[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2016-December-26, 10:17, said:

1♠-2♥; 2♠ is probably the most interesting start from Responder's point of view.

Just how interesting depends on whether 2♠ is forcing.

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2016-December-26, 11:56, said:

Is this new math? I count only 17 HCP and at least 4 losers.

Yes for losers but system consider also longness and shortness than is not only 17 HCP.

[Lovera]

Anyway i bidded 4♦, pass opp, and hear 5♣ by partner. Now is clear that had a 5-5, i thought (there will be anything in heart suit ?).

[Lovera]

So, with a little thinking if raise spade or not preferring my suit, i bidded 5♥ and all passed. On opening lead of ♠ 8 i saw dummy with 5 spade to AK10, 5 club to KQ and xxx in diamond. Partner had 5 spade and 5 club and this case is an exception to rule having to bid 1♣ and with my 2♥ follow with spade (probably ending in 3 NT) as another pair did. In despite of all 5♥ there were (you can see that till 7th trick all is ok..but after yet (but i played it incorrectly). The four hands: http://tinyurl.com/h5f8zrd

[johnu]

Lovera, on 2016-December-26, 14:26, said:

Yes for losers but system consider also longness and shortness than is not only 17 HCP.

How do you justify long and short suit point additions to go from 17 HCP to 23 total points when you don't even know that you have a trump fit?

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2016-December-27, 01:51, said:

How do you justify long and short suit point additions to go from 17 HCP to 23 total points when you don't even know that you have a trump fit?

No, it is considered by system (Stayman) to count it (on average) indipendently if fit there is or not (here having partner bidded spade doubleton is not calcouled).

[Cyberyeti]

You've seen a good reason not to respond 3♥.

One of the reasons 2♥ works well in most systems is that you know whether 3♣ shows extras, but in your system you have no idea whether 4♣ does.

[Lovera]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-December-27, 03:57, said:

You've seen a good reason not to respond 3♥.

One of the reasons 2♥ works well in most systems is that you know whether 3♣ shows extras, but in your system you have no idea whether 4♣ does.

The initial partner bidding was right with longer spade and it'be known subquently. With my hand i had to jump than but, as how after had been revelead, the hand was min and 5-5.

[Trinidad]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 04:49, said:

The initial partner bidding was right with longer spade and it'be known subquently. With my hand i had to jump than but, as how after had been revelead, the hand was min and 5-5.

Why did you have to jump?

Nobody here would jump. Do you have a special reason why you have to jump (e.g. 2♥ would not be forcing)? If so, could you tell us that reason?

If you don't have a special reason to jump then you shouldn't.

Jumping around to show how strong you are belongs to the animal kingdom, not to the bridge table.

Rik

[Lovera]

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump. Ex.: ♠ 62 ♥ AJ4 ♦ AKJ75 ♣ K93 Bid 2♦- This hand has a max (18 points).. for an answer at second level. With a point more you are obbliged to jump bidding 3♦. (Stayman system example 27 pag. 47).

[Trinidad]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 06:11, said:

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump.

Yes, but why does the system say that you must jump?

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 06:11, said:

As told, in accordling to system, having 19/+ (comprending distributional points) i must jump. Ex.: ♠ 62 ♥ AJ4 ♦ AKJ75 ♣ K93 Bid 2♦- This hand has a max (18 points).. for an answer at second level. With a point more you are obbliged to jump bidding 3♦. (Stayman system example 27 pag. 47).

Learn a better system. Jumps should show something specific as they waste space, here a jump is utterly not needed and counter productive. 3♥ if strong should be one suited (or with a second suit that matches opener's).

[Lovera]

Is it not simple or easy to leave a system adopted. Many are the motivations for it. If a system is already collaudate or "worked" in any manner the diffucult its bidding architetture and/or also orientation are the aim. In my case i know it very well and find that is very duttile. This allow to insert, it being natural many integrative conventions (this one infact is not, obviously, the original Stayman). Than: why do you jump ? Because we are out of range of force for level bidding. In this way it is comunicated immediately that the hand can have possibility to explore for slam (if partner can help with more) it being warrant game and ultherior conditions, with this force, came alone but have to be found with a combination if you have or not an own good suit or you have or not a support for partner or plus a great complessive force. Probably this mine it different from 2/1 that i do not play.

[rmnka447]

Playing 2/1, I'm bidding 2 ♥. Even playing strong jump shifts(SJS), I'm bidding 2 ♥. Because SJSs take up so much bidding space, they ought to convey the message -- "I've got a big hand with this suit. Our final contract ought to be in your suit, my suit, or NT." Here, ♦ could also be a final strain for the contract, so a SJS is inappropriate.

[Lovera]

rmnka447, on 2016-December-27, 13:44, said:

Playing 2/1, I'm bidding 2 ♥. Even playing strong jump shifts(SJS), I'm bidding 2 ♥. Because SJSs take up so much bidding space, they ought to convey the message -- "I've got a big hand with this suit. Our final contract ought to be in your suit, my suit, or NT." Here, ♦ could also be a final strain for the contract, so a SJS is inappropriate.

It is nor the case to discuss difference that surely are among systems here because not is much necessary (and it will be off-topic). Why not ? Because everyone of us know when is the case eventually to change. Every system work in a certain better manner and no one is not good. Then needs consider how a system "marry" his/her fruitor. A system also inferior to another one can have a better resulting too if who bid is an expert (if not a champion). Is a question of limits, as for bidding (or planning the play of the hand).

[johnu]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 02:01, said:

No, it is considered by system (Stayman) to count it (on average) indipendently if fit there is or not (here having partner bidded spade doubleton is not calcouled).

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2016-December-27, 17:02, said:

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

I agree with you. But, and is not only for this, the answer is why i "worked" the system and in positive resultings (yet if it can refer also at other aspects of playing).

[Kaitlyn S]

johnu, on 2016-December-27, 17:02, said:

Do you have any bridge books that aren't 60+ years old? Bidding theory has advanced a lot since the 50's, and most of the people who played 1950's systems are dead now.

I have a bridge book from the 1920's. One of the tips is that you shouldn't bid a suit unless you have the ace or king in it.

[Vampyr]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 11:43, said:

Is it not simple or easy to leave a system adopted. Many are the motivations for it. If a system is already collaudate or "worked" in any manner the diffucult its bidding architetture and/or also orientation are the aim. In my case i know it very well and find that is very duttile. This allow to insert, it being natural many integrative conventions (this one infact is not, obviously, the original Stayman). Than: why do you jump ? Because we are out of range of force for level bidding. In this way it is comunicated immediately that the hand can have possibility to explore for slam (if partner can help with more) it being warrant game and ultherior conditions, with this force, came alone but have to be found with a combination if you have or not an own good suit or you have or not a support for partner or plus a great complessive force. Probably this mine it different from 2/1 that i do not play.

You could make a small change, which is not to attach an upper limit to a 2/1, and change your style of jump shifts to that mentioned in several posts above. This would make a big difference.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-27, 21:47, said:

I have a bridge book from the 1920's. One of the tips is that you shouldn't bid a suit unless you have the ace or king in it.

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.