[Cyberyeti]

trevahound, on 2013-June-24, 16:28, said:

In those methods (and I'm a 10-13nt'er too), how do you make a simple raise of the minor? It's not the forcing raise that's at issue; you keep a forcing raise under any sensible methods. But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.

Many simple raises we have other bids for, the only ones that are problematic are (32)44 and 3343 in response to 1♦ where we have to bid 1N which tends not to be a disaster. To 1♣ we bid 1♦ naturally without restrictions so 1N is a sort of 2♣ raise guaranteeing 4.

[barmar]

trevahound, on 2013-June-24, 16:28, said:

But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.

Most conventions involve tradeoffs. Like forcing NT loses the ability to stop in 1NT when that's the best place.

[fromageGB]

4 card majors, natural minors, mini NT, weak NT.

[Cascade]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-27, 09:20, said:

4 card majors, natural minors, mini NT, weak NT.

lol those natural minors are a disaster.

[Trinidad]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-22, 11:33, said:

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted on RGB years ago that in years of observing national and WC events he had never seen the presence or absence of Smolen make a difference on a board. Regardless of theory, it appeared, the number of deals where it actually matters is vanishingly small. I'm generally willing to play it if a partner wants to, but I never suggest it.

I remember a hand where we (my partner) made the contract that would have been easily defeated if we would have played Smolen and the 1NT opener would have been declarer.

The reason why I remember is that an opponent insisted that we had forgotten to alert Smolen: He just couldn't believe that we didn't play Smolen. Then he proceeded to recite a whole list of reasons (most of them bogus) why it would be silly to play natural.

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

Rik

[GreenMan]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 16:00, said:

The reason why I remember is that an opponent insisted that we had forgotten to alert Smolen: He just couldn't believe that we didn't play Smolen. Then he proceeded to recite a whole list of reasons (most of them bogus) why it would be silly to play natural.

Tell him Reverse Smolen isn't alertable.

[fromageGB]

Cascade, on 2013-June-27, 14:25, said:

lol those natural minors are a disaster.

Playing 5 card majors, I believe both minors natural is not the way to go. Not actually disasters, but pretty pointless. If a "natural" minor guarantees 3 cards in the suit, then it is not much use as a bid. I think you might as well play longer diamond and short club, or unbalanced diamond and balanced club.

[fromageGB]

Free, on 2013-June-22, 10:47, said:

In one partnership we dropped Smolen and haven't regretted it. This needs some adjustment of the rest of the NT system ofcourse.

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 16:00, said:

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-28, 04:21, said:

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

Since you ask, 5-4 in the minors and slam interest. But the discussion you are replaying to makes it clear that they play 3M as 5M-4oM.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-28, 05:03, said:

Since you ask, 5-4 in the minors and slam interest. But the discussion you are replaying to makes it clear that they play 3M as 5M-4oM.

Thanks. I'm playing 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M as 4M-5oM (as I think you meant), and I have no other way of doing that. But what is the "smolen problem" that seems to have eluded me? I can see you may have other ways to bid that major hand and therefore may prefer to use this sequence for the minors.

[Zelandakh]

No, I meant what I wrote. 4M-5oM is Smolen. Some players prefer to play 5M-4oM, which is either known as "Reverse Smolen" or "natural" depending on how sarcastic you are feeling.

[Trinidad]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-28, 04:21, said:

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

Just natural 5M (+4OM), GF.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-28, 04:21, said:

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

We use 3♥ as minor suit Stayman, responses 3♠/N min/max no 5m, 4m shows 5. 3♠ is essentially a quantitative 4N bid with 5♦/3♣ which is the one bid that doesn't fit into the 3♥ structure.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 16:00, said:

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

I know you just wanted to relate a cute story, but a few anecdotal cases where a convention fails (or not playing it succeeds) are not a reason to drop it. We can all think of cases where a contract does better when played by one hand or the other, but it's not usually because of the convention, it's just because of the layout of the cards. For instance, one of the opponents has a void, so his partner can give him a ruff on the opening lead.

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-June-28, 10:13, said:

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

It is over a weak no trump where responder is likely to be stronger than opener, but not over a strong no trump.

[GreenMan]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-28, 05:14, said:

Thanks. I'm playing 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M as 4M-5oM (as I think you meant), and I have no other way of doing that. But what is the "smolen problem" that seems to have eluded me? I can see you may have other ways to bid that major hand and therefore may prefer to use this sequence for the minors.

The "problem" I was referring to is that it's a convention you have to devote memory space to that apparently makes no difference in your results. There's some theoretical advantage to it, but in practice I've never seen nor heard of a hand where Smolen had any effect on the outcome.

[Free]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-28, 04:21, said:

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

0-1M, 4OM, usually 4441, 5431 or 4450.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2013-June-28, 10:13, said:

I know you just wanted to relate a cute story, but a few anecdotal cases where a convention fails (or not playing it succeeds) are not a reason to drop it. We can all think of cases where a contract does better when played by one hand or the other, but it's not usually because of the convention, it's just because of the layout of the cards. For instance, one of the opponents has a void, so his partner can give him a ruff on the opening lead.

Is whatever happened at that table really so common that it's a reason not to play Smolen?

Well, for starters the Smolen situation doesn't come up that often to begin with. But IMO this is the wrong question. I need a reason to play a convention and give up playing natural. Asking for a reason why I don't play a convention is turning it backwards.

I don't remember the hand, since it was a few years ago (I do remember my opponent's behavior and attitude at the table), but I do remember why my partner made the contract. It had nothing to do with the lead being in the correct hand or with the opponents by accident not getting a ruff. The contract was made because the known hand (the 1NT opener) ended up in the dummy.

The 1NT opener is much better described than responder's hand. Responder has shown a game force and at least 54 in the majors. Opener has shown 14-16, balanced with exactly 3 cards in the major, and 2-3 in the other major. Because the opponents didn't know how strong responder was, they didn't know what their aim should be: to beat the contract or to stop the overtricks. (It was Patton scoring, so that made it all a little bit more confusing.)

I admit that Smolen has the advantage that it makes the strong hand declare the contract. However, with the current 14-16 NT ranges that advantage is relatively small compared to the 16-18 range when Smolen was invented. And the drawback of making the best known hand declarer is significant. I don't know about you, but I like to defend contracts where declarer has opened 1NT: I know within 1 HCP what my partner has, and I have a pretty good picture of his distribution. I know what I can hope for in his hand to beat the contract and I know when there is no chance to beat it. When responder is declarer, I find it a lot harder to defend correctly, because I don't know what declarer and partner have.

Combine that with a few more drawbacks of Smolen (e.g. the warped space for slam exploration: extra space for spades that I don't need and lack of space for hearts that I do need.) and I don't see any reason why I would want to play Smolen when I can simply play natural. Add to that the fact that the situation doesn't come up that often to begin with and I see even less reason to make my system more complicated by adding a convention.

Rik

[Free]

I don't see a reason why to play natural either (instead of Smolen).

[aguahombre]

So that you can brag that you play reverse Smolen.