On May 15, 6:01 am, rhm <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
My own highly idiosyncratic - and far, far, far from mainstream
thinking - is this:
any hand worth a sound (i.e, not light and distributional) opening bid
with a solid or semi-solid suit is worth a strong jump ****ft to the 2-
level, So hands like
AKQxxx
Axx
xx
xx
or
KQJTxx
Axx
Ax
xx
or
AKJTxx
AQx
Axx
x
are all strong jump ****fts. Unbalanced hands with sup****t for
opener's minor do not require a solid or semi-solid suit and no not
even have to be 5 cards long if responder sees slam potential opposite
a minimum hand with a 5 card suit:
AKxx
x
AQxxx
xxx
(give opener x; xxxx; KJTxx; AKx)
and even
x
AKQxx
QJxx
xxx
(give opener xxx; xx; AKxxx; Axx)
would be minimum SJS's for me. The reason I prefer the floor of
strong jump ****fts to be lower at the 2-level than at the 3-level is
because the partner****p has much more room to figure out whether
opener or responder has extras and whether the hands do or do not fit.
The implication of this is that when responder has a one suited GF, he
will have a bad suit, and when responder has a GF hand with sup****t
for opener's minor, he will tend not to have big distributional
sup****t.
Henrysun909
|
