Low level penalty double

[michel444]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt8h8dq5432cak65&w=s4ht7632dt97cqj97&n=sak93haq94dj8ct43&e=sq7652hkj5dak6c82&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1np2cp2sdppp]399|300[/hv]

they oction is strange

 

1 ♣ 4+♥ 8-14 HCP

1 NT Laurel and hardy showing a 5 cards with 12- 15 HCP

Pass teling partner No Heart fit 0-2 cards heart

2 ♣ artifcial negative showing 0-9 H P C

PASS waiting

2 ♠ 5 cards ♠

double Penalitie Optional

 

South lead the 8 of ♥

north cash the Ace of♥ return the 9 of ♥

south ruff cash King and Ace of Club return Spade

north take the return with King of Spade

give south a second ruff

south return Diamond

East make his first trick

....

to finish 4down

[DavidKok]

What is your question? These methods all seem really poor - the opening, the overcall, responder's options, the asking sequence over 1NT and the penalty double. There's some room to improve on the play as well.

[michel444]

What is your question? These methods all seem really poor - the opening, the overcall, responder's options, the asking sequence over 1NT and the penalty double. There's some room to improve on the play as well.

THERE wasn't any question these method have there problem

Laurel and hardy is part of a system called Mutos stand for Major Oriented Strong club and Transfer

the system is published in Dutch and English .

 

the opening of 1 ♣ showing Heart was part of some system .

in this case it is spread http://www.users.on.net/~mabraham/systems/SPREAD/index.html

[nullve]

1 NT Laurel and hardy showing a 5 cards with 12- 15 HCP

I find the description on pp 69-71here of the Laurel and Hardy 1N overcall really confusing.

 

1NT promises 'somewhere' a 5 card and 12-15hp. Notice, with a 5 card minor and a 4 card

major we give preference to indicate this two suiter in stead of showing the 5 card. With one

5 card major and one 5 card minor you bid nevertheless the other short suit. If partner now

chooses the minor, you still can bid the major . Partner will now realize that you do not have a

4 card major but a 5 card and also, that you have a 5 card minor.

With 2 five cards major (or minor) you also bid the short suit and you can , after partners

choice , name the other major (or minor) .

If the opponent opens on level 1 you always can bid 1NT when owning a 5 card. I

 

I guess (hope) that over a (non-strong but possibly artificial) 1♣ opening, the idea is that a 1N overcall shows 12-15 hcp and either

 

* 5+ D, no major and if vul a hand unsuitable for an IJO

* 5M3-OM4-D

* 6+ M (6+M3-OM?) and if vul a hand unsuitable for an IJO

 

.

[michel444]

I find the description on pp 69-71here of the Laurel and Hardy 1N overcall really confusing.

 

 

 

I guess (hope) that over a (non-strong but possibly artificial) 1♣ opening, the idea is that a 1N overcall shows 12-15 hcp and either

 

* 5+ D, no major and if vul a hand unsuitable for an IJO

* 5M3-OM4-D

* 6+ M (6+M3-OM?) and if vul a hand unsuitable for an IJO

 

.

THANK YOU !for finding the link you understood the concept

the idea is realy showing a undefined 5 cards if the open a Natural 4-5 card major you don't bid 1 NT with 5 cards in the major they bid but have 5 in oM or a 5 minor cards

if the open a Natural 4+minor that live you the possibilty to bid 1 NT with a5 cards major or the other 5 in the other minor

with a 6 cards you should not not use the 1 NT

ijo ? jump overcall?

[michel444]

What is your question? These methods all seem really poor - the opening, the overcall, responder's options, the asking sequence over 1NT and the penalty double. There's some room to improve on the play as well.

2C is not asking he tell he have 0-9 point and

"overcaller" should pass with 5 cards club or bid his suit

I dont not agree with your comment

in "standart " 5 card major

the biding will go

1♣ 1 ♠ pass pass

????

or do i missed someting ?

[DavidKok]

South won't pass over 1♣-(1♠)-?, but will instead bid 2♦.

[michel444]

South won't pass over 1♣-(1♠)-?, but will instead bid 2♦.

IS IT FORCING?

[nullve]

THANK YOU !for finding the link you understood the concept

the idea is realy showing a undefined 5 cards if the open a Natural 4-5 card major you don't bid 1 NT with 5 cards in the major they bid but have 5 in oM or a 5 minor cards

if the open a Natural 4+minor that live you the possibilty to bid 1 NT with a5 cards major or the other 5 in the other minor

with a 6 cards you should not not use the 1 NT

ijo ? jump overcall?

'IJO' stands for 'Intermediate Jump Overcall'.

 

I'm not so sure I understand the concept, because right now there seems to be a hole in the system when Overcaller

 

* is not vulnerable (so that IJOs are not available),

* has a 6c or longer unbid suit, and

* has no other unbid suit, if it matters.

 

A jump un-does the Laurel & Hardy :

- non-vulnerable it is a 5+ card , but LESS than 12hp.

- When vulnerable it has little sense to jump without a back-up of strength. Therefore this is

an 'intermediate' : 12-15 hp but at least a 6card (with a 5card you bid 1NT)

Just to give an example:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skq9754ha7dj8ckt8&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c?]133|200[/hv]

[DavidKok]

IS IT FORCING?

Yes, though some partnerships play it as NF, or even transfers in competition to sidestep the issue entirely.

[michel444]

'IJO' stands for 'Intermediate Jump Overcall'.

 

I'm not so sure I understand the concept, because right now there seems to be a hole in the system when Overcaller

 

* is not vulnerable (so that IJOs are not available),

* has a 6c or longer unbid suit, and

* has no other unbid suit, if it matters.

 

 

Just to give an example:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skq9754ha7dj8ckt8&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c?]133|200[/hv]

very good example of the Hole in the defense based on Laurel and Hardy

as somebody says the rule are made to be bend and broken !

I consider 3 option to bend the rule

1 bid 1 NT miscount your 6 spade

2 pas and pray you can enter later with 2♠ or 3♠

3 bid 3♠ or 4 ♠ I can see 5 loser maybe I lose 1 more maybe I lose less

[michel444]

Yes, though some partnerships play it as NF, or even transfers in competition to sidestep the issue entirely.

I liked the answer

so dealer show now 4♥ or his ♠ stoppers ?

and go to 2NT or 3 NT making 2NT +3 for 210 or 3NT +2 for 460 ?

great the other team with losy bid and losy play just collected 800 point in defense

[DavidKok]

very good example of the Hole in the defense based on Laurel and Hardy

The whole method seems junk, as far as I can tell. Please take this as constructive criticism: many of your posts show lack of experience and judgement, and it seems to me like you've decided to blame standard bidding systems instead of accepting that there are more lessons you could learn. I'm not eager to engage with your posts both because they assume wildly non-standard methods that take time and effort to grasp, and because they are low quality. The inferential gap here is tremendous, and it's too big an investment to try to cross it.

If you want to learn from more experienced players I recommend you try to formulate your questions in a way that encourages others to engage with your posts.

 

I liked the answer

so dealer show now 4♥ or his ♠ stoppers ?

and go to 2NT or 3 NT making 2NT +3 for 210 or 3NT +2 for 460 ?

great the other team with losy bid and losy play just collected 800 point in defense

2NT, probably making several overtricks. South doesn't have another bid.

[awm]

It's not a great idea to bid bad five-card suits at the two-level. This is not to say that you should never do such a thing (sometimes it's the least-bad option), but you will not obtain great results by doing this when other players holding your hand have a better alternative.

 

This "Laurel and Hardy" method (is it supposed to be a joke? they are famous comedians) looks really bad for exactly this reason -- not only did East have to bid to 2♠ on a bad five card suit when the rest of the room has 1♠ available, but he did it in a two-step fashion that made it even easier for opponents to double. It seems like he got what this method deserves.

 

I do think 1♣-(1♠)-2♦-(Pass)-3NT is a possible sequence here (why should opener with fourteen high and good spade stoppers bid a non-forcing 2NT opposite partner's 10+ points?) so the -800 might only lose 8-9 IMPs. Still not a good result.

[michel444]

It's not a great idea to bid bad five-card suits at the two-level. This is not to say that you should never do such a thing (sometimes it's the least-bad option), but you will not obtain great results by doing this when other players holding your hand have a better alternative.

 

This "Laurel and Hardy" method (is it supposed to be a joke? they are famous comedians) looks really bad for exactly this reason -- not only did East have to bid to 2♠ on a bad five card suit when the rest of the room has 1♠ available, but he did it in a two-step fashion that made it even easier for opponents to double. It seems like he got what this method deserves.

 

I do think 1♣-(1♠)-2♦-(Pass)-3NT is a possible sequence here (why should opener with fourteen high and good spade stoppers bid a non-forcing 2NT opposite partner's 10+ points?) so the -800 might only lose 8-9 IMPs. Still not a good result.

Defense biding is the more complex part of biding .

biding after interference is even more problematic.

as a beginner i made all possible mistake in biding and playing.

most of book on bridge have little to say about defense biding.

the other side have a small adventage of opening the biding .

after 4 year of learning bridge playing an average tournament in the weekend.

i didn't ever Know what is landy astro and the long list of defense aggaints a "STRONG NT opening"

so i have not a clue how to bid againts them until i asked someone how you deal when your partner 1NT is overcalled

this open the gate to find Rubensolh -not the best tool but - simple and can be very efFective

like sending my partner to 6♥ after interfernce over his 1NT and he made it .

[dokoko]

Seems we need a forum for "Random Bidding" because in a "Non-Natural System" I expect some kind of reasonable structure.

[michel444]

Seems we need a forum for "Random Bidding" because in a "Non-Natural System" I expect some kind of reasonable structure.

link to SPREAD

http://www.users.on.net/~mabraham/systems/SPREAD/index.html

spread is 1 of dozen forcing pass

[foobar]

link to SPREAD

http://www.users.on.net/~mabraham/systems/SPREAD/index.html

spread is 1 of dozen forcing pass

My sincere advice would be to give up on forcing pass systems (unless this is an academic exercise).

 

Note that this is a comment on their potential effectiveness, but the fact is that they are heavily regulated in most regions, and you are unlikely to find an event where you can play such systems (even if you find a willing partner).

 

Perhaps, your intent is to play mostly online with like-minded opponents that don't mind playing against such systems, or you happen to be lucky enough to reside in a place where playing FP is a distinct possibility.

[mikeh]

South won't pass over 1♣-(1♠)-?, but will instead bid 2♦.

I wouldn’t. I have zero interest in bidding 2D with Qxxxx and marginal hcp and a terrible (for offence) spade holding should I be declarer. I think 2D is absolutely horrifying.

 

I’d be tempted to raise clubs except that my partners don’t promise club length. However, since somebody is usually bidding hearts soon, I think 2C is reasonable.

 

As it is, I would be very happy to see that auction go 1C (1S) P P P

 

As for the methods on display, other than the 1C opening I didn’t see anything that suggests much understanding of the game. The so called Laurel and Hardy method is silly.

 

Expert bridge evolves in a quasi Darwinian fashion. Quasi because, usually, new variations do not arise randomly but Darwinian because competition tends to remove, from the ‘gene pool’ of bidding methods those that do not lead to success. Methods that represent at least equivalent or better methods than those upon which they were based tend to spread.

 

Obviously the analogy has limits. Some very powerful methods are outlawed and others heavily restricted, usually out of concerns about fairness

 

Ferts are an example. The vast majority of players lack the time or opportunity to be familiar with them, so that the methods may enjoy success not because they have intrinsic value but because they confuse opponents.

 

Sorting out whether new methods are genuinely an improvement over old or are simply beating up on the great majority of players who can’t, for various reasons, identify how to play against them is very challenging.

 

I think the Laurel and Hardy method is likely legal in most areas. Having looked at it, I’d like a chance to discuss a defence with my partner, but (after that) I’d be delighted if I could find people willing to play it against me.

 

It presents wonderful opportunities for lucrative penalties while, it seems to me, making it extraordinarily difficult for its users to bid constructively. In short, it’s silly.

[michel444]

I wouldn’t. I have zero interest in bidding 2D with Qxxxx and marginal hcp and a terrible (for offence) spade holding should I be declarer. I think 2D is absolutely horrifying.

 

I’d be tempted to raise clubs except that my partners don’t promise club length. However, since somebody is usually bidding hearts soon, I think 2C is reasonable.

 

As it is, I would be very happy to see that auction go 1C (1S) P P P

 

As for the methods on display, other than the 1C opening I didn’t see anything that suggests much understanding of the game. The so called Laurel and Hardy method is silly.

 

Expert bridge evolves in a quasi Darwinian fashion. Quasi because, usually, new variations do not arise randomly but Darwinian because competition tends to remove, from the ‘gene pool’ of bidding methods those that do not lead to success. Methods that represent at least equivalent or better methods than those upon which they were based tend to spread.

 

Obviously the analogy has limits. Some very powerful methods are outlawed and others heavily restricted, usually out of concerns about fairness

 

Ferts are an example. The vast majority of players lack the time or opportunity to be familiar with them, so that the methods may enjoy success not because they have intrinsic value but because they confuse opponents.

 

 

 

Sorting out whether new methods are genuinely an improvement over old or are simply beating up on the great majority of players who can’t, for various reasons, identify how to play against them is very challenging.

 

I think the Laurel and Hardy method is likely legal in most areas. Having looked at it, I’d like a chance to discuss a defence with my partner, but (after that) I’d be delighted if I could find people willing to play it against me.

 

It presents wonderful opportunities for lucrative penalties while, it seems to me, making it extraordinarily difficult for its users to bid constructively. In short, it’s silly.

 

 

Laurel and hardy is not my invention is Part of a system Called Mutos devloped in The Nederland .

THe Idea of Mutos isnt Bad but was made againts natural system with an agrresive touch the problem is not the idea but the minimum to make a Laurel and hardy is to low even if openet are not strong

the biding space it take from your side make it very doubtfool .

the inventor

have 3 positive opening

1♣ strong Club 16+

1♦ 5 cards minor 12-15

1♥ 5 cards Major 12-15

1♠ no 5 cards balanced or 1444 12-15

1NT an above are pre transfer opening ,,,

 

forcing pass system and other strange system are popular in Polin

 

I just played a short tournament with an unkown partner who stayed with me 1 of 5 round

so played with a robot 4/5 round with some top and some Zero

what i can say is robot play very badly in defense