On May 15, 1:38 pm, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 15, 12:53 am, rhm <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:35 am, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 6:36 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote
>
> > > > >On May 13, 12:03 am, Sartaj Hans <spadede...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > >> The default "expert" Australian arrangement is Blackout over
Reverses.
>
> > > > >> In recent history when it has come up ,either when we bid it or
the
> > > > >> opponents did, none of the auctions were impressive. In the
sense, the
> > > > >> final contract invariably had a big guess element to it.
> > > > >> The post non-blackout GF continuations didnt seem to address
the key
> > > > >> issues very well.
>
> > > > >> Thats my impression. Hence the title.
>
> > > > >> Am interested in any alternate schemes devised over reverses.
Or for a
> > > > >> more detailed account of Blackout than "Cheaper of 4th suit/2NT
is
> > > > >> NF ; all else GF".
>
> > > > >> Interested in later round actions and auctions......
>
> > > > >Have you considered the possibility that you're reversing too
often?
> > > > >1=3=4=5 with 17 points. Maybe you need to open some of those
> > > > >1D. Obviously you can't handle a 1S response to 1C.
>
> > > > ??????????????????????
>
> > > > Obviously I can: I rebid 1NT.
>
> > > > --
> > > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats
Railways
> > > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ:
20039682
> > > > <webjak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bluejak on
OKB
> > > >
Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
> > > Yeah, we weak 1nters can do that.
>
> > > VSPO probably is a strong 1nter, so he is afraid to bid a 1=3=4=5 17
> > > count as a balanced minimum.
>
> > > To be sure, those are the types of hands where standard methods
> > > including a strong 1nt struggle. Take hands like
>
> > > KJxxxx
> > > Qx
> > > xxx
> > > xx
>
> > > x
> > > AJx
> > > KQxx
> > > AQxxx
>
> > > and any contract above 2s is likely to go down, and yet without a
> > > strong 1nt rebid available, the bidding is likely to go
>
> > > 1c 1s
> > > 2d 2s
> > > 2nt p/3s
>
> > > and neither 2nt nor 3s is likely to play well.
>
> > > These are the types of hands where weak jump ****fts help, but short
of
> > > a transfer scheme (2c = jump ****ft in diamonds, weak or strong; 2d =
> > > jump ****ft in hearts, weak or strong; 2h = jump ****ft in spades,
weak
> > > or strong; 2s = inverted raise of clubs; 3c = to play, or something
> > > similar), I consider the loss of the strong jump ****ft at the
2-level
> > > to be too high a price to pay.
>
> > > Henrysun909
>
> > Richard Pavlicek has quite convincingly argued that the following
> > system is superior, though out of fa****on:
>
> > Play jump rebids as game forcing showing the strong jump ****ft type.
> > Then you can play weak jump ****fts
> > Invitational hands are then shown by a simple rebid of the suit.
>
> > So for example
>
> > 1D -- 2S weak
>
> > 1D -- 1S
> > 2D -- 2S invitational
>
> > 1D -- 1S
> > 2D -- 3S strong and game forcing
>
> > I particularly like that this schema allows invitational hands, which
> > are common, to be shown one level lower. Ideally if a bid is
> > invitational and non forcing it should be 2 levels below game. A
> > simple rebid can be invitational because you are playing weak jump
> > ****fts and then you need not worry about those weak hands when you
> > reverse.
> > Also there is a slight advantage to hear the normal rebid of your
> > partner before showing the strong jump ****ft type hand by a jump
> > rebid.
>
> > Rainer Herrmann
>
> All depends on what the weak jump ****ft shows. As Roth and Stone
> originally designed it, a WJS showed something in the 0-5 hcps range,
> e.g.
>
> JTxxxxx
> xxx
> xx
> xx
>
> would be a weak jump ****ft to 2s, NV. (I don't recall whether the
> range changed due to vulnerability or not; it would be sensible to
> assume that it did.)
>
> Obviously, if a WJS showed that hand, then a 1s.2s sequence would be
> stronger but would not have to be invitational, e.g.
>
> QT9xxx
> AJx
> xxx
> x
>
> On the other hand, if an immediate 2s response shows a hand in the 5-7
> range, then the simple rebid can show 8-11.
>
> But in neither case can the jump rebid show a hand worth a strong jump
> ****ft, e.g.
>
> AKJxxx
> AKx
> xx
> xx
>
> because then what about hands too weak for a jump ****ft but strong
> enough to force to game, e.g.
>
> AQxxxx
> Ax
> Qxx
> xx
>
> do those get handled via 4sf? downgraded to an invitational
> sequence? manufacture some other forcing bid?
>
> There is no doubt that WJS are a great boon when responder is 'weak'
> and one suited, subject of course to how one defines weak. I like
> using transfer jump ****fts in response to 1M because of the ability to
> show WJS and SJS at the same time, a la Rubens.
>
> But if I had to choose between WJS and SJS at the 2-level in response
> to a 1m opening bid, I'll stick with the strong variety.
>
> Henrysun909
Agreed that weak jump ****fts would incor****ate all hands not worth an
invitation over a minimum opening bid.
Agreed that the proposed system does not distinguish between game
forcing hands with a good six card suit and even more powerful hands
with solid or semisolid suits.
But neither do standard bidding systems.
If you reserve strong jump ****fts (say 1D-2S) for hands like
> AKJxxx
> AKx
> xx
> xx
how do you continue with
> AQxxxx
> Ax
> Qxx
> xx
after 1D-1S-2D, assuming 3S now would only be invitational?
I would rather lump them together and hear partners natural rebid
after 1S than having this problem to solve playing strong jump ****fts
and I bet many would jump ****ft anyway with this hand when given as a
bidding problem, particularly Acol players.
Rainer Herrmann
|
