[Antrax]

If S is the kind of player to always cover an honor with an honor, playing the Q and rising A only loses to Kx(x) offside.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-29, 11:28, said:

I am not quite sure what you are wanting to demonstrate this hand other than that one sometimes gets good scores when playing against beginners.

Zel, in my BBO profile, I have set my skill level at “intermediate.” At best I can label myself “advanced.” By far the majority of club players would also regard themselves as “intermediate.” We all have a passion for the game. It’s addictive. Week after week we keep on returning to the table for our “weekly fix.” If we can’t get our “weekly fix” for whatever reason, we start getting withdrawal symptoms. Here we have a room full of intermediates all drawing up their own set of agreements in an attempt to gain the upper hand. Just like you, I get “a kick” out of experimenting with new ideas. The only place I have to test some of these crazy ideas is against this room full of intermediates. All of them will be offended if you label them beginners. The seriousness with which you hear them arguing and fighting with each other over a bad result gives you an indication of how seriously they take the game and the desire to win. I also want to win, even if it is just a club game. As long as I am getting good results from some of these crazy ideas I will keep on playing them. These forums have plenty of posters who (almost) without fail, love to ridicule these crazy ideas. The latest ridiculing can be seen in this thread on big 2-suiters. The truth be said, from much of all this ridiculing, new possibilities come to mind, or things are pointed out which I never thought of in the first place.
No matter how good or bad Misiry is, the fact is it does not fit in with the rest of my system. After being dealt some of these big 2-suiters, I have only recently started developing some sort of partnership agreement on how to bid them that fits in with the rest of my system, and that requires minimal memory load.

What am I wanting to demonstrate? This forum is about interesting hands where all sorts of things happened at the table, sometimes good, sometimes bad. I added a hand to the forum where the contracts were all over the place. Maybe I just got lucky?

[manudude03]

We don't ridicule for the sake of ridiculing you, we are just doing this game a service. On BBO, an intermediate is simply someone who has played for at least 1 year, trust me, there are plenty of beginners who have played for longer, the true test is against the bigger fish.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2014-January-29, 13:19, said:

Zel, in my BBO profile, I have set my skill level at “intermediate.”

I am also intermediate. Imho at least 80% of players should be. One of the things I have consistently argued for is that the intermediate range be broken into two to make it more useful and to make it less appealing for high intermediates to bump themselves up to Advanced/Expert to differentiate themselves from the rest. In this case, North apparently missed an ace with their initial count and then decided that doubling the next time around showed that. Meanwhile South went to bed with a 7 card suit. Perhaps N-S forgot to agree some defence when E-W pre-alerted them and North then got confused. The whole thing would have been moot had South shown a pulse as dealer.

Crazy ideas are fine by me and I try not to reject anything without giving it a little thought. Sometimes even bad ideas lead on to good ones. Therefore I do still contribute to your system threads. I also have no problems with conventions that are good against intermediates but do not work so well against experts. The (both minors) 2NT opener in my own system probably falls into this category.

On a theoretical level, what I would suggest to you is to rearrange your system so that the stronger options within the multi 2♦ opening are rarer. Presumably you have a sequence for 6-4 majors and 16+ somewhere and it may be possible simply to switch this with your 10-15. There would still be some issues after that but I think it would be an improvement.

On fitting a simple 2-suiter method into your system without 2NT available, have you considered the (surely) simplest version of this, namely:

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣
3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + a major
3♥ = strong with both majors
3♠ = 3♠ preempt

or:

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣
3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + a major
3♥ = 3♠ preempt or strong with both majors
3♠ = Gambling 3NT opening

That gives a structure that is logical and very easy to remember. What is given up is the 3♣ preempt. For me that, combined with the other known disadvantages of transfer preempts, is more important than the gain on these 2-suited hands but YMMV. One advantage you would get from this base is that you can take the "big" minor 2-suiters out of the 2♦ opening. Perhaps you could even use that theme to tweak the 2♦ opening to include a big balanced hand and therefore free up the 2NT opening for 2-suited purposes and play something like:

2NT = 3♣ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♥
3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣ + a pointy suit
3♦ = strong 2-suiter with ♦ + ♠
3♥ = 3♥ preempt
3♠ = 3♠ preempt

or

2NT = 3♣ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♥
3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣ + a pointy suit
3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + ♠
3♥ = Gambling 3NT opening
3♠ = 3♠ preempt

Whatever you do end up doing, you can make the follow-ups as simple or complex as you like. Starting simple and building up over time is a reasonable approach - just recognise the limitations of a simple approach and make sure the structure is logical and consistent. At the end of the day there is no harm in playing a weak system that is fun. Otherwise Bacon Torpedo would never have been invented. I know many players love EHAA for this reason too. I doubt many of those playing it think EHAA is the best system around but that does not mean it is not fu to play and it can certainly be effective too. No doubt your system can be effective some times too; and if it is fun for you then it is just the right system for you, regardless of any shortcomings or system holes it might have.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-30, 04:20, said:

I also have no problems with conventions that are good against intermediates but do not work so well against experts. The (both minors) 2NT opener in my own system probably falls into this category.

fromageGB was the one who pointed out the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts. Misiry and this proposal of yours make use of 3 transfer pre-empts, all susceptible to the shortcomings pointed out by fromageGB.

Because of the low frequency of occurrence of big 2-suiters I reject both methods outright. Not only do they not fit in with the rest of my system, all I will be doing by adopting either is giving the opponents more options to enter the auction at low risk to themselves. 99.98% of these types of openings will be a weak single suiter i.e. a big 6-5 holding has a 0.02% probability of occurrence. A big 6-6 2-suiter has a 0.01% probability of occurrence. Effectively my method only has the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts on 1 bid, my 3♦ bid as a transfer to ♥. My 3♥ bid guarantees a big 2-suiter in ♠/m. Even if the opponents X 3♥ showing the suit, or bid 4♥, I can still outbid them in 4♠. If they choose to sacrifice my side still gets the plus score. The other downside of my method is that I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt, but I don’t lose it altogether as it ends up in my version of the Multi.

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-30, 04:20, said:

On a theoretical level, what I would suggest to you is to rearrange your system so that the stronger options within the multi 2♦ opening are rarer. Presumably you have a sequence for 6-4 majors and 16+ somewhere and it may be possible simply to switch this with your 10-15. There would still be some issues after that but I think it would be an improvement.

This is exactly what I have done. My version of the Multi has 3 strong/semi-strong options all with a relatively low frequency of occurrence. Read this post by mikeh. A natural 2♦ bid has a bigger nuisance value than many are willing to admit. Therefore I don't want to lose it. The overall frequency of occurrence of my 2♦ bid is 3.74%. Of that number, 2.64% is a natural ♦ suit. The other 3 options within my 2♦ bid which are rarer all have proper follow up sequences.

When I show the big 5-5 hand in the minors, the opponents easily outbid me in 3 of either major. However because I am showing a hand with proper values they won't bid the easy game versus players who show a weak hand in the minors (as your system does). Additionally, partner is now placed in a much better situation to bump the auction up to 4m. The opponents can still bid 4M but because I have shown real values, hopefully I can take them down and our side gets the plus score.

[gwnn]

(emphasis mine)

32519, on 2014-January-30, 07:12, said:

Read this post by mikeh. A natural 2♦ bid has a bigger nuisance value than many are willing to admit. Therefore I don't want to lose it. The overall frequency of occurrence of my 2♦ bid is 3.74%. Of that number, 2.64% is a natural ♦ suit. The other 3 options within my 2♦ bid which are rarer all have proper follow up sequences.

But you do lose it. Your multi 2♦ will be forcing, so it's not a weak 2 in diamonds any more. Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

[32519]

gwnn, on 2014-January-30, 07:38, said:

But you do lose it. Your multi 2♦ will be forcing, so it's not a weak 2 in diamonds any more. Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

No I don't. 74.2% of the times opened, my 2♦ bid will be a natural 2♦ bid. But you are correct in saying that it is forcing for 1 round. When it is a ♦ suit, the auction is forced to 3♦. When I opened with a 7-card suit, that is where I want to be anyway. That still leaves another 25.8% of times when I have one of the strong/semi-strong options.

[gwnn]

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing. Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

Maybe bold face will help?

[32519]

gwnn, on 2014-January-30, 08:13, said:

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing. Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

Maybe bold face will help?

50% of the time this can work to the advantage of your side, the other 50% to the advantage of our side.

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout, my partner is under no obligation to bid. However if you choose to pass first to find out something about partners hand, and which hand pattern opener is actually holding (74.2% a natural ♦ suit), the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a full level of bidding space, a very rare and priceless commodity.

I’m perfectly happy with that sort of bidding.

[gwnn]

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

[hrothgar]

gwnn, on 2014-January-30, 09:01, said:

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

The sad thing is that this this might be an improvement over his existing methods...

[32519]

32519, on 2014-January-30, 08:40, said:

50% of the time this can work to the advantage of your side, the other 50% to the advantage of our side.

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout, my partner is under no obligation to bid. However if you choose to pass first to find out something about partners hand, and which hand pattern opener is actually holding (74.2% a natural ♦ suit), the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a full level of bidding space, a very rare and priceless commodity.

I’m perfectly happy with that sort of bidding.

gwnn, on 2014-January-30, 09:01, said:

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

I have changed my mind on the 50% you gain, 50% I gain. I have changed it to 100% I gain and 0% you gain.

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout and my partner chooses to pass, the pressure switches onto your side. I have retained the natural nuisance value of a 2♦ opening bid. If you choose to pass first, the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a whole level of bidding space.

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

[gwnn]

Ow OK...

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-January-29, 11:23, said:

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place -
When N/S declared:
2/18 in 2NT
2/18 in 3♦
4/18 in 3NT
1/18 in 4NT
1/18 in 5♦
2/18 in 5♦X
1/18 in 6♦
When E/W declared:
2/18 in 3♠X
3/18 in 4♠X
All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦.

---

Notes on the bidding:
1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns -
(a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP
(b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP
© Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP
(d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP
2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

This says an awful lot about the standard of play in Bumple***** SA

In any normal field, I'd expect that the auction would proceed

1♠ - X - P - 2♦
2♠ - 2N - P - 3♦

or some such. No idea where most of these scores are coming.
Then again, this is a field where folks overcall 2NT on a balanced 21 count, so lord knows what to expect.

[johnu]

32519, on 2014-January-30, 09:15, said:

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

I am stunned that 100% of bridge players do not play this. I guess that [100% - y%] (where y is the percentage of players who do play this) of the players do not know how to bid.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2014-January-30, 09:15, said:

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions. There are very few conventions out there that have no downside whatsoever and it gives the impression that you not only have no idea but that you do not want to improve your bridge level when you come out with lines like this.

Just to take a trivial argument for this case, if you open 2♦ with a 3♦ opening then your are obviously worse off if they overcall 2M before you can get your 3♦ rebid in. Similarly, if you have a 2♦ opening and partner has a complete misfit, you are clearly going to be worse off in 3♦X than 2♦X. This is without getting into scenarios where you lose a 4-4 major fit opposite the 6-4 hand or are forced to guess at the 4 or 5 level with one of the intermediate strength hands. And also not even mentioning fundamental issues with any multi 2♦ opening, even a mini-multi, of not being able to preempt as quickly as after a weak 2M opening.

In truth, I do not know many people who think that their multi 2♦ openings are even a winner, let alone a 100% win. Most pairs are using a multi either to plug a system hole or to gain additional preemptive options. The pluses nearly always come from somewhere else rather than the 2♦ opening itself. So I invite you to spend a moment's thought to re-evaluate. Come back to us if/when you can see why this is not a 100% gain.

[32519]

johnu, on 2014-January-30, 11:27, said:

I am stunned that 100% of bridge players do not play this. I guess that [100% - y%] (where y is the percentage of players who do play this) of the players do not know how to bid.

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-30, 11:49, said:

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions. There are very few conventions out there that have no downside whatsoever and it gives the impression that you not only have no idea but that you do not want to improve your bridge level when you come out with lines like this.

Just to take a trivial argument for this case, if you open 2♦ with a 3♦ opening then your are obviously worse off if they overcall 2M before you can get your 3♦ rebid in. Similarly, if you have a 2♦ opening and partner has a complete misfit, you are clearly going to be worse off in 3♦X than 2♦X. This is without getting into scenarios where you lose a 4-4 major fit opposite the 6-4 hand or are forced to guess at the 4 or 5 level with one of the intermediate strength hands. And also not even mentioning fundamental issues with any multi 2♦ opening, even a mini-multi, of not being able to preempt as quickly as after a weak 2M opening.

In truth, I do not know many people who think that their multi 2♦ openings are even a winner, let alone a 100% win. Most pairs are using a multi either to plug a system hole or to gain additional preemptive options. The pluses nearly always come from somewhere else rather than the 2♦ opening itself.

So I invite you to spend a moment's thought to re-evaluate. Come back to us if/when you can see why this is not a 100% gain.

Both of you are reading my 100% gain out of context. I was replying to this post of gwnn.

gwnn, on 2014-January-30, 08:13, said:

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing.

Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

Maybe bold face will help?

His argument was that the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid will largely vanish when it is forcing for 1 round. My counter argument was that –
1. If the opponents double for takeout (or make an overcall), my partner is under no obligation to bid. Under that scenario I am under exactly the same footing as anyone else who opens a natural 2♦. But now the pressure is transferred to the partner of the doubler to enter the bidding on potential crap not knowing what my partner is holding. Additionally my partner is sitting behind the doubler which is going to prove problematic for his side when my partner has real values. I have retained the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid in my version of the Multi, a 100% gain over everyone else who plays some or other version of Multi which does not include the possibility of a natural 2♦ bid. The other versions don’t have the nuisance value.
2. If he chooses to pass the first time round to find out, a) something about partners hand, and b) which hand pattern I am actually holding, then the bidding gets back to him in 3♦ 74.2% of the times. He has lost a whole level of bidding space for his side which may prove crucial in his side reaching the optimal spot. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side.
3. Something else that neither of you are taking into consideration is the fact that you don’t know what the continuation structure looks like when partner has values. Your side not entering the auction the first time round allows my partner to show those values (in whatever combination they are held). You are allowing my side to bid in an uncontested auction. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side.

The loss of a natural 3♦ pre-empt is something I have already conceded higher up in this thread. But that wasn’t part of the argument with gwnn. The argument with him was about losing the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ pre-empt.

For your benefit I will make this concession as well – when opener has a really weak 2♦ opening bid, knowing that the auction is possibly going to go to 3♦, the system notes say that these sorts of hands should rather be passed. So your side won’t be extracting any penalty double from those types of hands. Is that a gain or a loss? I will let you decide for yourself.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't there a loss as you cannot freely advance diamonds as well? This significantly reduces the nuisance value of the bid. I think you'd be better off putting the weak 2 diamonds hand in 2C. Then you could change the weak option in 2D to something else.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-30, 04:20, said:

Perhaps N-S forgot to agree some defence when E-W pre-alerted them and North then got confused.

I missed this; I wasn't aware that there had been a pre-alert. But I don't know if this matters much. N-S are not strong players, and were probably not capable of devising a defense to a bid with with so many options within the time constraints involved in starting a round in a pair game.

Or maybe they decided to treat it as weak with diamonds (and probably had not ever agreed what a NT overcall of a preempt looked like.)

[32519]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-January-30, 17:53, said:

Isn't there a loss as you cannot freely advance diamonds as well? This significantly reduces the nuisance value of the bid.

An immediate raise to 3♦ promises 10-13 HCP and guarantees support for the 6-card major (whenever opener opened with the 6-4 hand pattern in the majors. The bid is game invitational. After this whenever opener has opened one of the other three hand patterns, then –
1. With a natural ♦ suit, opener will pass. The combined HCP strengths of the two hands will hopefully see the contract home.
2. With the big 4-4-4-1 16+ HCP hand, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 26. The continuation bidding allows you to find the best spot.
3. With the big 5-5 14+ HCP hand in the minors, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 24. The final contract now depends on the degree of fit between the two hands, more often than not either –
a. A minor suit partial
b. 4NT to play
c. Game in a minor
4. An immediate raise to 4♦ or 5♦ is pre-emptive and showing a single suiter in ♦, a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. Obviously now opener has not opened with a natural weak 2 in ♦. Whether or not opener bids game over 4♦ will depend on the actual hand pattern held. With 6-4 in the majors, a pass is more likely. With a big 4-4-4-1 hand pattern, game will most likely be bid.

So to answer your question, an immediate raise of the ♦ suit is not lost. Also it puts more pressure onto the opponents to enter the bidding once partner has shown some values.