[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2012-February-27, 07:48, said:

Simple piece of advice: Consider what the acronym "DONT" stands for: Disturbing the Opponent's NT

If you're competing over a strong NT, don't waste time trying to bid that impossible slam...
On a practical basis, those hands don't come up often enough to worry about
(For that matter, hands where you want to bid game don't come up often to worry about)

Personally, I want

1. A system where I can overcall frequently
2. The puts maximum pressure on the opponents
3. That is hard to penalize

You guys appear to be totally blinded with the 1NT opening bid. How many times have the opponents opened with 1♥ or 1♠ and 15+ HCP and your side stole the contract via a Michael’s cue-bid? Michael’s also tries to differentiate between weak and strong hands, therein providing responder with enough information to make a game decision or not.

My defence to 1NT caters for strong interference AND competitive interference. My 2♣ bid guarantees at least one 5-card major. However it does not EXCLUDE 4-cards in the other major. In my reckoning, that already places some pressure on the opponents.

If your defence to a 1NT opener only caters for a part score battle, you need to go back and rethink it. There was a thread not too far back titled “Shape First.” With a shapely hand dovetailing with partner you DON’T NEED the normal 24-25 HCP for a major suit game. Additionally, you can make use of the fact KNOWING where the bulk of the missing HCP are located. ANY 1NT defence MUST make provision for game possibilities as well.

If you are happy with your current agreements then NOBODY is going to change your mind!

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2012-February-27, 08:50, said:

You guys appear to be totally blinded with the 1NT opening bid. How many times have the opponents opened with 1♥ or 1♠ and 15+ HCP and your side stole the contract via a Michael’s cue-bid?

Perhaps we're smart enough to recognize that part of the reason that we were able to steal the contract was the (relatively) ill defined nature of the 1M opening...

Playing a "standard" system, the 1NT opening is very well defined with respect to shape and strength.

With this said and done, this might be a good topic for yea old Monte Carlo simulation...

Anyone care to perform the following sim:

South holds a standard 1NT opening (~15 - 17 HCP)
West holds at least 5-5 shape

Identify the frequency with which

1. E/W can make game
2. E/W can make slam

[mgoetze]

Anyone care to perform the following sim:

32519 starts a thread on system
A knowledgable poster writes an answer

Identify the frequency with which

1. 32519 listens to any advice which does not agree with his foregone conclusions
2. Anyone learns anything

[32519]

 mgoetze, on 2012-February-27, 12:30, said:

Anyone care to perform the following sim:

32519 starts a thread on system
A knowledgable poster writes an answer

Identify the frequency with which

1. 32519 listens to any advice which does not agree with his foregone conclusions
2. Anyone learns anything

This begs a reply.

Following the majority (the sheep syndrome) is no guarantee that you are correct. Eventually all the sheep end up in the slaughterhouse!

I’m actually astounded that you are unable to recognize the benefit of a NT defence that can distinguish between a merely competitive overcall and an overcall that has game possibilities if partner has some values as well.

I will leave you to stick to whatever method you choose. I will stick to mine.

[Codo]

Yes, if we follow the majority, this is sheepish. So for example, living on solid ground instead of under water. Trying to breeze oxygen instead of CO is so sheepish.

32519, make a sim and show how often you have game opposite a strong NT, where you do not have the hand where someone simply blast to game. If this will happen in more then 1 % of all games, I will be surprised.

But I like your last advice. Stick to your method, I will stick to mine.

What is good enough for the best players of this planet (multilandy and other simple methods) should be good enough for me too.

[Avoidance]

 bluecalm, on 2012-February-23, 08:38, said:

Out of 12 pairs in 2011 Bermuda Bowl semi-finals 11 of them plays 2C as majors (and one use 2H as majors).
It's safe assumption that all of them played more bridge and at higher level than you and still weren't convinced.
Why should we be then ?

2C majors is the only thing I really want to have vs 1NT. If other bids are natural, multi, two suiters or w/e doesn't concern me that much.

[Avoidance]

 hrothgar, on 2012-February-27, 07:48, said:

I'd like a pony...
(Doesn't mean that I am willing to pay for one)

Simple piece of advice: Consider what the acronym "DONT" stands for: Disturbing the Opponent's NT

If you're competing over a strong NT, don't waste time trying to bid that impossible slam...
On a practical basis, those hands don't come up often enough to worry about
(For that matter, hands where you want to bid game don't come up often to worry about)

Personally, I want

1. A system where I can overcall frequently
2. The puts maximum pressure on the opponents
3. That is hard to penalize

For this reason, I prefer Lionel

3♣ = both minors, weak
2N = various big two suiters
2♠ = spades
2♥ = hearts
2♦ = Diamonds and Hearts
2♣ = Clubs and Hearts
X = Spades and another

Almost all of the bids are non-forcing. They show length in the suit being bid and will often be passed.
This means that LHO needs to immediately decide whether or not to take action (Much more pressure on the opponents)

When I show a two suited hand, my partner will often know precisely which two suits I am showing.
Partner is a bit more in the dark when we hold the master suit, but you can afford not to preempt as much when you hold Spades.

Luv Lionel (played it for 18 years, X should be 11+ though & passed by 10+ not 4S)
Luv the majors

How about Multi-Lionel

2♠= weakish
2♥= majors
2♦= hearts(any) or spades(goodish)
2♣= clubs & hearts
X= spades & another

[glen]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-February-24, 08:08, said:

This looks somewhat like a cut-down version of French in terms of the repeating structure. French versus a strong NT ...

I think Marvin French calls this Marvin, both in the document and his Bridge World article.

 32519, on 2012-February-25, 08:22, said:

... People are forever naming conventions after themselves. This is no different. I have named it "Lee Defence over 1NT" after myself ...

I'm trying to combine both of the above methods, and the new method is named Lee Marvin:

X: ♥ & m or three-suited short ♠
2♣: three-suited not short ♠
2♦: multi, 1 major
2♥: ♥+♠
2♠: ♠+minor
2NT: ♣s or strong ♦
3♣: minors
3♦: weak

Some might play that the overcalls must be a bad 12, the "dirty dozen". In the ACBL, Lee Marvin can only be played by professionals in western events, since it employs a multi 2♦ opening that buffaloes* eastern folk.

* buffalobuffalo.html

[awm]

Yes, it is possible to design hands where you have game (or even slam) after opponents open a strong notrump.

However, these hands are relatively infrequent. For every such hand, there are many hands where you could effectively compete for a partial playing a normal defense to notrump, and you have lost out either by having no call at all (i.e. a 4M/5+m hand), or by bidding nebulous 2♣ and being shut out when the opponents bid on over it and partner has no clue what suit(s) you have.

In addition, many of the hands that do make game (or slam) involve a huge fit somewhere. Your example where the diamond slam is easy to make involves a ten card fit. If I overcall 2NT (minors, very wide range) advancer will bid at least 4♦ and I can get us to slam.

[benlessard]

Bidding with the most frequent "safe" range lead to reaching more games in the end. Its not too tough to understand why.

Its just more likely that its 9-13 pts with 55 and partner got enough to raise to game. Than 14-18 with 55 and partner got enough to raise to game.

The game you reach when its
1255 vs 3451.

Who do you do you think is more likely to have the A of S you or you partner ? (25%) you/ 75% you partner
the A of H ? 33% you 66% you partner.

So in the end layout like
x
xx
AQxxx
Axxxx

vs

Axx
Axxx
Kxxxx
x
or

x
xx
QTxxx
AQxxx

Axx
Axxx
AKxxx
x

Are about 5/6 times more likely than the layout you gave, 5 or 6 times more frequent is a lot in bridge. So in the end you are missing WAY MORE game then me, even if my main goal is partscore battle. Sometimes you get a 2nd chance to bid and both range will be covered, but sometimes it doesnt happen. One of the value of the bid is preemptiveness, this value serve as a counterweithg to the risk im willing to take. So when its (1Nt)--?? im willing to take some risk with 2Nt. But over (1Nt)-P-(2H)-P-(2S)-??? here bidding 2nt often doesnt have enough reward vs risks so ill pass.

In general If you disagree with the ensemble of bridge players (for example i think its rather dumb to play that 98% of the X are takeout oriented) try to change the range or type of bids slowly rather than making a quick break, in the long run it will give you more sound results. You believe that the 8-15 range is to low and too wide ? Fine with that, play 10-15,11-16,12-17 etc. It sure that if you make a clean break with tradition (like 14-18) the odds that your going into a clueless direction are pretty high.

[32519]

What all of you are actually after but none brave enough to admit is this; what does my continuation bidding structure look like if my defence to a 1NT opener is able to distinguish between the following 3 major suit holdings –
1.) 4/5 Flannery 11-15 HCP
2.) 5/5 10-15 HCP
3.) 6/4 or 4/6 10-15 HCP, AND
4.) Being able to show real values in a minor 2-suited hand

I’m afraid you are going to have to wait. I have every intention of releasing a rival book to Mark Horton and Jan Van Cleef’s book, “The Mysterious Multi: How to Play It / How to Play against It.” The hinge to the whole thing is my version of the Multi. My version of the Multi and my defence to a 1NT opener have a lot in common reducing memory load.

I intend titling the rival book: The Multi Two Diamonds – Revisited and Re-engineered.

[Zelandakh]

32519, could you post what your defence actually is please. From your previous posts I have been able to extract so much:-

X = pen
2♣ = 5-10, 5M, 4+ other; or 11-13, 5-5 minors
2♦ = ?
2M = 8-12 natural
2NT = 5-5 minors, 14-18
3m = ?
3M = ?

You are probably aware that I am generally quite open to new and unusual ideas and I would prefer not to criticise/suggest things until I understand your proposal. I do think your accusations are a little over the top here though - in particular, I do not think anyone could accuse Adam or hrothgar of not being open to new ideas!

[gwnn]

For newbies, the interface is slightly unintuitive: click on top right corner on your own name, then "My settings" -> "Profile" -> "Manage ignored users".

[jmcilkley]

I played ASPTRO for ages but never found any hand where 5 of a major plus 4 of a minor enabled the 4 card minor to be of any use. So I decided to modify it so that now 2c shows either 4 hearts plus 5 of another suit - or 6 hearts. Similarly for 2d to show 4 spades plus 5 of another or 6 spades. Now I would rarely overcall with just a 5 card major unless it was a very good suit or I also had a 4 or 5 card minor as well. i don't know if there is a name for this variation,
Mike C

[mgoetze]

 32519, on 2012-February-27, 23:18, said:

What all of you are actually after but none brave enough to admit is this; what does my continuation bidding structure look like

 Zelandakh, on 2012-February-28, 02:33, said:

32519, could you post what your defence actually is please.

Finally somone admitted it! Unfortunately for him,

 32519, on 2012-February-27, 23:18, said:

I’m afraid you are going to have to wait.

Oh, incidentally, I agree with gwnn.

[Zelandakh]

 jmcilkley, on 2012-February-28, 04:24, said:

I played ASPTRO for ages but never found any hand where 5 of a major plus 4 of a minor enabled the 4 card minor to be of any use. So I decided to modify it so that now 2c shows either 4 hearts plus 5 of another suit - or 6 hearts. Similarly for 2d to show 4 spades plus 5 of another or 6 spades. Now I would rarely overcall with just a 5 card major unless it was a very good suit or I also had a 4 or 5 card minor as well. i don't know if there is a name for this variation,
Mike C

This is the Asptro equivalent of Middlesex Astro I mentioned. It is good, not for the reason you mentioned but rather because it reduces the number of different hand types in the 2m overcalls, thus making the follow-ups easier.

[32519]

Quiz: Can your defence to 1NT find the major suit game in the 4 example hands below?

Hand 1: 4♠-5♥ 11-15 HCP (Flannery)

---

Hand 2: 5♠-5♥ 10-15 HCP

---

Hand 3: 4♠-6♥ 10-15 HCP

---

Hand 4: 6♠-4♥ 10-15 HCP

With this hand, once West’s distribution is known, East has a choice of where to bid game, either in a 6-2 ♠ fit or a 4-4 ♥ fit

---

Those with any real interest to find the answers to the above quiz, many can be found in the one and only bridge book I ever wrote. You can get a copy from Baron Barclay in the USA. Click here
http://shop6.mailord...oductinfo/5296/

I have a file full of actual hands from actual tournaments broadcast on BBO to know that the concept covered in the book is sound. However due to the low frequency of occurrence of the hand pattern, it won’t find a large following as a “stand alone” convention. However once it is combined into a multi purpose bid with other hand patterns, suddenly the concept becomes very attractive indeed. Which is exactly what I have done with my defence to a 1NT opener as well as my version of the Multi. Both bids have a lot in common, reducing memory load. Both use the 2♦ bid to advertise values and 4 different hand patterns.

I am currently tied up in some amateur research into Israel’s history which is placing a heavy burden on my available free time. I need to wrap it up before the end of June. I am signing out from the BBO forums until then.

[manudude03]

32519, just one question. Are you happy to lose 6 imps every other time you are unable to come in because your defence requires opening values, just for the 6/10 imps gained when it reaches a game not reached at the other table, something I'd estimate is 4-5% of the time (note that a fair amount of the time you can make game, it will be reached playing "destructive" defences)? Worse, as someone else stated, having your bids as such a high requirement means you may even be more likely to miss game.

[mgoetze]

That's great news, 32519, thanks for sharing.

[fromageGB]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-01, 04:48, said:

That's great news, 32519, thanks for sharing.

The leaving, or the coming back ?