rec.games.bridge - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

16:39 |

rec.games.bridge
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge?hl=en

rec.games.bridge@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to deal with interference over 1N?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/4f4eca598fee0d73?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 5:04 pm
From: Will in New Haven

On Nov 26, 11:57 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> I'm looking for two things in this post/thread:
>
> 1) A general outlook/system/plan (to "How do people deal with
> interference over their 1N openings)
> 2) Answers to a specific set of questions
>
> The specific question is: Suppose you have a typical hand with 5 hearts
> where strength is weak/intermediate/strong (where we interpret these terms
> to mean "signoff/invitation/forcing" in the context of whatever your opening
> 1N range is). Partner opens 1N, next hand bids 2S, what do you do with each
> of these hands? Note that in all cases, had there been no interference,
> you'd have started with a 2D transfer. But now what?

With five-only Hearts and a weak hand, I would probably go quietly via
a pass. However, I COULD sign off in 3H via a Lebensohl relay.
With an intermediate-strength hand that is not suitable for a penalty
double of 2S, I have to decide whether to treat it as competitive as
above or to force to game.
With a game-forcing hand, I bid 3H directly.

--
Will in New Haven
All change for round six; slow pairs please go hom.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 10:01 am
From: "Paul Hightower"

"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:jar5q3$2ln$1@news.xmission.com...
> I'm looking for two things in this post/thread:
>
> 1) A general outlook/system/plan (to "How do people deal with
> interference over their 1N openings)
> 2) Answers to a specific set of questions
>
> The specific question is: Suppose you have a typical hand with 5 hearts
> where strength is weak/intermediate/strong (where we interpret these terms
> to mean "signoff/invitation/forcing" in the context of whatever your
> opening
> 1N range is). Partner opens 1N, next hand bids 2S, what do you do with
> each
> of these hands? Note that in all cases, had there been no interference,
> you'd have started with a 2D transfer. But now what?

What I use is:
DBL = 8+, balanced -- opener can bid or pass as looks best
2 of suit = to play
3 of suit = forcing
cue-bid = Stayman
2NT: lebensohl, relay to 3C, typically planning to pass or correct to
another suit
3NT: to play, includes a stopper since a non-stopper hand could double or
make a forcing bid in a suit

In a set partnership I'd probably favor the Rubensohl approach (transfers
starting at 2NT.)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poll: What do you open?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/4e4c4d651e1cd8a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 12:34 am
From: Eric Leong

On Friday, November 25, 2011 7:00:09 AM UTC-8, jonathan23 wrote:
> Matchpoints, all vulnerable. You are playing pretty basic 2/1, 5-card
> majors, 15-17 1NT, 20-21 2NT, artificial forcing 2C opener and weak 2s
> in the other suits. RHO deals and passes, you hold:
>
> Kx
> AQx
> AKQxxx
> Kx
>
> What do you open? Do you make a choice from multiple contenders?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --
> - Jon Campbell
> Ottawa Canada

In KS (Kaplan Sheinwold system) this is a perfect 3NT bid.

Eric Leong

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 1:23 am
From: Dave Flower

On Nov 25, 11:11 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2011 7:00:09 AM UTC-8, jonathan23 wrote:
> > Matchpoints, all vulnerable. You are playing pretty basic 2/1, 5-card
> > majors, 15-17 1NT, 20-21 2NT, artificial forcing 2C opener and weak 2s
> > in the other suits. RHO deals and passes, you hold:
>
> > Kx
> > AQx
> > AKQxxx
> > Kx
>
> > What do you open? Do you make a choice from multiple contenders?
>
> Playing your system, It's too strong (by almost a king, I'd say) to open 2NT, so I pick 2C. With most of my partners a 2D response shows a hand that can't promise 2 tricks, so 6D won't be a laydown on a 2D response. I will likely choose a 2NT rebid after 2D. It looks like a fast 8 tricks and then looking for help on a non-diamond lead opposite a bust. A black queen gives you a fairly easy nine tricks. A black ace or the HK (with which partner will likely raise you to 3NT) makes an easy 9.

A black queen at trick one gives you a fairly easy eight tricks, but
black queens at tricks one and two are not so good.

Dave Flower

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 10:13 am
From: "Paul Hightower"

"jonathan23" <campbejk@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1ee52634-16cc-4374-8301-c8a5c97bcab6@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> Matchpoints, all vulnerable. You are playing pretty basic 2/1, 5-card
> majors, 15-17 1NT, 20-21 2NT, artificial forcing 2C opener and weak 2s
> in the other suits. RHO deals and passes, you hold:
>
> Kx
> AQx
> AKQxxx
> Kx
>
> What do you open? Do you make a choice from multiple contenders?
>

Too strong for a 20-21 2NT, so I'll open 2C and expect to rebid 2NT,
treating as a balanced 22. But I may choose to show the diamonds over a
slam-positive response.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 10:29 am
From: "Paul Hightower"

"Michael Angelo Ravera" <maravera@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:25452765.357.1322262691598.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prmr38...
On Friday, November 25, 2011 7:00:09 AM UTC-8, jonathan23 wrote:
> Matchpoints, all vulnerable. You are playing pretty basic 2/1, 5-card
> majors, 15-17 1NT, 20-21 2NT, artificial forcing 2C opener and weak 2s
> in the other suits. RHO deals and passes, you hold:
>
> Kx
> AQx
> AKQxxx
> Kx
>
> What do you open? Do you make a choice from multiple contenders?

Playing your system, It's too strong (by almost a king, I'd say) to open
2NT...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen good evdeince that a six-card suit at notrump is worth only a
point or so, definetely not 3. A five card suit is worth a surprisingly
small 0.4 points, according to a study of real-life results by the French
Bridge Federation.

Apparently, at notrump, stoppers are more critical than having a source of
tricks, and trying to make game with inadequate high cards just leaves you
short on stoppers most of the time. It's easy to construct obvious
exceptions, and sometimes you can bid those such as after a weak two opening
or a Gambling 3NT, but on balance it's best not to overbid notrump hands
based on long suits. However, those who treat this as a balanced 21 are
certainly underbidding IMO.

Here I expect to have 8 tricks on any lead but an unlikely diamond; partner
will raise my 2C-2x; 2NT sequence with an Ace or King, obviously, and game
will be easy. He might pass an opening 2NT bid with only 3 or 4 points. Game
may be a challenge opposite a random Q+J, but a lead from the Ace toward
either of my Kings where partner has Qxx may be enough. All in all I think
I'll make game much more often than not opposite 3 hcp, hence 2C opening. On
the other hand I'll have little play if partner passes my 2NT rebid, so no
reason to make a stronger rebid. One to one-and-half points for the diamond
suit looks about right.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you pre-empt in 2nd seat?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/adade20a74f4979d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:09 am
From: "Steve Foster"

jogs wrote:

> On studies I've seen poor 4-4 fits often play
> badly even when opposing trumps split 3-2.

Yeah, you're usually much better off in a 3-2 fit... <g>

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 10:08 am
From: "Paul Hightower"

"Sunrise" <sunrise9966@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b03ed23-b627-4d82-92d2-f5ca53c2b47c@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> IMP
> NV vs NV
>
> You hold
>
> 9xxx
> x
> AK76xxx (7)
> x
>
> RHO passes
> What do you bid in your system?
> Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?
> What are your requirements in 2nd seat?
>
> Thank you for your ideas

Sure, 3D for me. I prefer my preempts to have some strength; I would not
play a style where this was "too good" for a preempt.

The four spades are a flaw and I wouldn't open 3D if you moved one of the
high honors over to spades, but I won't let four small in a suit keeep me
from bidding a good suit.

First or second seat I'm looking for 5-9 hcp and 6+ length in a good to fair
suit. (With 6, of course, I'll typically choose a weak two if that's an
option.) I don't have a precise formula, I'm more disciplined in second
seat than first or third.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 12:04 pm
From: "Fred."

I think a number of us said to, of course, preempt
and a number of us said to, of course, not. My
impression is that there are plenty of successful
partnerships on both sides of the divide.

If you play less disciplined preempts, you will be
able to make them more often. The penalty will
be that partner will be less able to make informed
decisions on follow-up actions.

The important thing is to have an agreement in place
so that partner can chose actions based on whatever
your maximum in defense and minimum in offense is
likely to be.

Fred.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are these 5-3-3-2 hands with 13 HCP equal?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/631e6e527660c209?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:10 am
From: Bertil

On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
> > > > > > Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> > > > > > He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> > > > > > has been found.
> > > > > > Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>
> > > > > Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
> > > > > bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>
> > > > > Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> > > > > Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>
> > > > > His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
> > > > > p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
> > > > > attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
> > > > > of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
> > > > > Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
> > > > > He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
> > > > > George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
> > > > > frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
> > > > > concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
> > > > > Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>
> > > > > If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
> > > > > riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
> > > > > a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
> > > > > is a better 7 loser hand than
> > > > > b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
> > > > > This his arithmetic.
> > > > > (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
> > > > > Controls Control HCP correction net
> > > > > points
> > > > > Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
> > > > > Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>
> > > > > Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> > > > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> > > > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> > > > fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
> > > > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> > > > think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> > > > would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> > > > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
> > > > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> > > > QT ?
> > > > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
> > > > based on a good fit.
>
> > > You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
> > > about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
> > > any search for bridge info.
>
> > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>
> > > "A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial Count. An
> > > opening bid is based on:
>
> > > 1. not holding more than 7 losers.
> > > 2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive tricks.
> > > 3. a sound rebid."
>
> > > I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums up my
> > > opening hand evaluation pretty well.
>
> > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>
> Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even using it
> from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why I even bother
> to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me. Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
answer.
Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
invective and signed off with Bye.
Does that mean I've rid myself and RGB of the premier shithead, after
HS departed?
If so, I say Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and good riddens of stinking
rubbish. I should be so luckey.
Imagine I just celebrated Thanksgiving hoping for peace and harmony
and good fellowship at RGB
only to be rudely taken back to an ugly reality created by you over a
period of time.
But I predict you'll soon be back for more humiliation, because you
are a masochist and a sick mongrel or cur.
See you later Aligator or in a while Crocodile, or maybe you are just
a Snapping Turtle. Bite my shorts.

Bertil

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:48 am
From: Bertil

On Nov 25, 11:08 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 11/25/2011 10:20 PM, Bertil wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl<mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
> >>> Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> >>> He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> >>> has been found.
> >>> Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>
> >> Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
> >> bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>
> >> Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> >> using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> >> Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> >> using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>
> >> His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
> >> p.11 that after Courtney& Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
> >> attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
> >> of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
> >> Belladonna& Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
> >> He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
> >> George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
> >> frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
> >> concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
> >> Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>
> >> If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
> >> riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
> >> a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
> >> is a better 7 loser hand than
> >> b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
> >> This his arithmetic.
> >> (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
> >> Controls Control HCP correction net
> >> points
> >> Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
> >> Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>
> >> Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> > fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
>
> Well, not really. Remember that I wrote>> Note that CAB players (whom
> >> Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> >> using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> >> Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> >> using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> The key words are "as the primary evaluation method" for CAB players and
> "as a primary evaluation method" for Roman players. They both included
> some count of high card content, as well, as one example. Further, the
> early 1950s Roman correction for isolated non-losing Ks and Qs is better
> than anything Klinger has on offer.
>
> > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> > think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> > would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
>
> When I played Animal Acol (the MIT form of Baronized Acol, dating from
> David Beer's teams in the 1950s and played almost as the MIT system at
> least into the early 1970s), our standards were
> 1) Balanced 12 with 2 QT or
> 2) Unbalanced 7 LTC with 3 controls, or possibly KQ-KQ.
> This worked very well for us. And remember that Lowenthal's Canary Club
> -- unfortunately not playable in most ACBL events outside long team
> matches or clubs that allowed almost anything -- opened 7 LTC with no
> promise of defensive values. He took the limitation of non-1C openings
> by the 17+ 1C bid seriously. I should point out that many Canary
> players use Roman LTC rather than Klinger's variety. This makes sense
> in that Canary can be roughly described as Roman with the 1C and 1NT
> bids switched (and a positive relay instead of a negative one).
>
> And yes, Animal players would open Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx, CAB and Canary
> players might open it, and Roman players would not. The primary reason
> Roman players would nor (except perhaps in 3rd seat), is that the system
> constrains them to bid this as a spade 1-suiter (1S ... 2S) or a sound
> minimum S-C two suiter (2S). Both are unappealing.
>
> > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> > QT ?
>
> The first is missing a card. I suppose you want 7 LTC, so
> xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-xx or xxx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x.
> Again, Animal players open both, CAB and Canary players might, and Roman
> players would not. Some Roman players might open the second or both
> with 1H, since treating these as a heart 1-suiter isn't sick-making. To
> open 1D and bid 1NT (showing 5 hearts) over the negative 1H step (or 2H
> over higher responses) is too rich a path on this collection.
>
> Notice that Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx has 7 1/4 Roman LTC, and the long cards are
> suspect as non-losers (adding in the Blue team correction for length,
> this is 7 3/4 LTC).
>
> xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-xx and xxx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x are also 7 1/4 Roman LTC, and the
> long cards are even more suspect (adding in the Blue team correction for
> length, these are 8 LTC).
>
> Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-QT is 7 1/2 Roman LTC, but 13 HCP is usually too much to
> pass. The QT doubleton, isolated Q in Qxx, and absence of aces will
> persuade some to pass, while others will not consider them
> disqualifying. Animal players might well pass, CAB players would
> probably open 1H. Roman players would probably open 1H but might pass.
>
>
>
> > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
> > based on a good fit.
>
> > Bertil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lacking your vast experience and know how of other systems I'm unable
to comment on your post.
But I would like to ask why you made no mentioning of other LTC
counts, such as the New LTC from
an article in BW in 2003 by Koelman. It's based on counting half
losers for missing honors.
Specifically it counts 3 for the A, 2 for the K and 1 for the Q, for a
total of 6 halves or 3 losers.
This seems equal to counting Axx=1.5, K=2 and Q=2.5 in Klinger's
system.
Using this count one would treat a 5-3-3-2 hand with only three Aces
as 6.5 or 7 losers,
depending on where the 3rd A is located, and thus the hand could be
opened in tems of LTC.
Is the NLTC used by experts?

Bertil

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 7:07 am
From: Charles Brenner

On Nov 27, 4:10 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> > > > > > > He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> > > > > > > has been found.
> > > > > > > Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>
> > > > > > Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
> > > > > > bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>
> > > > > > Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> > > > > > Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>
> > > > > > His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
> > > > > > p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
> > > > > > attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
> > > > > > of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
> > > > > > Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
> > > > > > He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
> > > > > > George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
> > > > > > frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
> > > > > > concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
> > > > > > Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>
> > > > > > If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
> > > > > > riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
> > > > > > a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
> > > > > > is a better 7 loser hand than
> > > > > > b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
> > > > > > This his arithmetic.
> > > > > > (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
> > > > > > Controls Control HCP correction net
> > > > > > points
> > > > > > Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
> > > > > > Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>
> > > > > > Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> > > > > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> > > > > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> > > > > fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
> > > > > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> > > > > think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> > > > > would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> > > > > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
> > > > > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> > > > > QT ?
> > > > > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
> > > > > based on a good fit.
>
> > > > You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
> > > > about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
> > > > any search for bridge info.
>
> > > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>
> > > > "A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial Count. An
> > > > opening bid is based on:
>
> > > > 1. not holding more than 7 losers.
> > > > 2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive tricks.
> > > > 3. a sound rebid."
>
> > > > I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums up my
> > > > opening hand evaluation pretty well.
>
> > > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>
> > Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even using it
> > from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why I even bother
> > to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me. Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
> I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
> I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
> answer.
> Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
> invective and signed off with Bye.

Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.

Charles

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 1:47 pm
From: Bertil

On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 4:10 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> > > > > > > > He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> > > > > > > > has been found.
> > > > > > > > Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>
> > > > > > > Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
> > > > > > > bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>
> > > > > > > Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > > using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> > > > > > > Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > > using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>
> > > > > > > His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
> > > > > > > p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
> > > > > > > attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
> > > > > > > of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
> > > > > > > Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
> > > > > > > He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
> > > > > > > George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
> > > > > > > frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
> > > > > > > concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
> > > > > > > Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>
> > > > > > > If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
> > > > > > > riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
> > > > > > > a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
> > > > > > > is a better 7 loser hand than
> > > > > > > b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
> > > > > > > This his arithmetic.
> > > > > > > (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
> > > > > > > Controls Control HCP correction net
> > > > > > > points
> > > > > > > Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
> > > > > > > Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>
> > > > > > > Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> > > > > > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> > > > > > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> > > > > > fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
> > > > > > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> > > > > > think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> > > > > > would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> > > > > > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
> > > > > > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> > > > > > QT ?
> > > > > > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
> > > > > > based on a good fit.
>
> > > > > You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
> > > > > about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
> > > > > any search for bridge info.
>
> > > > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>
> > > > > "A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial Count. An
> > > > > opening bid is based on:
>
> > > > > 1. not holding more than 7 losers.
> > > > > 2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive tricks.
> > > > > 3. a sound rebid."
>
> > > > > I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums up my
> > > > > opening hand evaluation pretty well.
>
> > > > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>
> > > Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even using it
> > > from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why I even bother
> > > to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me. Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
> > I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
> > I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
> > answer.
> > Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
> > invective and signed off with Bye.
>
> Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
> ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
> mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
> Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
> Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.
>
> Charles- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The 6th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia says that Ira Corn won Mixed
Pairs 1963,
Men's Team 1968 and Vanderbilt 1973. That in my mind shows expertise.

Bertil

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 2:53 pm
From: Bertil

On Nov 27, 4:47 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 4:10 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with Klinger's book.
> > > > > > > > > He makes it very clear that LTC applies only after an 8-fit or better
> > > > > > > > > has been found.
> > > > > > > > > Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening hands?
>
> > > > > > > > Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for opening the
> > > > > > > > bidding except for opening bids specifically playing strength.
>
> > > > > > > > Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > > > using LTC as the primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
> > > > > > > > Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a lot of events
> > > > > > > > using LTC as a primary evaluation method for opening the bidding.
>
> > > > > > > > His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims, for example, on
> > > > > > > > p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935 book "It was given scant
> > > > > > > > attention then ... and cam to light again in 1961 through the endeavors
> > > > > > > > of Maurice Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
> > > > > > > > Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between 1935 and 1961.
> > > > > > > > He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was devised by
> > > > > > > > George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz knows better, and has
> > > > > > > > frequently in writing acknowledged that the Roman players provided the
> > > > > > > > concept. They were using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
> > > > > > > > Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read Rosenkranz.
>
> > > > > > > > If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the appendix. This has a
> > > > > > > > riotous confusion of categories. According to Klinger,
> > > > > > > > a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
> > > > > > > > is a better 7 loser hand than
> > > > > > > > b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q (14 HCP)
> > > > > > > > This his arithmetic.
> > > > > > > > (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
> > > > > > > > Controls Control HCP correction net
> > > > > > > > points
> > > > > > > > Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2 LTC
> > > > > > > > Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7 1/2 LTC
>
> > > > > > > > Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with a grain of salt.
>
> > > > > > > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a long time.
> > > > > > > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand with 7 or
> > > > > > > fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
> > > > > > > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify. Nor do I
> > > > > > > think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx
> > > > > > > would qualify even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
> > > > > > > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
> > > > > > > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass Qxx-KJxxx-KQx-
> > > > > > > QT ?
> > > > > > > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC must be
> > > > > > > based on a good fit.
>
> > > > > > You really need to refine your search methods. BridgeGuys.com talks
> > > > > > about _opening_ based on LTC, and that site pops up first in almost
> > > > > > any search for bridge info.
>
> > > > > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>
> > > > > > "A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial Count. An
> > > > > > opening bid is based on:
>
> > > > > > 1. not holding more than 7 losers.
> > > > > > 2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive tricks.
> > > > > > 3. a sound rebid."
>
> > > > > > I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums up my
> > > > > > opening hand evaluation pretty well.
>
> > > > > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>
> > > > Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even using it
> > > > from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why I even bother
> > > > to try to help someone with such a closed mind is beyond me. Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
> > > I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
> > > I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
> > > answer.
> > > Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
> > > invective and signed off with Bye.
>
> > Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
> > ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
> > mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
> > Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel? Yes
> > Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.
>
> > Charles- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 6th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia says that Ira Corn won Mixed
> Pairs 1963,
> Men's Team 1968 and Vanderbilt 1973. That in my mind shows expertise.
>
> Bertil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The other day I tried to e-mail my son but it was undelivered twice
because of typos.
So why would I try to retype the website given, that is much more
complicated.
It's up to the poster to correct his typos.
I trusted the ACBL Editors with regard to Ira Corn. So why is there an
argument?

Bertil

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 3:33 pm
From: HoneyMonster

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:53:22 -0800, Bertil wrote:

> On Nov 27, 4:47 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 10:07 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 4:10 am, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 26, 6:56 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 26, 12:05 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, Bertil <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Nov 25, 3:53 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On 11/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bertil wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Counting LTC for opening hands does not agree with
>> > > > > > > > > Klinger's book. He makes it very clear that LTC applies
>> > > > > > > > > only after an 8-fit or better has been found.
>> > > > > > > > > Who has advocated applying LTC on ordinary opening
>> > > > > > > > > hands?
>>
>> > > > > > > > Klinger makes the claim that LTC should not be used for
>> > > > > > > > opening the bidding except for opening bids specifically
>> > > > > > > > playing strength.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Note that CAB players (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a
>> > > > > > > > lot of events using LTC as the primary evaluation method
>> > > > > > > > for opening the bidding.
>> > > > > > > > Note that Roman player (whom Klinger ignores) won quite a
>> > > > > > > > lot of events using LTC as a primary evaluation method
>> > > > > > > > for opening the bidding.
>>
>> > > > > > > > His ignoring the Roman players is amazing. He claims,
>> > > > > > > > for example, on p.11 that after Courtney & Walshe's 1935
>> > > > > > > > book "It was given scant attention then ... and cam to
>> > > > > > > > light again in 1961 through the endeavors of Maurice
>> > > > > > > > Harrison-Gray...". Apparently Klinger is unaware of
>> > > > > > > > Belladonna & Avarelli's successes in the period between
>> > > > > > > > 1935 and 1961.
>> > > > > > > > He claims (p.69) that "The concept of 'cover cards' was
>> > > > > > > > devised by George Rosenkranz...". George Rosenkranz
>> > > > > > > > knows better, and has frequently in writing acknowledged
>> > > > > > > > that the Roman players provided the concept. They were
>> > > > > > > > using 'cover cards' at least by the early 1950s.
>> > > > > > > > Apparently Klinger hasn't even bothered to read
>> > > > > > > > Rosenkranz.
>>
>> > > > > > > > If you want a real laugh, check section (5) of the
>> > > > > > > > appendix. This has a riotous confusion of categories.
>> > > > > > > > According to Klinger,
>> > > > > > > > a) S:Axxxxx H:Kxxx D:xx C:x (7 HCP)
>> > > > > > > > is a better 7 loser hand than b) S:AJxxxx H:KJxx D:QJ C:Q
>> > > > > > > > (14 HCP)
>> > > > > > > > This his arithmetic.
>> > > > > > > > (1) (2) (3) (2)-(3) LTC
>> > > > > > > > Controls Control HCP correction
>> > > > > > > > net
>> > > > > > > > points
>> > > > > > > > Hand a 3 10 7 +3 -1/2 loser 6 1/2
>> > > > > > > > LTC Hand b 3 10 14 -4 +1/2 loser 7
>> > > > > > > > 1/2 LTC
>>
>> > > > > > > > Take Klinger and his _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ with
>> > > > > > > > a grain of salt.
>>
>> > > > > > > This is one of the most interesting posts I'v seen in a
>> > > > > > > long time.
>> > > > > > > But it's also confusing. It seems to say that any hand
>> > > > > > > with 7 or fewer LTC can be opened at the one level.
>> > > > > > > Surely a 7-6-0-0 type hand with no HCP would not qualify.
>> > > > > > > Nor do I think a hand like Axxxx-xx-x-Kxxxx would qualify
>> > > > > > > even though it has only 7 LTC. So what other rules must
>> > > > > > > one apply with 6-7 LTC?
>> > > > > > > E.g would xx-AQxxx-Kxxx-x qualify and should one pass
>> > > > > > > Qxx-KJxxx-KQx- QT ?
>> > > > > > > Searching for LTC at Google did not help. All sites say LTC
>> > > > > > > must be based on a good fit.
>>
>> > > > > > You really need to refine your search methods.
>> > > > > > BridgeGuys.com talks about _opening_ based on LTC, and that
>> > > > > > site pops up first in almost any search for bridge info.
>>
>> > > > > >http://www.bridgeguys.com/LGlossary/LosingTrickCount.html:
>>
>> > > > > > "A player, in deciding to open the auction, uses the Initial
>> > > > > > Count. An opening bid is based on:
>>
>> > > > > > 1. not holding more than 7 losers.
>> > > > > > 2. holding adequate high card values, including 2 defensive
>> > > > > > tricks. 3. a sound rebid."
>>
>> > > > > > I like that "adequate high card values". That probably sums
>> > > > > > up my opening hand evaluation pretty well.
>>
>> > > > > Not unexpectedly your website reference does not work.
>>
>> > > > Not surprisingly, you're an idiot. It works just fine, even
>> > > > using it from YOUR post. And it says exactly what I quoted. Why
>> > > > I even bother to try to help someone with such a closed mind is
>> > > > beyond me. Bye.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > Let me recap so everybody will understand why I respond as follows.
>> > > I clicked on the website you posted but it was dead,
>> > > I posed a specific problem but you were unable to make a rational
>> > > answer.
>> > > Instead you resorted, as you have done in the past, to a vile
>> > > invective and signed off with Bye.
>>
>> > Do you have some kind of mental filter that helps you automatically
>> > ignore helpful and pleasant posts such as that of Andrew B (not to
>> > mention my own post helpfully explaining how you misunderstood Ira
>> > Corn), while honing in on those who reply to you with rude drivel?
>> > Yes Derek was wrong but you don't need to be helpless.
>>
>> > Charles- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> The 6th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia says that Ira Corn won Mixed
>> Pairs 1963,
>> Men's Team 1968 and Vanderbilt 1973. That in my mind shows expertise.
>>
>> Bertil- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The other day I tried to e-mail my son but it was undelivered twice
> because of typos.

Unsurprising.

> So why would I try to retype the website given, that is much more
> complicated.

Yes, pressing the backspace key once is hard work.

> It's up to the poster to correct his typos.
> I trusted the ACBL Editors with regard to Ira Corn. So why is there an
> argument?

There is no argument; merely laughter.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 3:37 pm
From: Martin Ambuhl

On 11/27/2011 7:48 AM, Bertil wrote:

>
> Lacking your vast experience and know how of other systems I'm unable
> to comment on your post.
> But I would like to ask why you made no mentioning of other LTC
> counts, such as the New LTC from
> an article in BW in 2003 by Koelman. It's based on counting half
> losers for missing honors.
> Specifically it counts 3 for the A, 2 for the K and 1 for the Q, for a
> total of 6 halves or 3 losers.

This is nothing more than including controls. It gives you the first 3
steps of the 4 Aces count (for non-losers), as Kaplan remarked in the 4C
article. Add in Work HCP, and you have the Vienna (Bamberger) count:

(1) (2) (1)+(2) (3) (1)+(2)+(3)
Non-losers Controls 4 Aces' HCP Vienna
A 1 2 3 4 7
non-losing K 1 1 2 3 5
non-losing Q 1 0 1 2 3
J 0 0 0 1 1

Now, what do you do with losing Ks and Qs or with Js. There is always
someone ready to claim an old idea as his very own, brand new,
revolutionary contribution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which strategy would be best?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/7af03253f0a3125c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:48 am
From: boblipton

On Nov 26, 12:20 pm, Reint <ostend...@kvi.nl> wrote:
> In our latest team match I caused us to miss a (vulnerable) slam. The
> hand I had was:
>
> 9
> J7
> KJT864
> AJT4
>
> opposite my partner's hand:
>
> AKQ3
> A964
> A5
> Q87
>
> My partner was dealer and our auction was:
>
> 1C - 1D
> 2NT - 3NT
>
> Obviously 3NT is a poor choice. I realized that a slam could be on and
> another lively possibility is that 3NT even goes down where 5-minor or
> 6-minor would make. It might even have been a grand, opposite the
> likes of Ax,AJx,Ax,KQxxx 7C has excellent chances.
> I thought of bidding 4D but the problem was that I didn't know how the
> auction should continue further, hence my 3NT hoping that it would be
> made without missing a slam.
> My two questions are:
>
> - what would be your choice and how to investigate whether it should
> be diamonds or clubs?
>
> - should 4D be seen as a slam try, where cue bidding (4H,4S) would
> show acceptance and 4NT a sign-off or
> should 4D be stronger with cue bidding obligatory?

Before commenting usefully on the auction. one must infer certain
things about your bidding; first, that your are not playing a strong
club system, and that 1D seems to deny a major. I don't like it at
all. You cannot treat diamonds with contempt (nothing useful to say,
partner!) and then expect to find the slam in the contemptible strain
when it suits you.

There is no need to have abstract understandings. Had opener taken the
old-fashioned approach, that 1D was an attempt to find the right
strain and rebid 1H, the results might have been better. Responder
might have rebid 3D or 3C (a tad pushy with all those quacks) and
opener might have had an ahah moment.

In the end, however, I find something a bit result-merchantish about
the results. Make opener's hand AQJ AKxx Ax Qxx, and 6D is not so
pretty.

Bob

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 6:40 am
From: Dave Flower

On Nov 26, 5:20 pm, Reint <ostend...@kvi.nl> wrote:
> In our latest team match I caused us to miss a (vulnerable) slam. The
> hand I had was:
>
> 9
> J7
> KJT864
> AJT4
>
> opposite my partner's hand:
>
> AKQ3
> A964
> A5
> Q87
>
> My partner was dealer and our auction was:
>
> 1C - 1D
> 2NT - 3NT
>
> Obviously 3NT is a poor choice. I realized that a slam could be on and
> another lively possibility is that 3NT even goes down where 5-minor or
> 6-minor would make. It might even have been a grand, opposite the
> likes of Ax,AJx,Ax,KQxxx 7C has excellent chances.
> I thought of bidding 4D but the problem was that I didn't know how the
> auction should continue further, hence my 3NT hoping that it would be
> made without missing a slam.
> My two questions are:
>
> - what would be your choice and how to investigate whether it should
> be diamonds or clubs?
>
> - should 4D be seen as a slam try, where cue bidding (4H,4S) would
> show acceptance and 4NT a sign-off or
> should 4D be stronger with cue bidding obligatory?
>
> thanks,
> Reint.

I think that 6D is odds-on, but perhaps not by a lot.

On a heart lead, the percentage play may well be, HA, DA, DK, SAKQ
discarding a heart and a club. Run the CQ.

Any comments ?

Dave Flower

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 6:59 am
From: Co Wiersma

Op 27-11-2011 13:48, boblipton schreef:
> and that 1D seems to deny a major

where you see that?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 12:38 pm
From: jogs

On Nov 27, 6:40 am, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:20 pm, Reint <ostend...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In our latest team match I caused us to miss a (vulnerable) slam. The
> > hand I had was:
>
> > 9
> > J7
> > KJT864
> > AJT4
>
> > opposite my partner's hand:
>
> > AKQ3
> > A964
> > A5
> > Q87
>
> > My partner was dealer and our auction was:
>
> > 1C - 1D
> > 2NT - 3NT
>
> > Obviously 3NT is a poor choice. I realized that a slam could be on and
> > another lively possibility is that 3NT even goes down where 5-minor or
> > 6-minor would make. It might even have been a grand, opposite the
> > likes of Ax,AJx,Ax,KQxxx 7C has excellent chances.
> > I thought of bidding 4D but the problem was that I didn't know how the
> > auction should continue further, hence my 3NT hoping that it would be
> > made without missing a slam.
> > My two questions are:
>
> > - what would be your choice and how to investigate whether it should
> > be diamonds or clubs?
>
> > - should 4D be seen as a slam try, where cue bidding (4H,4S) would
> > show acceptance and 4NT a sign-off or
> > should 4D be stronger with cue bidding obligatory?
>
> > thanks,
> > Reint.
>
> I think that 6D is odds-on, but perhaps not by a lot.
>
> On a heart lead, the percentage play may well be, HA, DA, DK, SAKQ
> discarding a heart and a club. Run the CQ.
>
> Any comments ?
>
> Dave Flower

Depends on the defending skills of opponents.
Let's say diamonds split 3-2. After DA, DK only
a small diamond remains. CQ holds. Small club
to ten. Loses to club king. Club back ruffed for
down one.
So what's the percentage of this line?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 1:10 pm
From: Dave Flower

On Nov 27, 8:38 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 6:40 am, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 5:20 pm, Reint <ostend...@kvi.nl> wrote:
>
> > > In our latest team match I caused us to miss a (vulnerable) slam. The
> > > hand I had was:
>
> > > 9
> > > J7
> > > KJT864
> > > AJT4
>
> > > opposite my partner's hand:
>
> > > AKQ3
> > > A964
> > > A5
> > > Q87
>
> > > My partner was dealer and our auction was:
>
> > > 1C - 1D
> > > 2NT - 3NT
>
> > > Obviously 3NT is a poor choice. I realized that a slam could be on and
> > > another lively possibility is that 3NT even goes down where 5-minor or
> > > 6-minor would make. It might even have been a grand, opposite the
> > > likes of Ax,AJx,Ax,KQxxx 7C has excellent chances.
> > > I thought of bidding 4D but the problem was that I didn't know how the
> > > auction should continue further, hence my 3NT hoping that it would be
> > > made without missing a slam.
> > > My two questions are:
>
> > > - what would be your choice and how to investigate whether it should
> > > be diamonds or clubs?
>
> > > - should 4D be seen as a slam try, where cue bidding (4H,4S) would
> > > show acceptance and 4NT a sign-off or
> > > should 4D be stronger with cue bidding obligatory?
>
> > > thanks,
> > > Reint.
>
> > I think that 6D is odds-on, but perhaps not by a lot.
>
> > On a heart lead, the percentage play may well be, HA, DA, DK, SAKQ
> > discarding a heart and a club. Run the CQ.
>
> > Any comments ?
>
> > Dave Flower
>
> Depends on the defending skills of opponents.
> Let's say diamonds split 3-2. After DA, DK only
> a small diamond remains. CQ holds. Small club
> to ten. Loses to club king. Club back ruffed for
> down one.
> So what's the percentage of this line?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I assumed that the DQ remained out; obviously if it drops trumps
are drawn. Not if declarer erroneously plays DK, DA, then two rounds
of spades (heart discard), ruff a heart high, draw the last trump and
concede a club.

But DA first means that declarer still has a chance if the diamonds
are 5-0

Dave Flower

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A form of 3C Puppet Stayman over 1NT opening bids
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/ac5a2a526e12952f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 5:33 am
From: "Bud Hinckley"

The form of 3C Puppet Stayman used over 1NT opening bids described by Justin
Lall (and congrats to him for winning the Nail Life Master Pairs in Seattle
yesterday) at

http://justinlall.com/2011/09/07/puppet-stayman-after-a-1n-opener/

which he credits learning from Joe Grue does a great job of hiding
information from the defenders by not giving away needless information about
the 1NT opener's hand when responder has a game forcing hand with minimal
slam interest.

The major features of this form of 3C Puppet Stayman over 1NT are:

1. Opener can only bid 3D (denying a 5-card major) or 3 of a major showing
a 5-card suit. 3NT is NOT an allowed response.

2. Responder uses 3C Puppet Stayman with ONE 4-card major. Responder uses
regular 2C Stayman with TWO 4-card majors.

One question asked about this method is how you find your 8-card fits when
responder is 3-5 (3 spades, 5 hearts) or 5-3 (5 spades, 3 hearts).

I have invented a solution to this problem thanks to the use of this form of
3C Puppet Stayman that Justin has described. An additional benefit is that
the 1NT opening bidder will be declarer in all cases.

The two auctions 1NT-2C-2H-3NT and 1NT-2C-2S-3NT cannot theoretically occur
because responder would have bid 3C Puppet Stayman with a single 4-card
major. We can use these two auctions artificially to show 3-card support
for opener's major with 5 cards in the other major.

But what if opener bids 2D denying a major? Then you fake a Smolen bid,
jumping to 3 of your 3-card major, and in the process showing five cards in
the other major, which is the only suit at that point in which you can have
an 8-card fit.

In summary,

1. With 3-5 in the majors, use regular 2C Stayman and here are your three
auctions:

(a) 1NT-2C-2D-3S (shows five hearts via fake Smolen)
(b) 1NT-2C-2H-4H
(c) 1NT-2C-2S-3NT (choice of games with 3-5 majors)

2. With 5-3 in the majors, you use regular 2C Stayman and here are your
three auctions:

(a) 1NT-2C-2D-3H (shows five spades via fake Smolen)
(b) 1NT-2C-2H-3NT (choice of games with 5-3 majors)
(c) 1NT-2C-2S-4S

Here is a table of the responses I have constructed for several major suit
distributions held by responder when he holds a game forcing hand without
slam interest after partner opens 1NT:

One or two 3-card majors

3C, then raise opener's 5-card major to game or over 3D bid 3NT

One 4-card major (possibly with a 3-card major)

3C, then over 3D bid the 4-card major you do NOT hold

3-5 or 5-3 majors

2C - 2D - 3 of your 3-card major (faking Smolen to show your 5-card
major)
2C - 2 of your 3-card major - 3NT (artificial) showing the 3-5 or 5-3
majors
2C - 2 of your 5-card major - 4 of the major

4-4 majors

2C, then raise opener's major to game or bid 3NT

4-5 or 5-4 majors

2C, then Smolen over 2D or raise opener's major to game

4-6 or 6-4 majors

2C Stayman, then raise opener's major to game or over 2D use delayed
Texas; or use Texas directly and give up on the possible fit in the other
major

5-5 majors

Transfer to 2S and bid 3H; OR
Use 3D, 3H, or 3S to show a 5-5 majors game force

You can also show hands with some slam interest that are 5332 type shape
with a long minor and also 4432 type shapes with one 4-card major and one
4-card minor by first starting with 3C Puppet Stayman. You can learn more
about those at the end of Justin's description of the convention.

Bud Hinckley
budh9534@gmail.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:19 pm
From: shuster

You are way overthinking/complicating it. Without going into the
various drawbacks of this, I have an more simple alternative. If you
are so terrified of missing 5-3 major fits after opening 1NT, try
opening 1 of the major instead.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suggest a sequence
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/1f0127aa3a8082d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:23 pm
From: Steve Willner

On 11/20/2011 9:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
> AKx AQx AKJ9x Kx opposite xxx KJTxxx ? Axx
> West is dealer, and South will overcall 1S or 2S if possible.

Thanks for all comments. At the table, East did hold D-Q, and we bid to
7H as follows:
1C!-1H-(1S) : Polish (multiway) 1C; natural 1H
2D -2H : 18+ HCP, 5+D; 5+H
3H -4C : exactly 3c heart support; C-control (1st or 2nd round)
4NT-5H
7H -P

East knew D-Q was a good card, but was it enough to justify bidding 7NT
after West has taken control? The result was still a 10-imp pickup
against 6NT at the other table (in a match we won easily -- our
teammates were terrific!), but it seems to me it should have been 11.
Our first two rounds of bidding were so promising: already in a GF at 2H
with both of us knowing each other's suit. We just couldn't manage the
later rounds.

Anyway, I very much appreciate all the comments and would be glad to see
more. Perhaps the most practical suggestion was from Frances: have 6D
after Blackwood ask about diamond honors. Is that popular?

As a side comment, I was surprised at people who think East should bid
5S in response to Blackwood. I'd expect a seventh heart for that, even
in the sequences that start with strong 2C.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is the right bid here?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/t/0ec90d6c38adc01d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 4:37 pm
From: Steve Willner

On 11/21/2011 1:08 PM, sofos wrote:
> Matchpoints NS vul Dealer South
>
> West North East South
> -- -- -- 1H
> P P 2D ??
>
> You hold (playing 2 over 1)
> J5 AKJ98654 A J3
> You decide to open 1H (would you have?).

If I were going to preempt, it would have to be 5H because bidding 4H
seems too little. I'm not keen on that, so I agree with the 1H opening.
As others have written, if you can open 4C to show a strong 4H bid,
this seems to be a fine hand for it.

> It goes P P and RHO bids 2D. What now?

As others have written, 4H is normal. Against some opponents, it's
worth considering 2H. Your aim should be to buy the contract in hearts,
and jumping now will intimidate some opponents but goad others. There's
no substitute for knowing your customers.

One thing I'd like to know is how limited East's 2D bid is. Most play
it up to a max of 12 HCP or so, and if that's the case, West must have
points and be well-stacked in hearts not to have bid over 1H. Others
play that 2D can be a fairly strong hand, in which case West doesn't
have to have hearts.

> If you were to bid 4H can you set 4S or 5D?

I wouldn't expect to, though partner might have just enough defensive
junk to do it. One advantage of the 2H sequence is that we won't be in
a forcing pass situation, though I think the majority of pairs these
days wouldn't play forcing passes even after a 4H bid. Years ago, I
think forcing passes after a voluntary game bid at these colors would
have been common.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.games.bridge"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.games.bridge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Archives

rec.games.bridge - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comentários:

Postar um comentário