[gwnn]

Michaels.

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2014-July-14, 10:57, said:

What would you use (1NT)-P-(2♦)-2♥ for instead?

Spades and a minor.

[ArtK78]

the hog, on 2014-July-14, 07:18, said:

&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I totally agree, Rainer. If you have an interest in optimizing your conventions and the effectiveness, then you would clearly incorporate some gf sequences into the 2c bid; this is obvious. If you play a fnt response to 1M, the same argument holds. Many now of course play a semi forcing NT and that negates the latter argument.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To not include some strong sequences into 2c so that opener knows how far he can compete is funny beyond words and shows a total lack of understandind of system design.<br><br>Arguments such ad "I know many players I respect who do blahblah" are meaningless nonsense. You need to present a sensible and coherent example and rationale of system design, not appeal to meaningless authority.

I repeat, bad players get their ideas from a number of players who post in fora such as these. Giving the oops the knowledge that your hand contains limited values gives them a blueprint to compete - come in boys, we are going to bend over an die.

We obviously have different opinons on bidding theory. You want to have as many ways as possible to show different sorts of hands. I want to do what I consider to be practical in an effort to impede the opponent's ability to get to their optimal contract while offering our side reasonable safety. In that respect, we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, and there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

As for your opinion on my discussions with players who I respect and who decide for a variety of reasons not to agree with you, all I can say is you think that you are right and they (and I) think that they are right. Again, this is an irreconcilable difference of opinion, and there is no point in continuing the discussion. But merely dismissing the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you is not an intelligent argument - it is just contradiction.

Quite frankly, what you are suggesting is that a 2♣ response to a mini-NT shows all hands with less than game forcing values AND certain hands with game forcing values, while a 2♦ response to a mini-NT is unconditionally game forcing. While I know that "traditional" two-way Stayman is legal in the ACBL, I am not sure about having two responses (2♣ and 2♦) to the mini-NT which can both contain game forcing hands. But that is a regulatory problem, not a bridge problem.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-14, 03:18, said:

I'm amazed the "must not play transfers over a mini" brigade did not make their case more forcefully. Perhaps, they thought quoting a few big names was sufficient.

Or perhaps they just don't have much of a case.

[helene_t]

What about something like:
2♣=Stayman
2♦=Ostensibly an invitational hand with a 5-card major (paradox responses by opener)
2M/3m/3M: to play

It still leaks some information since opener will say whether he would have accepted an invite in hearts or not, even if responder turns out to not have hearts. But at least it allows us to play in 2♥ when responder has an ivnitational hands with hearts, something you can't always achieve playing two-way stayman, as opener might respond 2♠.

[Zelandakh]

Art, one easy extension would be for 2♣ to show an invitational hand but that the invite might be to slam. Then 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 3NT might be something similar to a regular 4NT response. This strikes me as easy to remember and consistent with the core concept.

[helene_t]

Art: of course it's legal to have two different responses that both handle some gf hands. All systems have plenty of examples of that. You might be required to specify which gf hands bid what but that sounds like a good idea anyway

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-14, 13:23, said:

While I know that "traditional" two-way Stayman is legal in the ACBL, I am not sure about having two responses (2♣ and 2♦) to the mini-NT which can both contain game forcing hands. But that is a regulatory problem, not a bridge problem.

It's also a problem that's very easily solved. The ACBL General Convention Chart tells us that "ALL CALLS" are allowed in response to a 10-12 notrump opening.

[EricK]

A couple of bad ideas from last night:

1. Opp's bidding (and these are one of the better pairs in the club)
1♣ 1♠
3♠4♣
4♥4♠
5♠6♠
The first 3 bids are natural. The 4th is Gerber (obviously). Well actually it is some sort of RKG as the 4♥ bid shows 1 or 4. The 4♠ bid was bid after some hesitation, as was the 5♠, and the 6♠. Anybody care to guess what was going on?

Spoiler

The 4♠ was not a sign-off, nor even a conditional sign-off assuming partner had 1. It was asking for Kings. 5♠ presumably showed 2 Kings as dummy's hand was ♠J986 ♥K93 ♦QT AKJ8. Although what other bids show is a mystery - as is why that is a 3♠ raise

2. Playing with a pick-up
Pard RHO Me LHO
P 2♥ 2NT P
3♣P
Now, we had agreed that opposite a 1NT overcall, bids are natural except an immediate cue which is strong and Stayman-esque. I wasn't sure what partner meant by this bid, but in the end decided to pass. After the opening lead, as I was putting down dummy, I mentioned our agreement over 1NT and that I hoped I had guessed right. At which point my RHO said something like "Oh isn't that the unusual NT? I think your partner forgot to alert." And indeed everybody at the table thought that 2NT in this position showed both minors.

[ArtK78]

EricK, on 2014-July-29, 12:07, said:

A couple of bad ideas from last night:

1. Opp's bidding (and these are one of the better pairs in the club)
1♣ 1♠
3♠4♣
4♥4♠
5♠6♠
The first 3 bids are natural. The 4th is Gerber (obviously). Well actually it is some sort of RKG as the 4♥ bid shows 1 or 4. The 4♠ bid was bid after some hesitation, as was the 5♠, and the 6♠. Anybody care to guess what was going on?

Spoiler

The 4♠ was not a sign-off, nor even a conditional sign-off assuming partner had 1. It was asking for Kings. 5♠ presumably showed 2 Kings as dummy's hand was ♠J986 ♥K93 ♦QT AKJ8. Although what other bids show is a mystery - as is why that is a 3♠ raise

2. Playing with a pick-up
Pard RHO Me LHO
P 2♥ 2NT P
3♣P
Now, we had agreed that opposite a 1NT overcall, bids are natural except an immediate cue which is strong and Stayman-esque. I wasn't sure what partner meant by this bid, but in the end decided to pass. After the opening lead, as I was putting down dummy, I mentioned our agreement over 1NT and that I hoped I had guessed right. At which point my RHO said something like "Oh isn't that the unusual NT? I think your partner forgot to alert." And indeed everybody at the table thought that 2NT in this position showed both minors.

These exhibits do not rise to the level of bad ideas. In order to be bad ideas, there has to be an idea to begin with.

[steve2005]

Theoretically there is no need for 2♦ as forcing Stayman. You can always have some sort of relay system after regular 2♣ Stayman to handle the GF hands you would use 2♦ for.

That said, if you're using 12-14, 10-12 or a similar 1N range and have decided not to use transfers using 2♦ as GF Stayman can really simplify your bidding system.

[yunling]

If you don't want opponents to balance over your transfers, you might just try something like
1NT 2♦=weak with ♥ or inv+ with ♠
1NT 2♥=weak with ♠ or inv+ with ♥
Which makes direct actions dangerous for 4th hand and good for rightsiding.

[biggerclub]

whereagles, on 2014-July-01, 01:07, said:

what? you never made 3NT on 24 HCP? ya newbie

I got caught on this one and passed . . . something like 1♦, 1♥, 2NT all pass . . . leading to a lecture from my RHO. "If she's got 18-19 and you've got 6 or 7, min. . . . <yawn> . . . ." P considers herself lucky when I put down a K and 2 Js.

I dunno, maybe he was planning some kind of snake in the grass x.

In my book, it is unethically rude to comment on OPPs bidding in their presence unless asked.

[blackshoe]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-29, 22:38, said:

I got caught on this one and passed . . . something like 1♦, 1♥, 2NT all pass . . . leading to a lecture from my RHO. "If she's got 18-19 and you've got 6 or 7, min. . . . <yawn> . . . ." P considers herself lucky when I put down a K and 2 Js.

I dunno, maybe he was planning some kind of snake in the grass x.

In my book, it is unethically rude to comment on OPPs bidding in their presence unless asked.

I don't mind conversation unrelated to bridge before a hand is taken out of the first board of the round, or after the last board is scored up, but I abhor any discussion by anybody of hands previously played in the session at any time, or any discussion of anything at all unrelated to the current hand during the round.

The time for post-mortems is after the session is over. Preferably over a beer, or after some sessions a case of Scotch. Or tequila.

[benlessard]

playing a weak NT in a strong NT country for many years now. Now I play transfers but used to play no transfers, not a big deal one way or another. I think no transfers is slightly better in a 11-14 range in a 12-14 range both are about equals.

[gwnn]

You might want to avoid stepping in this particular hornet's nest

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2014-August-01, 23:55, said:

You might want to avoid stepping in this particular hornet's nest

:-)

[helene_t]

Next time you see someone with both Gerber and Stolen Bid on their CC, tell them that they can combine the two, playing a dbl of opps' 4♣ as ace asking. Then report here if they thought you were serious