Acol or more general weak NT issue

[dake50]

Double should be the 15-17 NT or equivalent. --mfa1010

*** Agree. But 15's must be excellent.

And responder has many 'try to quit low' bids.

Get the little hands to a reasonable spot.

Even making game-on hands harder to show.

(those are rare in a competing auction.)

[jogs]

As someone who has studied Game Theory (and got the equivalent of a First in it) I will say that this statement is completely meaningless unless you back it up in some way. Bridge has been moving away from such considerations constantly for over 60 years now. What new breakthrough have you found in the scientific research to reverse this trend?

 

Actually due to the importance of trump length, I think 4-card majors is passé. 5-card majors makes it easier to bid slams. Identify those 5-4 fits quickly.

[Cyberyeti]

Actually due to the importance of trump length, I think 4-card majors is passé. 5-card majors makes it easier to bid slams. Identify those 5-4 fits quickly.

 

Opening the minors with 4M4m in a weak NT context means that your majors are always 5+ cards unless you are 44(32) or are (43)33 in a 15+ hand, so all minimum hands are 5+ anyway which is where it's most important in competitive auctions.

 

Opening the major frequently wrongsides NT as with 17 opposite 8, I'd rather the auction started 1♣-1♦-1N rather than 1♥-1N.

 

And MFA, we've only flushed 3N down the toilet when partner's spade holding is vulnerable AND we have 9 off the top which is far from guaranteed.

[Wackojack]

Of my 3 of my Acol partners with 2 they like to play this as a support double (guaranteeing extras) Thus very likely a strong no trump with no spade stop. Not a fan of Acol I am pleased that this works here. btw they will never skip a 4 card diamond suit if no longer major and will always open 1♣ with another 4 card suit.

[benlessard]

Big lol to 1NT here.

 

Either a support X or pass jsut look totally normal.

[Cyberyeti]

Big lol to 1NT here.

 

Either a support X or pass jsut look totally normal.

 

Do you still pass if it's 17 (with Q♥ rather than x) rather than 15 given that support X is not available (X shows 4♥)

[benlessard]

when you pass 1S you should still have a strong NT or 4S. Since with an unbalanced hand you can bid 2C,2D or X (no matter what the X show).

 

So 1NT should show 16-17 with a stopper. Passing, waiting for the balancing X and bidding 1NT show 4S or 15 bal.

 

With 17 without a stopper I might X even if that tend to show 4H in your system but IMO its no big deal to pass with 17 and only 2D with no S stoppers.

 

If partner pass in balance you wont make game anyway, if he bid 1NT you have an easy raise if he double you can cuebid.

 

Note that usually most play Walsh so after 1D responder will only hold 4H if hes got a good hand so that why the X is better showing 3D than showing 4H.

 

 

An idea that I like for the weak NT

 

1D--1NT should show 8-9 or 8-bad10 so that vs 16-17 opener make another call. With 6-7 or good10+ its ok to bid a 3 card M or 2NT.

Over 1C its basically the same thing, 1D is often 6-7 or 10+ or a 6 card suit. The main drawback is that opener cannot raise on 3 cards.

[Cyberyeti]

An idea that I like for the weak NT

 

1D--1NT should show 8-9 or 8-bad10 so that vs 16-17 opener make another call. With 6-7 or good10+ its ok to bid a 3 card M or 2NT.

Over 1C its basically the same thing, 1D is often 6-7 or 10+ or a 6 card suit. The main drawback is that opener cannot raise on 3 cards.

 

Since the whole point of what we play is in most circumstances not to play 3N from the weak hand with 16/9, this is exactly what I don't want to play.

[cherdano]

Weak NT is just too difficult to play for weak NTers.

(With apologies to David Hilbert.)

[wanoff]

Weak NT is just too difficult to play for weak NTers.

(With apologies to David Hilbert.)

 

Not too difficult if you keep it simple. 1NT opening = 12-14, 1NT rebid = 15-17, dbl = 15+ (not 15-17 with a stop)

[Vampyr]

Opening the minors with 4M4m in a weak NT context means that your majors are always 5+ cards unless you are 44(32) or are (43)33 in a 15+ hand, so all minimum hands are 5+ anyway which is where it's most important in competitive auctions.

 

Opening the major frequently wrongsides NT as with 17 opposite 8, I'd rather the auction started 1♣-1♦-1N rather than 1♥-1N.

 

And MFA, we've only flushed 3N down the toilet when partner's spade holding is vulnerable AND we have 9 off the top which is far from guaranteed.

 

Unfortunately (at least for me when I play with an Acol partner) it is for some reason much more popular to open the major with 4-4.

[Vampyr]

please delete duplicate.

[akwoo]

OK, then I think in your system you probably need to include 15-bad17 without a stop as a possibility with a pass here and cue with a good 17 or better and no stop. Since you have X = hearts, the hands within the pass are all going to have good defence and low ODR so you can probably survive this.

 

This is what I think.

 

For the record, I pass, and if the low heart was a Q, I consider it a good 17 and cue.

[cherdano]

Weak NT is just too difficult to play for weak NTers.

(With apologies to David Hilbert.)

 

 

Not too difficult if you keep it simple. 1NT opening = 12-14, 1NT rebid = 15-17, dbl = 15+ (not 15-17 with a stop)

 

Weak NTers pretending that strong NTs aren't difficult to handle in competition won't exactly change my mind on this...

[the hog]

Double should be the 15-17 NT or equivalent. It is intolerable to bid 1N here with xxx in spades.

 

Having played Acol for many years, I totally concur with this statement. Bidding 1NT is absurd with this hand. It certainly shows a stopper. We always showed the strong NT with a X in this position. I see no reason not to do it on this hand.

[the hog]

Actually due to the importance of trump length, I think 4-card majors is passé. 5-card majors makes it easier to bid slams. Identify those 5-4 fits quickly.

 

Sorry, this is hijacking this thread, but a comment like Jogs' needs a reply.

Actually I think 4 card Ms is better. It is more pre emptive and lets you find 4-4 fits much more quickly. Look at the Hacketts and Auken von Arnim, (though the latter play 4 CMs in a BC context).

The popularity of 5 card Ms is that most players are familiar with them and they are taught to beginners.

[Zelandakh]

Actually due to the importance of trump length, I think 4-card majors is passé. 5-card majors makes it easier to bid slams. Identify those 5-4 fits quickly.

Another unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion. Are you trolling? I take it from your silence that your previous post about Game Theory was hot air and simply trying to make your position sound "scientific" somehow.

 

The truth is that both 4 and 5 card majors have pros and cons and it depends on the rest of the system as to which works best. Identifying 5-4 fits quickly is great but we are not exactly going to be missing those often. Identifying 4-4 fits immediately and pressurising the opponents is also valuable. Then there is the half-way house of 5♠4♥ (Swiss Acol, etc) to throw into the mix. Your statement above is misleading because it ignores the complexities of the issue - unless you have something new to add to the debate (which has been going on longer than I have been alive).

[Cyberyeti]

Having played Acol for many years, I totally concur with this statement. Bidding 1NT is absurd with this hand. It certainly shows a stopper. We always showed the strong NT with a X in this position. I see no reason not to do it on this hand.

 

My choice at the table was between 1N and a slow pass as I had to think about it. I'm convinced now that playing what I play pass is the right bid (although I'm still not sure about the 17 count case) but have an aversion to slow passes in situations where partner may well have a marginal bid, so bid 1N.

[jddons]

I also held N but at my table W opened 2S weak (think opp forgot to mention an initial pass). So with the North hand, what's your poison? A double without hearts, 3C without a 6th club, pass with a much stronger hand than partner might expect or 2N without a stop! (wouldn't have thought of this without the previous discussion!)

[johnu]

My choice at the table was between 1N and a slow pass as I had to think about it.

 

There's also the choice between 1NT, slow 1NT, very slow 1NT :lol:

[helene_t]

I also held N but at my table W opened 2S weak (think opp forgot to mention an initial pass). So with the North hand, what's your poison?

3♣. WTP? I have a good suit.

[jogs]

Another unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion. Are you trolling? I take it from your silence that your previous post about Game Theory was hot air and simply trying to make your position sound "scientific" somehow.

 

 

Yes, you are right. I'm actually using only ANOVA in most auctions. Nearly all bidding systems are point count based. They should be thinking more in terms of trick taking.

 

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e(rror)

 

For trumps =4+4 and =5+4 the error is a normal curve with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of approximately 1.25.

 

The extra trump on average generates one additional trick.

 

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + SST + e(rror)

 

When you add Lawrence/Wirgren's short suit totals, you can improve those estimates. The std dev drops to 1 for flat patterns.

[jddons]

3♣. WTP? I have a good suit.

thanks for your reply. the problem was centre hand opponent who decided the 5 level was where we wanted to be. then blamed me for bidding 3C!

[Cyberyeti]

thanks for your reply. the problem was centre hand opponent who decided the 5 level was where we wanted to be. then blamed me for bidding 3C!

 

TBF the 5 level is where you want to be but you are defeated by the 4-0 diamond break and 4-1 club break. You were however playing in the wrong suit, but from the right hand.

[Zelandakh]

Expected(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e(rror)

You post this formula regularly and for me it is no different from your Game Theory reference earlier, an attempt to make your point of view sound "scientific". Note the "+e" component is redundant in the context of a hand evaluation and only adds "effect" (E for effect). To put it in context, what your eveluation scheme say is that you need 26hcp to make game with an 8 card fit and each additional trump is worth 3hcp regardless of the rest of the distribution including shortages. I know of no evidence to suggest this is more accurate than any of the alternatives, nor that it has any practical use at the table.