Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
Interesting Play Hands / Assumption is the Mother of all...
« Last post by OliverC on May 18, 2019, 10:27:07 PM »
Metin (Arda85) and I had an interesting session this morning with Metin trying his hand at the Complex Sys (with a good degree of success). One hand well pointed up the inadvisability of  interfering against multi-style openings until your Opps have clarified their hand somewhat.

At game all I opened 2NT on the following motley collection:

 !S AJ1042
 !H J10843
 !D Q
 !C KQ

My LHO clearly assumed I had the Minors or Clubs and overcalled 2 !H . Metin doubled and I was perfectly happy to pass that for penalties. Metin was in the very happy position of knowing that I must have the Majors, because he was sat with

 !S K3
 !H 9
 !D AK106
 !C AJ10972

Poor Declarer was sat with !H AKQ52 and the Spade Queen and Dummy just had !D Jxxx. When the dust settled we let Declarer off with -4 for 1100 (could have got one more with perfect defence). One pair found and made the vastly inferior Spade slam but nobody found the much better Club slam and +1100 was pretty good.

This kind of situation is similar to Brozel/DONT Doubles over 1NT and defending against a Multi. You really are generally better off letting Opps define their hand-type before you jump in with both feet. Sometimes if you're 4th-in hand, you don't have that option, but when you're 2nd-in-hand over the Multi-style opening, you usually can count on a 2nd chance.


We had one nice bidding hand for the system, which was rewarded with a top. Metin responded flawlessly on this:

NS Vulnerable, Dealer West

North
 !S J8
 !H AK104
 !D AK
 !C 108643

South
 !S AK1074
 !H 63
 !D AK
 !C AKQ5

Bidding (nothing from Opps)
North          South
1 !D              1NT(1)
2 !C (2)          2 !D (3)
3 !H (4)          4 !C (5)
4 !D (6)          4 !S (7)
5 !C ( 8 )        7 !C (9)

(1) 14+ any shape
(2) 5+ Clubs
(3) Range Beta
(4) Max, 6 Controls
(5) Gamma in Clubs
(6) No Top Honour
(7) Epsilon in Spades (To guard against !S xxx)
( 8 ) 3rd round control of Spades
(9) Knew North couldn't have the !S Queen with AKAK in the Reds, so wasn't remotely tempted to try for 7NT.

The Clubs were 3-1 but the Spades were 3-3 so no problems. Amazingly, nobody else found 7 !C and the Grand was worth 15 IMPs. Overall, Metin showed a very good grasp of the system, so please give him a game if you get the chance.
42
Bidding Challenges / Re: MOTOR and Lebensohl Nuances
« Last post by brian_m on May 17, 2019, 01:18:40 AM »
Quote from: OliverC on May 16, 2019, 11:59:43 PM
I wouldn't say it's a "requirement", even now. The idea behind the suggested holding for a redouble is that a 6-1 or 7-0 opposing trump split might cause opener some problems in 1MXX even if we definitely hold the balance of the HCP and the opposing long trumps are under Declarer. Obviously Responder won't be better then Hx in Opener's Major, but we also want to be sure that 1MXX is going to make. :)

I take your point, but there's still the question of how to handle one of those inconvenient decent hands where responder has one or even none of opener's major. 1 !S-(dbl)- and you're looking at  something like   !S void   !H Axxx   !D KJxx   !C KJxxx  Not a common holding, I grant you, but if  !S Hx or even  !S xx is only a suggestion rather than a requirement, then this one could go seriously wrong.

43
Bidding Challenges / Re: MOTOR and Lebensohl Nuances
« Last post by OliverC on May 16, 2019, 11:59:43 PM »
I wouldn't say it's a "requirement", even now. The idea behind the suggested holding for a redouble is that a 6-1 or 7-0 opposing trump split might cause opener some problems in 1MXX even if we definitely hold the balance of the HCP and the opposing long trumps are under Declarer. Obviously Responder won't be better then Hx in Opener's Major, but we also want to be sure that 1MXX is going to make. :)
44
Bidding Challenges / Re: MOTOR and Lebensohl Nuances
« Last post by brian_m on May 15, 2019, 12:07:32 PM »
Quote from: OliverC on May 15, 2019, 07:37:58 AM
(3) and (4) are easy in the sense that they are "normal" Leb sequences. 2NT is Leb and 3NT is "fast", and therefore lacking a Heart Stop and presumably with good long Diamonds.


It's (1) and (2), particularly (1), that are a bit more interesting to me. I know what I've written on the MOTOR sections, but...


I wonder if there really is much point in either of them being natural in any way at green vs red, especially (2), because Responder would have a fairly obvious Redouble over 1 !S - (X) - ??. I can't see much sense in (1) being Leb either, because MOTOR already gives us so many different ways of expressing different hand-types. Even if Responder has a Spade shortage here, a Redouble seems very attractive once Responder is 11-12 (let alone 13+) and if the Spade split is bad, the opposing Spade length will be underneath Opener, which is probably good for us.


At red vs green, natural and invitational, or natural and GF makes perfect sense but I do now wonder whether it's worth reconsidering their meaning at favourable vulnerability.


I'd be interested to hear other people's view on this.

There seems to be one hand type which it's a little awkward to bid after opponents double - particularly if we're at favourable, as you say. The redouble is supposed to have secondary support for opener's major (the notes say Hx) but the problem would arise with 4441 shape short in opener's major. In John's sequences 1) and 2), we have already taken the decision not to try to extract a penalty from opponents by using MOTOR. I would wonder whether we could remove the 'secondary support' requirement from the redouble and make it penalty-hunting with no guarantee of anything in partner's suit, and use the MOTOR-then-NT sequence to show some support but trumps not good enough for one of the limit raise sequences.

This isn't to say that a redouble denies support for opener's major, just that responder thinks we will be better off looking for that penalty.



45
Bidding Challenges / Re: MOTOR and Lebensohl Nuances
« Last post by OliverC on May 15, 2019, 07:37:58 AM »
(3) and (4) are easy in the sense that they are "normal" Leb sequences. 2NT is Leb and 3NT is "fast", and therefore lacking a Heart Stop and presumably with good long Diamonds.


It's (1) and (2), particularly (1), that are a bit more interesting to me. I know what I've written on the MOTOR sections, but...


I wonder if there really is much point in either of them being natural in any way at green vs red, especially (2), because Responder would have a fairly obvious Redouble over 1 !S - (X) - ??. I can't see much sense in (1) being Leb either, because MOTOR already gives us so many different ways of expressing different hand-types. Even if Responder has a Spade shortage here, a Redouble seems very attractive once Responder is 11-12 (let alone 13+) and if the Spade split is bad, the opposing Spade length will be underneath Opener, which is probably good for us.


At red vs green, natural and invitational, or natural and GF makes perfect sense but I do now wonder whether it's worth reconsidering their meaning at favourable vulnerability.


I'd be interested to hear other people's view on this.
46
Bidding Challenges / MOTOR and Lebensohl Nuances
« Last post by lute57 on May 09, 2019, 08:16:57 PM »
(1) 1 !S-(X)-2 !C[transfer]-(P)-2 !D-(P)-2NT in this sequence what is the meaning of 2NT?

(2) 1 !S-(X)-2 !C[transfer]-(P)-2 !D-(P)-3NT in this sequence what is the meaning of 3NT?

(3) 1 !S-(X)-2 !C[transfer]-(P)-2 !D-(2 !H)-2NT in this sequence what is the meaning of 2NT?

(4) 1 !S-(X)-2 !C[transfer]-(P)-2 !D-(2 !H)-3NT in this sequence what is the meaning of 3NT?

John

(p.s. picking up where Brother Nuri left off - thank you for the inspiration)
47
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by brian_m on April 29, 2019, 07:39:53 AM »
When I moved to the USA, in 1997, Pat and I were initially living in Newark, DE, as Pat worked at the Univ. of Delaware. The Univ was about 17,500 students. One guy put round fliers seeking to re-establish the U.Del. bridge club. Three people turned up to the meeting - Pat, myself and the would-be organiser.

There was a club in the town itself (still is, as a matter of fact, I know someone on BBO who plays there). The first time we went there, the TD came over at the end of the evening and told us we were welcome to come back, but that we must switch to playing "normal methods", i.e. SA(YC) or 2/1. Believe me, the Precision system I was playing with Pat didn't come close to OCP for complexity, and it was also (the equivalent of) GCC-legal in the UK.

We just said the hell with it, and played our bridge online thereafter.

48
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by Jimmy on April 29, 2019, 03:10:11 AM »
Quote from: brian_m on April 29, 2019, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:50:11 PM
I will be technical.   

IMO,  bridge rules would not have the 1 !D - P - 1 !H as alert or announcement during the bidding, since it is natural and contains at least 4 of the suit.  As for an announcements, they should be short and with few words.   Examples:  transfer, could be short, etc.   

Now,  the statement should be on your convention card and you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins.



Jim, we have the WBF to thank for the fact that there are no laws governing what must be disclosed in the laws of bridge. How you must disclose, yes, but what is disclosable is specifically delegated down to the different national organisations, or regulating authorities I believe is the current technically correct term. What you must alert in the USA is very different from what you must alert in the UK, for example. There was a point in the UK when even Stayman was alertable, and also minor openings which could be on only 3 cards.

And as for the (damn silly!) rules which some countries have on disclosure via the convention card, don't even get me started on that! The English Bridge Union card was absolutely geared towards Acol players, and they also had the rule that all disclosure must be on the card, but that no supplementary sheets were allowed! So you were reduced to (as I used to do) blowing up a CC on a photocopier to an enormous size, filling it in with a map pen, and then shrinking it back down again. Was it legible? Well, yes, if you had 20/20 vision, and preferably even better than that. It was legal, though. No regulations covered the size of your writing.  ::)

BBO's rules are simple, you should alert anything that your opponents may not fully understand. My view of that regulation is that if your 1 !H response to 1 !D is usually made on a stronger hand than normal, you should alert it. I aim to give full disclosure. I would far rather give opponents information to which they are not strictly entitled than withhold something to which they are entitled.

I don't honestly know what the current ACBL convention card looks like. If you have one filled in for OCP, then please scan it and post it. I would be genuinely interested to see it.

Yup,  full disclosure is the way to go.   And,  I agree on the comments concerning convention cards, especially ACBL.  The ACBL is designed almost exclusively for Std Am 2/1.   We do not play OCP Super Precision,  and if we tried they would probably not allow it at our local club.  They do not like that fact that we play a Strong Club System and think we have secret understandings.  When asked (after alerting), we give them all the details (distribution, HCP count, intend, etc.).   When we ask about there understandings we generally will receive vague answers, like we are supposed to understand the ACBL 2/1 system. 

Never thought about what a ACBL Convention Card would look like in OCP.  Good Question. 
49
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by Jimmy on April 29, 2019, 02:57:51 AM »
Quote from: brian_m on April 29, 2019, 12:04:18 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:57:20 PM
Sh-t,  told you my grammar and expression was lacking.   8)

I know the  condition of game force was established.  And in fairness, have you's ever stopped short of 3NT and/or 5m?

Playing my old Precision system, yes, but we had one sequence where opener specifically showed a misfitting but otherwise flat 16 count, and responder was allowed to pass with exactly 8 HCP.

Playing OCP, or any other version of Precision without that escape sequence? No, never. You accept the occasional hand with 16 opposite 8 where no game can be made as the cost of making life a lot simpler on the vast majority of the other hands.

I can handle that answer.    :)
50
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by brian_m on April 29, 2019, 12:24:12 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:50:11 PM
I will be technical.   

IMO,  bridge rules would not have the 1 !D - P - 1 !H as alert or announcement during the bidding, since it is natural and contains at least 4 of the suit.  As for an announcements, they should be short and with few words.   Examples:  transfer, could be short, etc.   

Now,  the statement should be on your convention card and you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins.

Jim, we have the WBF to thank for the fact that there are no laws governing what must be disclosed in the laws of bridge. How you must disclose, yes, but what is disclosable is specifically delegated down to the different national organisations, or regulating authorities I believe is the current technically correct term. What you must alert in the USA is very different from what you must alert in the UK, for example. There was a point in the UK when even Stayman was alertable, and also minor openings which could be on only 3 cards.

And as for the (damn silly!) rules which some countries have on disclosure via the convention card, don't even get me started on that! The English Bridge Union card was absolutely geared towards Acol players, and they also had the rule that all disclosure must be on the card, but that no supplementary sheets were allowed! So you were reduced to (as I used to do) blowing up a CC on a photocopier to an enormous size, filling it in with a map pen, and then shrinking it back down again. Was it legible? Well, yes, if you had 20/20 vision, and preferably even better than that. It was legal, though. No regulations covered the size of your writing.  ::)

BBO's rules are simple, you should alert anything that your opponents may not fully understand. My view of that regulation is that if your 1 !H response to 1 !D is usually made on a stronger hand than normal, you should alert it. I aim to give full disclosure. I would far rather give opponents information to which they are not strictly entitled than withhold something to which they are entitled.

I don't honestly know what the current ACBL convention card looks like. If you have one filled in for OCP, then please scan it and post it. I would be genuinely interested to see it.


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10