[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2014-April-04, 12:03, said:

In Frances's system 1NT is limited too, so she has to find another way of bidding good hands with notrumps.

In a simulation of 13-card hands, 100.0% had at least one 4-card or longer suit. With a balanced 11+HCP, show a 4- or 5-card suit, planning to bid or raise NT on the next round.

gnasher, on 2014-April-04, 12:03, said:

In Frances's system, how does responder bid a 3334 6-count?

This hand can pass, but particularly if NV, I'd like to make a bid showing club support (in case partner wants to compete in that suit) but than doesn't get us above 1NT (in case Opener doesn't actually have clubs).

gnasher, on 2014-April-06, 03:31, said:

Sorry to harp on about this, but I don't see how this is supposed to help. As responder in this sequence I would never fancy declaring 1NT, because I'd always expect it to be better to put the doubler on lead.

Presumably with xx xxx AQ9xx xxx you show diamonds, because that seems descriptive. But what do you do with Axx xxx Qxxx Kxx? Bid 1NT and wrongside it, or show your diamond suit and hope partner isn't tempted to compete in the suit?

Yes, on the first hand, I'd make whatever call shows diamonds, as (i) it might be useful to show the suit and (ii) I'd prefer partner to declare.
On the second hand, I'd bid 1NT (unless I had the agreement that this promised 4 clubs). I want to get to 1NT as quickly as possible and take away the 1-level from LHO. Why is bidding 1NT 'wrongsiding'? It's possible that LHO will find a heart lead through partner's holding at trick one, but it's also possible that he'll lead the wrong suit, not knowing where the doubler's strength and length lie. Also, your suggested bid of 1♠ gives the next hand two bites at the cherry, including the chance to double 1♠.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2014-April-06, 15:52, said:

Why is bidding 1NT 'wrongsiding'? It's possible that LHO will find a heart lead through partner's holding at trick one, but it's also possible that he'll lead the wrong suit, not knowing where the doubler's strength and length lie.

He might also lead a spade through partner's holding, or a diamond through partner's holding, or even a club through partner's holding. The key points are that he'll lead through our stronger hand, towards their stronger hand, and from his longest suit.

Quote

Also, your suggested bid of 1♠ gives the next hand two bites at the cherry, including the chance to double 1♠.

Yes, allowing a double or non-double of 1♠ is a disadvantage, and allowing the extra sequence pass-then-act is a small disadvantage. However, using 1♠ to show clubs has the same two disadvantages. Do you think that the latter are less significant than the former?

[jallerton]

Yes, over 1♠ showing "no-trumps" presumably your plan is to put the dummy down in NT. Over 1♠ showing clubs, we sometimes get to play in clubs.

[helene_t]

PhilKing, on 2014-April-04, 14:22, said:

Since when did diamonds become so important after 1♣-x? Just because Bocchi plays redouble as diamonds does not make it right.

Yes. The double gives you one extra call so you can show one hand-type more than you could otherwise. Does nobody think it's a good idea to have a way to show both majors immediately? If we have to transfer to hearts with those hands, opps will find their diamond fit before we find our spades fit.

[fromageGB]

jallerton, on 2014-April-06, 15:52, said:

In a simulation of 13-card hands, 100.0% had at least one 4-card or longer suit.

If you are quoting this figure to a precision of 1 decimal place, presumably you need to have more than a 1000 samples generated?

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2014-April-07, 04:56, said:

Does nobody think it's a good idea to have a way to show both majors immediately? If we have to transfer to hearts with those hands, opps will find their diamond fit before we find our spades fit.

Certainly, but I can't do it with a weak 44xx *. My 1NT shows a weak 54xx or 45xx, and without competition opener plays it in his 4 card or responder's 5 card suit, but after their 2♣ or 2♦ at least opener has a chance. We also play 2♣ as invitational or better with 44xx, as it is important to convey both strength and lengths for when they intervene (a double of 2♦ is for penalty) and play 2♦ by responder as 55xx any strength.

I agree with you that showing both majors immediately is important. The other hands not covered are 45xx or 54xx invitational or better, and by showing the 5 card suit initially, and the other later (perhaps after interference), opener knows both exact length and strength.

Edit : "weak" being defined as "less than invitational".
* Perhaps I should change this so that after 1C (X) the 1NT shows weak both majors unspecified (ie {44} or {54}.)

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2014-April-07, 06:00

[PhilKing]

helene_t, on 2014-April-07, 04:56, said:

Yes. The double gives you one extra call so you can show one hand-type more than you could otherwise. Does nobody think it's a good idea to have a way to show both majors immediately? If we have to transfer to hearts with those hands, opps will find their diamond fit before we find our spades fit.

In my second scheme, you have all 4 suits covered, so 1NT is free for 45M nf and 2♣ for 54M nf if you wanted.

[steve2005]

I don't think this has been covered but what did the double of 1♣ mean?
if it was Mathe it would be for the majors
I suppose some could double for ♣
or just general values
Crash would be 2 suits of same color

and does the meaning make difference to your methods?

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2014-April-07, 05:38, said:

If you are quoting this figure to a precision of 1 decimal place, presumably you need to have more than a 1000 samples generated?

I am no statistician, but I would guess that "all hands, ever" is at least as good a sample as 1000 hands.