Is there a glaring hole in this

[hrothgar]

 

 

4♥ = stiff ♥

4♠ = stiff ♠

4N = 7222

5♣ = stiff ♦

5♦ = stiff ♣

 

is there any reason not to invert the 4M responses ?

 

 

Inverting this increases the chance that the opponents can make a profitable lead directing double

[Cyberyeti]

For the purposes of this I assume your G3N is the "no more than Qs outside" version.

 

3N-4♦ most people use this as a shortage ask with replies along the lines of:

 

4♥ = stiff ♥

4♠ = stiff ♠

4N = 7222

5♣ = stiff ♦

5♦ = stiff ♣

 

is there any reason not to invert the 4M responses ?

 

It occurs to me that there are some hands where partner having the knowledge that you have at least a doubleton in the heart suit and a singleton spade means that you can advantageously play 4♥ instead of 5m (or indeed 6♥ instead of 6♦ where you know that pard is not 1-1 in the majors) for a better matchpoint score where you might not fancy it opposite a singleton or void.

 

I don't think it gains very often but I don't think it costs at all.

[WellSpyder]

Inverting this increases the chance that the opponents can make a profitable lead directing double

But perhaps reduces the change that they can make a profitable contract-directing double?

[PhilKing]

Can it really be worth it?

 

The only bid that even glances in my direction is the light workload borne by 4♥.

[Zelandakh]

I have had precisely the same thought myself. On the other hand, perhaps we can do even better by packing the 4♥ bid with a second hand type. For example:

 

4♥ = singleton in spades or clubs

... - 4♠ = to play opposite spade length

... - ... - P = single club

... - ... - 4NT = single spade

... - 4NT = ask

... - ... - 5♣ = single spade

... - ... - 5♦ = single club

4♠ = single heart

4NT = 22(27)

5♣ = single diamond

 

I am sure this can be improved on significantly with some thought. Whether it is worth it for the frequency of this type of 3NT opening is another matter.

[PhilKing]

I have had precisely the same thought myself. On the other hand, perhaps we can do even better by packing the 4♥ bid with a second hand type. For example:

 

4♥ = singleton in spades or clubs

... - 4♠ = to play opposite spade length

... - ... - P = single club

... - ... - 4NT = single spade

... - 4NT = ask

... - ... - 5♣ = single spade

... - ... - 5♦ = single club

 

 

The duality of 4♥ should be the 7222 - ie stiff spade or 7222, else responder is stuck when slam is on opposite a stiff spade but not facing ♦ shortage.

 

Lol ok reread - your way works. Need a coffee.

[wank]

the glaring hole is that you'll be dead by the time you get dealt a hand to use it profitably.

[Cyberyeti]

the glaring hole is that you'll be dead by the time you get dealt a hand to use it profitably.

This was my only negative thought, but since you invert the minor suits anyway, it didn't seem like much if any extra brainpower.

[ArtK78]

It always surprises me when so much thought goes into bids that occur once a year at best.

 

When these bids come up, are they remembered?

[Cyberyeti]

It always surprises me when so much thought goes into bids that occur once a year at best.

 

When these bids come up, are they remembered?

We have a couple of bids that have never come up in 5 years that we do remember because we discuss system periodically.

 

Example - responding to a natural 4♦ - 5♣ is "I have the nuts outside but only small singleton or void in your suit, how good is your suit ?".

[Phil]

It always surprises me when so much thought goes into bids that occur once a year at best.

 

When these bids come up, are they remembered?

 

LOL, exactly. I mean, its fun to talk about these things, but when a serious partnership starts making these changes, I really question their approach. A change like this results in a very negligible improvement in efficiency. You might need for this situation to come up 10 times, since 5 times it won't matter and you'll gain on 3 and lose on two. Even if you are playing 300 boards a week with this partner, GL with all that.

 

Its not just enough to agree to play something like this. When it comes up in the heat of battle, when things matter, do you have the intestinal fortitude to make the call? Do you have 100% confidence that partner will remember? Even if you have a clear sequence, are you both 100% sure that the other one remembers as things are going along? Even when you get to the right spot, and breathe a sigh of relief, you have expended mental energy worrying about a, b, c and d already. In a long match, don't be surprised if this baggage manifests itself in other ways.

 

In my notes with Markleon, there are about 10 areas highlighted in cyan (meaning "hard to remember"). This is the stuff that never comes up, and I stress about these auctions.

 

We aren't cyborgs. Smart partnerships think of things to make their life easier, not tougher.

[JLOGIC]

I have heard of people playing this way fwiw. It is probably fine but I agree with others that it basically doesn't matter. The risk of me forgetting would stop me from playing it heh.

[the_clown]

Why bother on a complex agreement about a situation that occurs once a year?

[Zelandakh]

LOL, exactly. I mean, its fun to talk about these things, but when a serious partnership starts making these changes, I really question their approach.

I think this is the crux of things and BBF is a perfect place to discuss the theoretical merits of unusual approaches, something I enjoy immensely and, (possibly) behind Ken, am probably the single biggest abuser of. On the other hand, I would only actually implement these kinds of agreements if I could do so in a logical and consistent way across many auctions. Sometimes the theoretical discussions do lead to spotting a pattern that allows this, usually not. A Gambling 3NT opening is obviously a rare thing and it is difficult for a patternt o emerge for this hand type. On the other hand, if you have many bids for showing solid suits in your system and an improved method was applicable across all of them then it might make some sense to use that, even when the frequency of any given bid occurring in isolation is low.

[Free]

Yeah, I used to reverse the Majors and I find it quite obvious. You make the auction NF because partner can pass. Never came up though...

[Finch]

Why bother on a complex agreement about a situation that occurs once a year?

 

Once a year? I've never had the 4D response to a 3NT opening come up and I've been playing a lot of boards/year for quite a few years.

It's not going to come up now because we've changed our 3NT opening to mean something else (prompted partly by discussions on BBF...)

 

Mind you, I recently suggested meanings for 3NT and 4-level responses to 2C but my partner refused to discuss them (3NT = straight blackwood for aces, 4-suit = keycard in that suit)