mishovnbg Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Standart :NAB is for use after HCP and distribution are known by relays. First ask ( NAB1 ) is for quantity of H controls ( A =2, K =1 ) begining with average for shown HCP( 8-11HCP>=2C, 12-15HCP>=3C...). Cheapest bid is next ask, other bids - sign off. [glow=red,2,300]Next [/glow] ask ( NAB2 ) for controls location in suits from longest to shortest ( if equival from highest ). [glow=red,2,300]Answers [/glow] are by steps for above suits, showing control in every suit skiped and stop in suit where no contol or full control ( AK ). Repeat ask until finish controls. [glow=blue,2,300]Next [/glow] asks ( NAB3 ) for Q, J, 10 ... in same order of suits, stop where haven't it. Example: O: x,AQJxx,AKxxx,xx; R: Axxxx,Kx,QJxx,Ax 1HE:10-17HCP,5+HE - 2CL: 12+HCP,R3CL:14-17HCP,5-5/6-4DI - 3DI: R3NT:5-5, no void or 1-1 - 4CL: R4HE:1-5-5-2 - 4SP:NAB15CL:5C - 5DI:NAB25SP:A/KHE+AK/0DI - 5NT:NAB36DI:QHE+no QDI - 7HE: HAPPY END I like this convention because it is similar to cue bids after natural biding. But answers for quantity of controls may lead biding too high. For example if we add K CL in R hand, then 7NT is better contract, if we know about J HE. It is possible by NAB, but not enough room for biding. Have somebody any idea of modification of this convention, that will make it more usefull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Standart NAB is for use after HCP and distribution are known by relays. First answer is for quantity of H controls ( A =2, K =1 ) begining with average for shown HCP. Cheapest bid is next ask, other bids - sign off. [glow=red,2,300]Next [/glow] ask for controls in suits from longest to shortest ( if equival from highest ). [glow=red,2,300]Answers [/glow] are by steps for above suits, showing control in every suit skiped and stop in suit where no contol or AK. Repeat ask until finish controls. [glow=blue,2,300]Next [/glow] asks for Q, J, 10 ... in same order of suits, stop where haven't it. I like this convention because it is similar to cue bids after natural biding. But answers for quantity of controls may lead biding too high. Have somebody any idea of modification of this convention that will make it more usefull? Welcome to the BBO Forum Misho!!! Let me see if I can explain, understand your question. You are talking about control asking in a relay sequence in some artificial type sequence. Here the captain has found out the distribution and general hcp value of his partner (for us, let's say the crew has shown up with 5-5 in hearts and clubs, and 12-14 hcp, and the bidding is now at 3C. The captain has shown nothing, he has just been asking questions. 3D now ask for total number of controls (A=2, K=1). With 12-14 points, I guess the most would be a max of 6? (AAA), so maybe minimum would be 0 to 1, so steps would be 3H = 0 or 13S = 23N = 34C = 44D = 5 After these total control response, the next relay (I assume that crew had maximum, 4H would still be relay over 4D, or else why start relay to begin with). The next relay starts ANTI-cue-bidding. So over 4H, these response show the following 4S = no control in spades (no A, no K, no singleton or void). So we know that he is 2-5-1-5 or 3-5-0-5.5C = no control in clubs (gasp), but shows something in spades (A, K or distributional control)5D = shows controls in both black suits, so at least two diamonds headed by nothing more than the queen.5H = no top honor, but doing really well in all the other suits. That leaves 4NT. This could be deny a contol in hearts I guess, to save room (the furhters away to bid), or could show contols in all the suits. The next relay would look for the QUEEN of hearts? First step = no, second step = yes. Did I get this right? Care to post an illustrative hand or two to consider. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Standart NAB is for use after HCP and distribution are known by relays. First answer is for quantity of H controls ( A =2, K =1 ) begining with average for shown HCP. Cheapest bid is next ask, other bids - sign off. [glow=red,2,300]Next [/glow] ask for controls in suits from longest to shortest ( if equival from highest ). [glow=red,2,300]Answers [/glow] are by steps for above suits, showing control in every suit skiped and stop in suit where no contol or AK. Repeat ask until finish controls. [glow=blue,2,300]Next [/glow] asks for Q, J, 10 ... in same order of suits, stop where haven't it. I like this convention because it is similar to cue bids after natural biding. But answers for quantity of controls may lead biding too high. Have somebody any idea of modification of this convention that will make it more usefull? I have a pretty detailed description of Denial Cue Bidding in my MOSCITO notes. Notes available at http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/moscito.doc the denial cue bidding info is on page 66 Playing a relay system, you'll typically have complete information after either a 3D or 3H response. You're usually able to start Denial Cue Bidding using a 3S or 4C asking bid. This typically provides more than enough space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted March 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Space for biding is never enough, how space of your HDD :o. Moscito is only next relay system based on polish invention of distributional bidding in systems with strong pass opening, with few news in it. Enough space for distribution isn't equivalent of enough information for chose best contract. So hrothgar i still need more effective version of "denial cue bids". Thanks for replay and adress of Moscito document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Space for biding is never enough, how space of your HDD :o. Moscito is only next relay system based on polish invention of distributional bidding in systems with strong pass opening, with few news in it. Enough space for distribution isn't equivalent of enough information for chose best contract. So hrothgar i still need more effective version of "denial cue bids". Thanks for replay and adress of Moscito document. Couple comments: I think that most people would agree that MOSCITO is not as efficient as many of the strong pass systems that it was derived from. I know for a fact that Paul Marston would have never switched away from strong pass if it weren't for over-eager system regulators. With that said and done, I think that the MOSCITO derived relay structures were respnsible for a number of significant innovations. Most notably, it impossible to over emphasize symmetric relay's significance in simplifying relay structures and making them easy to remember. I also think that there are some nice tricks in the major suit raise structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.