winner here, the majority thought this hand too good to invite. Wouldn’t it be great if you had a way to Invite where partner HAD TO bid game on all but the very worse misfit hands? And another way to invite where he bid games on only the best fit close to maximum hands? With xyz such should be possible. I like 3♠ as GF, 2♣ followed by 3♠ to show this hand – bid game on all but exceptionally horrible hands, 2NT (puppet) followed by 3♠ as closer to normalish invite, and 2♣ followed by 2♠ as the mildest of game tries. Perhaps we should agree to play Mikeh detailed xyz methods posted here within the forums.

 

Since there 3♠ and 2♣ bidders both meant to invite, I have group those together for scoring purposes, and give them the same score.

4♠  7  100

3♠  4   80

2♣  2   80

[Blofeld]

Ben, you seem to have got Justin's comments from the wrong hand.

[inquiry]

Ben, you seem to have got Justin's comments from the wrong hand.

Thanks I fixed it.

[han]

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

 

I propose XYZ is included in BBO-advanced, at least for future poll problems. Since there are many different versions available, we should pick one. I like the one that mikeh showed on the forum. It may be a bit too advanced for some BBO-advanced players.

[luke warm]

the system we're playing gives 2C as the only invitational sequence after the bidding shown.. given that as true (if it is true), 3S can't be invitational, eh?

 

if 2 regular posters on the forum were playing bbo 2/1 advanced, the question is how would they view a 3S bid, knowing 2C is the invitational bid and 2D is the game force bid? in that context, i can see either 4S or 2C (with 2D a distant 3rd), but not 3S unless looking for a slam

 

given the constraints of the system, how is 3S invitational? what would *you* think is going on if partner bid 3S here?

[Gerben42]

edit: after this hand and discussion, i think the phrase '2 way nmf' should be taken out and either 2 way checkback or xyz substituted

 

I don't agree: Not everyone will be familiar with "XYZ", however many know Checkback Stayman, i.e. 2♣ always the asking bid, or NMF.

 

I'm for 1-way CBS myself, never needed more ways.

[Winstonm]

the system we're playing gives 2C as the only invitational sequence after the bidding shown.. given that as true (if it is true), 3S can't be invitational, eh?

 

if 2 regular posters on the forum were playing bbo 2/1 advanced, the question is how would they view a 3S bid, knowing 2C is the invitational bid and 2D is the game force bid? in that context, i can see either 4S or 2C (with 2D a distant 3rd), but not 3S unless looking for a slam

 

given the constraints of the system, how is 3S invitational? what would *you* think is going on if partner bid 3S here?

Another way to look at this is "if 2D is a game force, how can a direct 3S be forcing?".

 

IMO, the invitational sequence of 2C shows a hand that needs a decent fit to become much value: K9xxxx, x, xx, AQxx whereas the direct jump shows a similar hand with a much better suit, playable opposite xx.

 

Winston

[pclayton]

I opted for 4♠ - what Meckstroth would bid :)

 

At least I don't have to engage myself in the whole NMF / 2-way / XYZ discussion :)

[fred]

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

I think you will find that, in most bidding contests, most panelists do not concern themselves very much with the system that they are forced to use. The questions we are asked to answer are "what would you bid using this system?", not "what do you think the system should be?".

 

As I have said before, BBO Advanced is not a well-defined system. I am hopeful that the process of creating "default convention cards" for the new BBO-FD facility will change this. Most likely either an existing well-defined system (like Bridge World Standard) will become BBO Advanced, or BBO Advanced will be defined at least partly as a function of what BBO Forums regular want it to be.

 

In my opinion, if you have 2 ways to invite with 6+ cards in responder's major, you should differentiate between hands that are willing to play in 3NT and those that are not.

 

I was kind of surprised that nobody mentioned the word 3NT in their answers (or answered 3NT for that matter!).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

IMO, the invitational sequence of 2C shows a hand that needs a decent fit to become much value: K9xxxx, x, xx, AQxx whereas the direct jump shows a similar hand with a much better suit, playable opposite xx.

 

Winston

i disagree... 1x/1y/1nt/2c/2d/3s shows this exactly, imo... therefore, 3s after 1nt can be either a slam try or a (semi)solid suit with an outside entry that's suitable for nt... anything actually, except an invite in spades :P

 

roland has an excellent article on 2 way ckback, maybe he'll post it somewhere...

[mikeh]

I'm disappointed that only one panel member discusses the merits of having different ways to invite. I do think that this is a good problem, the invite/bid game question is still interesting, and as the panel proves very close.

 

 

In my opinion, if you have 2 ways to invite with 6+ cards in responder's major, you should differentiate between hands that are willing to play in 3NT and those that are not.

 

In the version of 2-way checkback I posted earlier, the default meaning of 3♠ was slamming. However, in one partnership we play that 3♠ is invitational, but not interested in 3N while going through 2♣ then 3♠ involves 3N as a possible destination. I think that this is slightly superior to 3♠ slamming partly because games are more frequent than slams and partly because you will have more room on slam auctions than on game auctions.

[Walddk]

roland has an excellent article on 2 way ckback, maybe he'll post it somewhere...

Let's see if this works:

 

http://www.2over1.com/modules/wfsection/ar...hp?articleid=12

 

If not, you will have to go through

 

http://www.2over1.com/ and register. Click on "Lessons" and find the one on "2-way Checkback Stayman". Don't worry, no fee involved.

 

I am not claiming that I found the philosophers' stone, but it's one way of doing it. When I think about it, I am not sure how I managed to investigate before "XY-NT" was introduced. Can't remember, perhaps I guessed and punted more than necessary.

 

Roland

 

P.S.: I now realise that you must register as a user first. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

[luke warm]

i almost just posted the whole thing here, but roland has it formatted so nicely that it would lose something, i think... i think it's better if anyone interested just goes via his links above and views the article with the example hands he gives

 

i know i'm prejudiced, but i like this system much better than xyz

[JLOGIC]

I would take 3S as a 1 suited SLAM try playing 2 way NMF. Not sure if this is "standard" or even if its defined by the system.

 

I am not sure I understand this problem when we don't know the difference between a direct 3♠ (yes i know this is forcing in xyz but I doubt it is in standard 2-way nmf) and 2♣ followed by 3♠. I guess we agree that this is an invite.

 

Arend

 

We both really didn't know how to play 2 way NMF in 2005? haha