Choose your own Adventure
#21
Posted 2014-October-13, 04:09
However, does it not strike one as inefficient to limit the use of our most economical bid in such a narrow way? By playing a completion as forcing, you can do so much more. Once you do this many solutions are possible (MickyB's structure has quite a few similarities) but this one is mine. Note that balanced hands in the 18-20 range open 1♦, so they are not an issue. After 1♣-1♥:
1♠ = forcing, see below
1NT = a weak no trump
2♣ = nat, 6+ card suit unless specifically 4♥5♣
2♦ = heart reverse (can start a bit lighter than standard for obvious reasons)
2♥ = good 4-card raise to exactly 2♠
2♠ = a bad raise to 2♠, typically unbalanced 11-13 with 3 card support or a minimum weak NT with 4-card support
2NT = GF with 6+ clubs, denies 3♠
3♣ = a sound rebid - eg ♠Ax ♥AJx♦xx ♣AQJTxx
Higher = can be fairly standard, but obviously aren't
The hand-types that can go through a forcing 1♠ transfer completion are as follows:
Almost all hands with 5+♣4+♦
A very good 3-card raise to specifically 2♠ (nominally 14-16 3(14)5 or 3-6)
Various off-cntre 3♣ rebids a) a suit-oriented 3♣ rebid slightly lacking in high cards b) a natural 2NT rebid with 6♣, typically about 16+ to 18- points c) a 3♣ or stronger rebid with 3♠.
Now that sounds overloaded, but is more or less the absolute limit of what we can get into 1♠. The first thought would tend to be "you crazy idiot - you can't possibly get all that into 1♠", but it unwinds in a deceptively simple way. Responder basically bids on the assumption that he is facing 4♦ and 5♣:
1NT = to play opposite 45m minimum
2♣ = ditto
2♦ = ditto
2♥ = a GF relay
2♠ = constructive (WJS was available)
2NT/3♣/3♦ = inv opposite minors
This is how it unwinds after 1NT:
2♣ = 45m extras (about 16)
2♦ = a sound reverse - good 17+
2♥ = 3♠6♣, strong unlimited
2♠ = 3♠ unbalanced, nominally 14-16
2NT = natural with 6♣
3♣ = natural based on playing strength
higher = no meaning
Continuations are pretty much the same after 2♦, are obviously manageable after 2♥ and 2♠, so just a quick look at the invitational jumps:
After 2NT: all continuational are nat F (3♠= cards, the 4-card raise just bids game)
After 3♣/3♦: ditto, with a raise to 4m being RKC
Trade offs
I lose the ability to stop in 1[♠] and the knowledge of whether it will be advantageous to remove a 1NT rebid to 2♠. But I believe I get way more in return. By far the biggest plus is that we have 3 ways to raise to 2♠. This just gains time after time, enabling frequent good stops in 2♠ when it is bid directly and logical routes to "unbiddable" games after the good raises.
The second biggest gain has been the ability to get to good minor-suit partscores. These days, both minors can often get lost, since we end up treating the hand as balanced or alternatively rebidding clubs. And game bidding on the minor-suit hands is also more accurate.
The transfer reverse to hearts is just a spin-off benefit, but if you just do a simple single dummy simulation of 50 or so hands, you might be surprised at how often the method gains. It makes all the lousy Lebensohl variant playable - you will almost never have to bail to 3♣ on some stupid doubleton again.
After that, the gains get smaller, but the overall effect is that responder often gets to know opener's general hand type and strength at a much lower level than in standard T-Walshe - not just in the unusual sequences but because the "standard" ones are also more closely defined as a result. One might assume there is a high level of information leakage, but the reverse tends to be true. After the various raises to 2♠, for instance, we tend to have much quicker auctions than standard bidders.
Four 3♣ rebids, three raises to 2♠, new life into 45m hands and transfer reverses. This is the future!
#22
Posted 2014-October-13, 05:02
mgoetze, on 2014-October-11, 12:13, said:
What should he be doing with a weak 4351 though?
I would go via the natural reverse, and pass it out.
The question is where do I want to go, ..., no idea, and ... partner should
not introduce a 5 card suit in search of a 5-?, he knowes about a
4-3 fit, he happens to have a shortage, so ruffing will be in the hand
with short trumps.
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#24
Posted 2014-October-13, 07:08
While I appreciate the effort, I see that in order to accommodate all this. you need to incorporate a possibly artificial 1♦ opener, for the 18-20 balanced hands, which emphasizes my point. Maybe your system is an improvement over t-walsh as it is commonly played, but to argue that anyone unwilling to embark upon all this artificiality is misguided is an extraordinary claim.
In NA many good pairs now play a form of meckwell precision, known as meckwell lite. Should we call them misguided because they don't play the full meckwell system? Would Fantunes be justified, given their record, in asserting that those who don't play their methods are misguided?
We all have to make tradeoffs in just how much work we want to put into what is for most of us only a hobby. Bridge for me, for example, is nowhere near the top of my priorities in life so I am content to play a relatively simple method...and I have never heard anyone claim that t-walsh as commonly played is the ultimate method. Anyone who did so would warrant being called misguided....I suspect Phil didn't mean to insult those unwilling or unable, for any number of reasons, to put in the effort required to continually tweak their methods, so this thread-jack may have arisen from an over-reaction on my part. If so, then at least it has drawn Phil out to explain his preferred method, so there has been a silver lining.
#25
Posted 2014-October-13, 07:35
mikeh, on 2014-October-13, 07:08, said:
If forced to play 1C as nat/weak bal/strong bal, perhaps Phil would advocate something like -
1C:1H (spades) -
1N = weak bal
2D = strong bal, NF
1S = various, somewhat similar to his existing kit
Having said that, the trade-offs are larger for this than in Phil's methods. Maybe he just meant people were misguided for opening 1C on both balanced ranges!
#26
Posted 2014-October-13, 09:11
Regarding putting the balanced 18-20 through 1♦, I think it is a plus in itself, but that is an argument for another day.
#27
Posted 2014-October-28, 19:31
mikeh, on 2014-October-12, 23:47, said:
Mike, I am really glad we stopped picking on each other, as I think we used to do a while ago.
However, what you write here is precisely one thing that used to irk me all the time. PK is undoubtedly one of the best posters on BBF right now. well, I'd argue the best actually. Whether you agree with me on that or not, it is obvious that there is a lot of thought and/or looking at a lot of hands in top-level competition behind almost all of his posts, even if it's just posted as an off-hand remark.
I just don't understand how a strong player can read BBF now and then over the last 1-2 years and not have noticed this. I can only imagine it must come from reading BBF with a predisposed bias of "X, Y and Z are the good players in this forum, and I ignore everyone else". (Not that there aren't posters whom I ignore - but they have earned their status.)
#28
Posted 2014-October-28, 19:49
cherdano, on 2014-October-28, 19:31, said:
However, what you write here is precisely one thing that used to irk me all the time. PK is undoubtedly one of the best posters on BBF right now. well, I'd argue the best actually. Whether you agree with me on that or not, it is obvious that there is a lot of thought and/or looking at a lot of hands in top-level competition behind almost all of his posts, even if it's just posted as an off-hand remark.
I just don't understand how a strong player can read BBF now and then over the last 1-2 years and not have noticed this. I can only imagine it must come from reading BBF with a predisposed bias of "X, Y and Z are the good players in this forum, and I ignore everyone else". (Not that there aren't posters whom I ignore - but they have earned their status.)
Of course I see that Phil is a fine player. I meant what I said...strangely enough....I don't know him. By contrast, I do know a few of the other posters. And with still others, I know something of their methods in real life. Phil is obviously a fine player and thinker. But I have never seen him play a single hand, have no clue (beyond the current thread) of his actual real life methods. That is all I meant to convey.
As it happens, Phil responded to my posts by explaining a lot, for which I thanked him. Nothing sinister going on, nor insulting.
#30
Posted 2014-October-29, 09:11
Fluffy, on 2014-October-29, 02:35, said:
Interesting notion
Prayer has no negative effect on anything, as far as I can tell. It does divert energy from more productive, reality-based efforts, but on the other hand it probably engenders a positive state of mind in the person doing the praying. The placebo effect is a well-known beneficial phenomenon So my guess is that on balance praying is probably a satisfying way to waste some time if one happens to believe in that sort of thing. Don't know what it has to do with the thread of course. I suspect it was just seen as an opportunity to make an unprovoked insult. Hope it made you feel good, fluffy
#32
Posted 2014-October-29, 14:32
Fluffy, on 2014-October-29, 12:00, said:
and this is relevant to what?
#33
Posted 2014-October-29, 15:13
Mike and Phil are in my top 10 posters and I do not mind them jabbing others, including me now and then, in return for their bridge related posts. Arend (Cherdano) on the other hand, jabs at everyone when he finds an opportunity to and does not bring much about bridge part even though he has a lot to offer. Though he is rarely wrong at taking a jab at someone, I admit. But I love him as much as Phil and Mike and he is still in my top 10. Although I am aware I may as well be in his ignore list!
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#34
Posted 2014-October-29, 15:23
#35
Posted 2014-October-29, 15:37
https://www.youtube....hungPlaysBridge
#36
Posted 2014-October-29, 16:08
kuhchung, on 2014-October-29, 15:37, said:
Except the meal is each other.
#37
Posted 2014-October-29, 16:14
kuhchung, on 2014-October-29, 15:37, said:
Call me sick if you will, but that's the kind of holiday family meeting I love the most
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#39
Posted 2014-October-29, 18:58
Fluffy, on 2014-October-29, 15:23, said:
The bridge threads are for bridge discussions. Insult me as a bad bridge player all you want. Argue with my bridge logic....I enjoy that. You are a believer, I am not. We can agree to disagree. We can even engage in an exchange of insults on that difference, in the unlikely event that we could be bothered to do it all over again, but we do it in the WC. In the meantime, grow up and keep to bridge in the bridge threads, where I respect your contributions even when I disagree with them. If you can't...then go troll someone else. I'll place you on ignore, doubling the list of posters currently resident thereon.
#40
Posted 2014-October-30, 01:37
George Carlin