Different Multi

[chasetb]

I think Flannery belongs to museum of bidding though, along with CAPP , strong jump shifts and strong twos :)

Cappelletti is useful for the Weak NT, especially when you have to follow the ACBL GCC. Steve Robinson uses Strong Jump Shifts in his 2/1 system, Washington Standard. If you play the way Karen Walker teaches, it's actually quite useful. Of course, I play a jump shift as a Weak 2, with a system of responses and what not. Strong 2s are good for rubber bridge only, I agree with you that it could be retired.

 

I doubt anyone will look at it, but here's the SJS as used by Karen: http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/bb/b_jshift.htm

[the hog]

"Cappelletti is useful for the Weak NT"

 

No, indeed it is one of the worst conventions you can play against any strength NT. Why do you think the Cappellettis don't even play it anymore?

 

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS. Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

[bluecalm]

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS.

 

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing (maybe I mixed up terminology). I mean situation constructive bidding (not competitive) like:

1♠ - 3♣.

In competitive auctions I agree strong jump shifts have a lot of merit (I prefer playing them too)

 

Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

 

What is Izdebski transfer ?

[the hog]

I quite like strong JS and find them far more useful than WJS.

 

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing (maybe I mixed up terminology). I mean situation constructive bidding (not competitive) like:

1♠ - 3♣.

In competitive auctions I agree strong jump shifts have a lot of merit (I prefer playing them too)

 

Mind you if you play Idzdebski transfers you can do without them easily.

 

What is Izdebski transfer ?

Leading Polish bidding theorist Idzdebski has devised a system of transfers after rebids which are FAR superior to nmf and XYX.

For example

1C 1H

1N 2D = trf to H

2D 3H = now equival to strong JS.

 

There are many many different continuations of course and it can get quite complicated. I wrote a post on this quite a while ago.

[glen]

...For example

1C 1H

1N  2D  = trf to H

2D  3H  = now equival to strong JS.

 

There are many many different continuations of course and it can get quite complicated. I wrote a post on this quite a while ago and good luck finding it since searching on Idzdebski only turns up this thread or you can go to this link: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...49&hl=Idzdebski.

but not everybody has the extra space of 2♦-2♦

 

and then you get:

Q. wats 2♦?

A. transfer to ♥s

Q. didn't you already bid ♥s?

A. yes

Q. so how can you transfer to them?

A. the same way you can say suit symbols like ♥s in example conversations

P. I think 2♦ is a puppet to 2♥, not a transfer

Q. maybe its a relay?

[the hog]

No its not a relay, as you are bidding out your shape. A relay asks, Glen.

[hanp]

2D is not a transfer Ron, it doesn't show hearts.

 

It is a puppet but at the table I'd just say "forces 2H, can be several kinds of hands".

[the hog]

2D is not a transfer Ron, it doesn't show hearts.

 

It is a puppet but at the table I'd just say "forces 2H, can be several kinds of hands".

Han, I am notdescribing NMF or XYZ or whatever.

Idzdebski has proposed a method where the 2D bid in my example IS a transfer, because it does show Hs.

 

Opener is obliged to rebid 2H. A sequence like:

1C 1H

1N 2H Is a transfer to S, invit at least.

 

Other examples

1H 1S

1N

Now 2C Puppet to 2D, invit hands, weak with Ds, or GF with Ds

2D T/f to 2H. T/play or GF

2H T/f to S. T/p with 6S or GF

2S Invit in NT, or sign off with long C, or 5/5 GF with S & C

2N Strong slammish, opener bids 4 card suit if he has it or 3N with 5332

 

 

Whether it is a t/f or not might be semantic.

[gwnn]

In ACBL a relay is defined as

 

Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

 

I like your definition better Hog (relay is an asking bid) but ACBL doesn't agree.

[Free]

In ACBL a relay is defined as

 

Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

 

I like your definition better Hog (relay is an asking bid) but ACBL doesn't agree.

Seems like they play aweful relay systems over there, if you have to (usually) bid the next-step bid after a relay :lol:

 

There's a big difference between a transfer and a puppet: partner is allowed to break a transfer, but a puppet obligates him 100% to make a certain call. So the question is if opener is obligated to bid 2♥ in Hog's example or not.