[Phil]

OKB 2/1

A student who is intent on learning the game forwarded this link to me. I think this may be the worst suggestion of a method I have ever heard of.

Some excerpts:

Quote

This fact often makes it necessary to open the bidding with “one club” in the case of a 4-card major even if the opener does not have clubs with which to play.

Reasonable introduction. Its hard for a new player to understand that 1♣ can be a catchall opening when you don't have a five card major.

Quote

For now, it is enough to say that unlike in SAYC, partners with interest in the majors (4 cards in one or both major suits) should always open the bidding with “one club” regardless of the length and strength of the clubs or diamonds in their hand. The opening bid of “one diamond” alternatively denies interest in a major suit.

Whoa Nelly...

So I open 1♣ with Axxx AQxx AQxxx void??

Majors

Quote

showing weak support with a direct bid (1♥- 2♥ or 1♠- 2♠) with 6-9 points and 3 card support and an unbalanced hand (see forcing 1NT below);

You lost me at 'unbalanced'.

Quote

using the Forcing notrump response (1♥ or 1♠- 1NT) to show weak or invitational hands with balanced or semi-balanced hands, and

Interesting use of the F1N response.

It gets better:

Quote

showing strong support with a “two over one” response. When responding to a 5-card major opening bid, a bid at the two-level which is a lesser suit than partners opening bid at the one level (i.e. “two over one”) is a game forcing bid that promises strong support for partners 5-card major.

Strong support includes:
3-card support and 12 high card points, or
4-card support with 6-9 points, or
3-card support with 8-9 points and an unbalanced hand.

So many ways to raise partner's major. Glad we have all of these unused calls at the two level.

Quote

Examples of a 2/1 response: 1♥ - 2♣; 1♥ - 2♦; 1♠ - 2♣; 1♠ - 2♦; and 1♠ - 2♥. The 2/1 bid shows both game strength (perhaps with slam interest) and also conveys additional information about responder’s hand. Of course, the 2/1 response should never be passed by the opening partner because the next bid by responder will clarify if the responder has support for partners 5-card major.

Well, no duh. How else are we going to find these magical 16 point games?

Quote

Rule: Over a 5-card major, a 2/1 bid by an unpassed hand is forcing to game.

Thus the name. What a clever idea.

Quote

The Walse convention is a “one diamond” response to an opening bid of “one club.” The convention is invoked by responder with interest in a major suit game. If responder has a 4 card major without sufficient strength for game, then responder bids that suit up the line (i.e. skips the “one diamond” bid to deny game forcing strength).

Aquahombre and I just learned something today. In the only club the author has played in he ran into Montreal Relay and has conflated it with Walsh.

Quote

With 20-21 points, open the bidding with “two no-trump” (forcing);

Better play dem 3N's really well pard!

[inquiry]

A Wikipedia posting run amok...

[32519]

 Phil, on 2013-June-14, 15:42, said:

A student who is intent on learning the game forwarded this link to me. I think this may be the worst suggestion of a method I have ever heard of.
Some excerpts:

Quote

For now, it is enough to say that unlike in SAYC, partners with interest in the majors (4 cards in one or both major suits) should always open the bidding with “one club” regardless of the length and strength of the clubs or diamonds in their hand. The opening bid of “one diamond” alternatively denies interest in a major suit.

From this I think they are trying to include the concepts of The Magic Club & Sparkling Diamond into this system.

[Antrax]

 Phil, on 2013-June-14, 15:42, said:

Interesting use of the F1N response.

It's explained later:

Quote

Since the 1NT bid is invoked with both weak and intermediate hands, it is possible for partnerships with two weak hands to get into some trouble. In theory, this is a small price to pay in weak situations relative to the benefits in other situations of showing extra strength from voids and singletons. In practice when the bidding stops at 1NT, the opponents would probably balance the bidding and take over the auction, so very little is actually given up.

[PhilKing]

 Phil, on 2013-June-14, 15:42, said:

OKB 2/1

A student who is intent on learning the game forwarded this link to me. I think this may be the worst suggestion of a method I have ever heard of.

Check your sources - the one you give looks like a bad April Fool's joke. This is the real link:

http://www.fifthchai...e/annam/2-1.pdf

The system is well thought out and presented.

[jogs]

 PhilKing, on 2013-June-15, 03:38, said:

Check your sources - the one you give looks like a bad April Fool's joke. This is the real link:

http://www.fifthchai...e/annam/2-1.pdf

The system is well thought out and presented.

I can't find the page which explains minor suit openings.
Can you guide us and list the page? TIA

I just use Hardy' rule.
With 4432 open 1♦.
With 4423 open 1♣.

[PhilKing]

 jogs, on 2013-June-15, 07:41, said:

I can't find the page which explains minor suit openings.
Can you guide us and list the page? TIA

I just use Hardy' rule.
With 4432 open 1♦.
With 4423 open 1♣.

Don't know for sure, but it suggests at the top that basic SAYC agreements apply unless otherwise stated.

[gnasher]

Here's another article with the same primary author:

http://en.wikipedia....ive-card_majors

At the end he tells us that 1♣ (1NT) 2♥ shows a four-card suit.

[barmar]

I like this:

Quote

responder bids “one diamond” as if to say “Partner, I definitely have a 4-card major and enough strength to at least invite you to game or else force you to game, if we find a 4-4 major suit fit.”

So what does he bid with 3=3=6=1 shape?

I was surprised to notice that there's no Wikipedia article on OKbridge. Apparently BBO is the only online bridge site with a Wikipedia page.

[Phil]

 PhilKing, on 2013-June-15, 03:38, said:

Check your sources - the one you give looks like a bad April Fool's joke. This is the real link:

http://www.fifthchai...e/annam/2-1.pdf

The system is well thought out and presented.

This joke has been on Wiki for several years now.

What makes you think this article and the 5th chair article are even related?

[PhilKing]

 Phil, on 2013-June-15, 12:12, said:

This joke has been on Wiki for several years now.

What makes you think this article and the 5th chair article are even related?

No idea. But it may be because I don't. Then again I did not start a thread entitled "OKB 2/1", or make the mistake of reading past paragraph two of your link.

[EarlPurple]

I play a similar sort of system to the "magic club", i.e. it also uses 1♣ opening to show a 4-card major and 1♦ to show no 4 card major and 1NT as 16-18 balanced with 5 card majors.

The responses are slightly different to that in the article, but it is a very simple system to play effectively, and it is much easier to find your major suit fits this way, in particular as partner responds with 5 card majors to one of a minor. The only time it is hard to find a major fit is when opener has 5 hearts and 3 spades and responder has 5 (unless you incorporate flannery, but I think it is too rare of an occurence to bother with) and when opener opens 1NT and responder has to pass with a 4-card major and misses the 4-4 fit.

With the system, when you open 1H or 1S, you are then in a "5-card major" system so the continuation is UP TO YOU. When these people write systems they document the ENTIRE system. I don't see why there is any need to document an entire system that starts with a common 5-card major bid. You document the new parts e.g. the 1♣ and 1♦ opening and then you leave the common parts up to the users to pick from existing systems.

Therefore you can choose 2/1 continuations or Standard American continuations or any other 5-card major system.