Where do bad players get their ideas from?

[barmar]

This discussion has gotten way off-topic. There has to be a better place to discuss the merits of response structures to mini-NT.

[PhantomSac]

Fair enough sry

[cherdano]

What, exactly, is wrong with thread drift once the original question has run it's course?

It's not like we have "ignore this thread" buttons on BBF anyway...

[Vampyr]

It is really six of one and a half-dozen of the other. If you happen to have the perfect takeout double of the suit that the opposition wants to declare at the 2 level, fine. Then you are in a great position. For all those times when you don't happen to have that hand, the 2 of a major bid really puts it to you.

 

It would be interesting to know the frequencies of various hand types.

[Vampyr]

What, exactly, is wrong with thread drift once the original question has run it's course?

 

Yes, let's move on to the discourtesy of failing to proofread I'm afraid I am sometimes guilty of this, usually due to the aggressive auto-correct on my mini tablet.

[the hog]

I am not focusing on rightsiding - I am merely incorporating it into the methods. There is certainly no reason to avoid rightsiding the contract if you can accomplish it.

 

I am focusing on bringing partner into the picture as soon as possible. If our goal is game (at a minimum) or slam, partner should know immediately. If our goal is game (at a maximum) or safety, partner should know that as well. He will be in a better position to deal with potential competition if he is aware of our potential and our limitations as soon as possible. It also means that after a "nonforcing" 2♣ Stayman bid that every bid can be passed. I can't think of any bid by either partner after a 2♣ response that is forcing (except for the 2♣ bid itself).

 

You certainly can bid 2♣ followed by 3NT. I can't stop you from doing it. You are violating system for reasons known only to you. I can only assume that you believe that your hand has no need to declare a potential major suit contract and you were trying to steer the declarership to me. OK, I can buy that. But you will be hard pressed to come up with a good example of such a hand where you KNOW that this is the case.

 

 

And you appear to be playing conventions where some bids are meaningless. What a poor example of system design.

[PhantomSac]

What, exactly, is wrong with thread drift once the original question has run it's course?

It's not like we have "ignore this thread" buttons on BBF anyway...

 

I mean, in classical INTERNET FORUM POSTING, if you side track to something, you can create a new thread about it from the debate spawned in the initial thread, and then you don't de-rail the original thread. I actually think this is the correct system, though possibly too idyllic, and agree with barmar.

[ArtK78]

And you appear to be playing conventions where some bids are meaningless. What a poor example of system design.

I see. So what is the meaning in your system of a call which shows less than game forcing values followed by 5NT? Don't have a meaning for it? Must be poor system design.

[the hog]

Art, as usual in these cases, your analogy is absurd. I commented on a sequence which lead to a common contract and which could easily have a specific meaning assigned to it. You otoh pulled a sequence out of your arse. However if you assume that respnders,"less than gf" was forcing, I would assume that pd and I have a meta agreement - in to a grand cancelling the first bid. Hard to know unless you provide a specific auction.

[ArtK78]

Art, as usual in these cases, your analogy is absurd. I commented on a sequence which lead to a common contract and which could easily have a specific meaning assigned to it. You otoh pulled a sequence out of your arse. However if you assume that respnders,"less than gf" was forcing, I would assume that pd and I have a meta agreement - in to a grand cancelling the first bid. Hard to know unless you provide a specific auction.

I admit that I was being flippant, but I just don't see any validity to your criticism.

 

I don't see why there should be a meaning assigned to a bid that shows less than game forcing values followed by a game bid when partner shows no extra values. It is contradictory. But you can go ahead and assign whatever meaning you like.

[barmar]

What, exactly, is wrong with thread drift once the original question has run it's course?

It's not clear that the original topic had really run its course. Rather, the tangent has swamped the thread, so it's hard to recognize the original topic.

 

Plus, the thread title doesn't describe the new discussion well, so people reading the thread listing will be misled.

[Vampyr]

It is really six of one and a half-dozen of the other. If you happen to have the perfect takeout double of the suit that the opposition wants to declare at the 2 level, fine. Then you are in a great position. For all those times when you don't happen to have that hand, the 2 of a major bid really puts it to you.

 

If the 2M bid is terminal, what problems are you suggesting the other side has?

[PhilKing]

If the 2M bid is terminal, what problems are you suggesting the other side has?

 

The problems come when they are in 4th seat.

 

It goes 1NT(mini) pass 2♦(transfer). You can double immediately to show a good all-round hand, or you can pass and double to show a take-out double. You also have the option to make a direct overcall to show solid values and a delayed one if you just want to compete, and you even have a direct cheap Michael's cue available. Against a direct weak take out, you have way fewer options.

 

This is slightly balanced by being fractionally worse off in second seat.

 

I'm amazed the "must not play transfers over a mini" brigade did not make their case more forcefully. Perhaps, they thought quoting a few big names was sufficient.

[rhm]

If you just want to play 3N or 4M depending on whether your partner has a major suit fit, start with 2C to avoid (more) information leakage. If you care about something else for slam or choice of game purposes, start with 2D. Don't consider 2D stayman, just consider it a game forcing relay.

You did not answer the question

 

What would

 

1NT 2♦

2 bananas - 3NT

 

imply?

 

That responder would have been interested in a minor suit slam if opener had shown a five card minor?

If that is true isn't that a different form of information leakage, at least at matchpoints, and though nobody does it shouldn't opener alert 3NT?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

The problems come when they are in 4th seat.

 

It goes 1NT(mini) pass 2♦(transfer). You can double immediately to show a good all-round hand, or you can pass and double to show a take-out double.

True, except that after a transfer, you do not know whether you can make a takeout double after passing first. The auction may continue: 1NT-pass-2♦-pass; 3♥-pass-pass-??

or 1NT-pass-2♦-pass; 2♥-pass-3♥-??. So the strategy to double immediately with big hands and to pass first and then double for takeout may not be optimal.

 

I think it is much better to double immediately with big (typically balanced) hands and to cue immediately with takeout double shapes (where partner will assume we have about 10-15). That is a reason why one "should" play weak takeouts in response to mini NTs.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

True, except that after a transfer, you do not know whether you can make a takeout double after passing first. The auction may continue: 1NT-pass-2♦-pass; 3♥-pass-pass-??

or 1NT-pass-2♦-pass; 2♥-pass-3♥-??. So the strategy to double immediately with big hands and to pass first and then double for takeout may not be optimal.

 

I think it is much better to double immediately with big (typically balanced) hands and to cue immediately with takeout double shapes (where partner will assume we have about 10-15). That is a reason why one "should" play weak takeouts in response to mini NTs.

 

Rik

 

I don't think cue bidding to show a standard take-out double is remotely sound, but that is not relevant the point I was making.

[rhm]

I don't see why there should be a meaning assigned to a bid that shows less than game forcing values followed by a game bid when partner shows no extra values. It is contradictory. But you can go ahead and assign whatever meaning you like.

This is a common concept:

Playing 2 way Stayman (admittedly a misnomer) 1NT opener works on the assumption that 2♣ is at most invitational.

However, since the Stayman 2♣ is forcing for one round there is nothing wrong to incorporate some game forcing hands as well. You can not call this a system violation, it is a sort of system optimization.

 

Note the similarity with a forcing 1NT response over a major suit opening.

Usually 1NT is limited by the failure to respond at the two level.

But again there is nothing wrong with incorporating some game forcing hands into the 1NT response.

 

Of course you can not do this if 1NT is semi-forcing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

This is a common concept:

Playing 2 way Stayman (admittedly a misnomer) 1NT opener works on the assumption that 2♣ is at most invitational.

However, since the Stayman 2♣ is forcing for one round there is nothing wrong to incorporate some game forcing hands as well. You can not call this a system violation, it is a sort of system optimization.

 

Note the similarity with a forcing 1NT response over a major suit opening.

Usually 1NT is limited by the failure to respond at the two level.

But again there is nothing wrong with incorporating some game forcing hands into the 1NT response.

 

Of course you can not do this if 1NT is semi-forcing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You can do this, but, IMO, it is not optimal to do so.

 

Announcing to opener that game is only possible if opener has a maximum (and that it may not be possible even then) by the 2♣ response is important. It sets limits for if and how far opener's side is willing to compete should the auction become competitive.

 

As for incorporating various strong hands into the forcing 1NT response, a similar thought process applies. I know many players whose opinions I respect who strongly believe that a 1NT forcing response should not include ANY game forcing hands.

 

I agree with you that using the 2♣ "nonforcing Stayman" response to the mini-NT opening to include various types of game forcing hands may have theoretical advantages. In a world where your opponents remain silent it is probably a fine concept. But I am more concerned with the practical advantages of knowing that responder has less than game forcing values but not a single suited drop dead bid.

 

Similarly with the 1NT forcing response. It is important to know that responder has less than game forcing values in determining if and how far opener's side is willing to compete.

[the hog]

<br>This is a common concept: <br>Playing 2 way Stayman (admittedly a misnomer) 1NT opener works on the assumption that 2♣ is at most invitational. <br>However, since the Stayman 2♣ is forcing for one round there is nothing wrong to incorporate some game forcing hands as well. You can not call this a system violation, it is a sort of system optimization. <br><br>Note the similarity with a forcing 1NT response over a major suit opening. <br>Usually 1NT is limited by the failure to respond at the two level. <br>But again there is nothing wrong with incorporating some game forcing hands into the 1NT response.<br><br>Of course you can not do this if 1NT is semi-forcing. <br><br>Rainer Herrmann<br>

<br><br><br>I totally agree, Rainer. If you have an interest in optimizing your conventions and the effectiveness, then you would clearly incorporate some gf sequences into the 2c bid; this is obvious. If you play a fnt response to 1M, the same argument holds. Many now of course play a semi forcing NT and that negates the latter argument.<br><br>To not include some strong sequences into 2c so that opener knows how far he can compete is funny beyond words and shows a total lack of understandind of system design.<br><br>Arguments such ad "I know many players I respect who do blahblah" are meaningless nonsense. You need to present a sensible and coherent example and rationale of system design, not appeal to meaningless authority.

 

I repeat, bad players get their ideas from a number of players who post in fora such as these. Giving the oops the knowledge that your hand contains limited values gives them a blueprint to compete - come in boys, we are going to bend over an die.

[Vampyr]

I don't think cue bidding to show a standard take-out double is remotely sound, but that is not relevant the point I was making.

 

What would you use (1NT)-P-(2♦)-2♥ for instead?

[gwnn]

Michaels.

[PhilKing]

What would you use (1NT)-P-(2♦)-2♥ for instead?

 

Spades and a minor.

[ArtK78]

<br><br><br>I totally agree, Rainer. If you have an interest in optimizing your conventions and the effectiveness, then you would clearly incorporate some gf sequences into the 2c bid; this is obvious. If you play a fnt response to 1M, the same argument holds. Many now of course play a semi forcing NT and that negates the latter argument.<br><br>To not include some strong sequences into 2c so that opener knows how far he can compete is funny beyond words and shows a total lack of understandind of system design.<br><br>Arguments such ad "I know many players I respect who do blahblah" are meaningless nonsense. You need to present a sensible and coherent example and rationale of system design, not appeal to meaningless authority.

 

I repeat, bad players get their ideas from a number of players who post in fora such as these. Giving the oops the knowledge that your hand contains limited values gives them a blueprint to compete - come in boys, we are going to bend over an die.

We obviously have different opinons on bidding theory. You want to have as many ways as possible to show different sorts of hands. I want to do what I consider to be practical in an effort to impede the opponent's ability to get to their optimal contract while offering our side reasonable safety. In that respect, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, and there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

 

As for your opinion on my discussions with players who I respect and who decide for a variety of reasons not to agree with you, all I can say is you think that you are right and they (and I) think that they are right. Again, this is an irreconcilable difference of opinion, and there is no point in continuing the discussion. But merely dismissing the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you is not an intelligent argument - it is just contradiction.

 

Quite frankly, what you are suggesting is that a 2♣ response to a mini-NT shows all hands with less than game forcing values AND certain hands with game forcing values, while a 2♦ response to a mini-NT is unconditionally game forcing. While I know that "traditional" two-way Stayman is legal in the ACBL, I am not sure about having two responses (2♣ and 2♦) to the mini-NT which can both contain game forcing hands. But that is a regulatory problem, not a bridge problem.

[gnasher]

I'm amazed the "must not play transfers over a mini" brigade did not make their case more forcefully. Perhaps, they thought quoting a few big names was sufficient.

Or perhaps they just don't have much of a case.

[helene_t]

What about something like:

2♣=Stayman

2♦=Ostensibly an invitational hand with a 5-card major (paradox responses by opener)

2M/3m/3M: to play

 

It still leaks some information since opener will say whether he would have accepted an invite in hearts or not, even if responder turns out to not have hearts. But at least it allows us to play in 2♥ when responder has an ivnitational hands with hearts, something you can't always achieve playing two-way stayman, as opener might respond 2♠.