m*e
发帖数: 155 | 1 1H/1S=11-5hcp (precision, but I suppose it is similar with standard sys),
opponent direct takeout doubles, opener's partner(responder) bids 1N.
My partner wants to change the precision definition of such 1N, which is
not very relevant, to "6-8hcp no good suit(we play, after opp's double,
weak 2 over 1 and weak jump) and no good support" hands.
I make very little sense out of such a 1N design. Would like to hear your
opinions... | c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 2 this framework is workable. Sometimes, if you don't bid 1NT, opps would
eventually bid 1NT and make it. Also, you may have tough balancing decision
if you pass with around 8-9 HCP, no sp fit hands.
Also, I don't really like precision's design of 1NT to show good raise to 2M.
The best structure so far is to play 1NT to 2H as transfer to the higher suit.
So 1NT shows C suit, can be weak or strong.
2C/D, transfers to D/H.
2H: good raise to 2S.
2S: preemptive raise to 2S.
【在 m*e 的大作中提到】
: 1H/1S=11-5hcp (precision, but I suppose it is similar with standard sys),
: opponent direct takeout doubles, opener's partner(responder) bids 1N.
: My partner wants to change the precision definition of such 1N, which is
: not very relevant, to "6-8hcp no good suit(we play, after opp's double,
: weak 2 over 1 and weak jump) and no good support" hands.
: I make very little sense out of such a 1N design. Would like to hear your
: opinions...
| m*e
发帖数: 155 | 3 Thanks man. I know you are a better player than I having read some of you
previous
posting. That 1N xfer scheme is interesting/new to me, although I don't get
the idea
of tranfering rather than bidding directly. However, that 1N is a SUITED one,
which
is the key here. What I don't like my p's 1N is his no fit/no suit (and I am
not
defending prec's 1N btw):
1. 6-7hcp, no fit no suit:
very truely indeed opps may well bid and make 1N, but that doesn't
justify that
we have to play 1N, or pla
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: this framework is workable. Sometimes, if you don't bid 1NT, opps would
: eventually bid 1NT and make it. Also, you may have tough balancing decision
: if you pass with around 8-9 HCP, no sp fit hands.
: Also, I don't really like precision's design of 1NT to show good raise to 2M.
: The best structure so far is to play 1NT to 2H as transfer to the higher suit.
: So 1NT shows C suit, can be weak or strong.
: 2C/D, transfers to D/H.
: 2H: good raise to 2S.
: 2S: preemptive raise to 2S.
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 4 1. 1N IS VERY HARD TO DEFEND. 2, OP HAVE TO BID THEIR SUIT AT 2 LEVEL, WHICH
IS NOT WITHOUT RISK【 在 mhe (mhe) 的大作中提到: 】
one,
17hcp
has
so
trying
decision
sys), | m*e
发帖数: 155 | 5
1. Yes 1N is hard to defend, but that refers to 1N with roughly equal or
higher
hcps when hands are all balanced. To play NT if you don't have suits you
got
to have hcps. For the combined 17/18 hcp no fit no suit hands, where are
the
trick sources to make? (Note that opener's long suit is known to be 7-
cards
combined and the one has better defense value is sitting behind him)
Yes if opponents make defense mistakes everything can happen, but that
does
not grant that a biddin
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: 1. 1N IS VERY HARD TO DEFEND. 2, OP HAVE TO BID THEIR SUIT AT 2 LEVEL, WHICH
: IS NOT WITHOUT RISK【 在 mhe (mhe) 的大作中提到: 】
: one,
: 17hcp
: has
: so
: trying
: decision
: sys),
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 6 the idea is that it allows you to show both weak hands with a long suit
or good hands with long suit. so with Sxx HAxx Dxx CAQJTxx,
you don't have to worry what to bid over opp's double over your partner's
1S opening,
you can just bid 1NT, then later raise partner's 2C to 3C.
Without this convention, you have to guess what to bid, since you
play weak jumpshift, you can't bid 2C as well, so you have to redouble,
which might not work well here.
The major draw back of the precision 1NT is that it g
【在 m*e 的大作中提到】
:
: 1. Yes 1N is hard to defend, but that refers to 1N with roughly equal or
: higher
: hcps when hands are all balanced. To play NT if you don't have suits you
: got
: to have hcps. For the combined 17/18 hcp no fit no suit hands, where are
: the
: trick sources to make? (Note that opener's long suit is known to be 7-
: cards
: combined and the one has better defense value is sitting behind him)
| w****b
发帖数: 623 | 7 The other benefit is it tends to right side the contract: your pd and your RHO
have the strength and if your pd plays the hand, his hand will not be led
through.
Furthermore, as typical with transfers, it allows you to enter the auction
with negative looking hands. My belief is after 1X-double-, a new suit bid at
2 level, although non-forcing, should still be somewhat forward looking and
should not be scratching. But apparently people have different belief on this
issue...
get
one,
am
17hcp
has
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: the idea is that it allows you to show both weak hands with a long suit
: or good hands with long suit. so with Sxx HAxx Dxx CAQJTxx,
: you don't have to worry what to bid over opp's double over your partner's
: 1S opening,
: you can just bid 1NT, then later raise partner's 2C to 3C.
: Without this convention, you have to guess what to bid, since you
: play weak jumpshift, you can't bid 2C as well, so you have to redouble,
: which might not work well here.
: The major draw back of the precision 1NT is that it g
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 8 Opening 11-15 doesnot mean you must be min opening hand, you may have good 14
or 15, opp might get in trouble. I think with combined at least 17-8, 1nx is
unlikely to be a disaster for you. 【 在 mhe (mhe) 的大作中提到: 】
WHICH
made
with
opening,
spades
the
takeout
he | m*e
发帖数: 155 | 9
14
1N-x or even 1N doesn't need to be a disaster to make 1N an unwise choice---
it suffices if 1N-x or 1N costs more than opp's playing 1N.
Yes you are absolutely right about the MAXIMUM case, but it is the MINIMUM
that
matters here. This is a basic logic seen every where in bridge, for instance:
1. would you systematically direct-raise 1H/1S opening with 2 trumps, just
because 1H/1S doesn't deny 7 cards(MAX)?
2. would you systematically go over 4S to try slam in case your partner is
MAXI
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: Opening 11-15 doesnot mean you must be min opening hand, you may have good 14
: or 15, opp might get in trouble. I think with combined at least 17-8, 1nx is
: unlikely to be a disaster for you. 【 在 mhe (mhe) 的大作中提到: 】
: WHICH
: made
: with
: opening,
: spades
: the
: takeout
| f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 10
is
instance:
firstly, this analogy is incorrect. secondly, in competitive auction, many
players, DO raise pd with qx or kx. Thirdly, there is always risk, even when
you open strong NT or 5card major, pd may have null, HCP or your suit. Does it
scare you away from opening? There is no such rule as never or ever in bridge,
as Fred Gitleman said. Bridge is not a pure science. WHen you hear pd opening
1 level, you know him has sth btw 11 to 15, so you expect him to have average
13. If you have 6-7,
【在 m*e 的大作中提到】
:
: 14
: 1N-x or even 1N doesn't need to be a disaster to make 1N an unwise choice---
: it suffices if 1N-x or 1N costs more than opp's playing 1N.
: Yes you are absolutely right about the MAXIMUM case, but it is the MINIMUM
: that
: matters here. This is a basic logic seen every where in bridge, for instance:
: 1. would you systematically direct-raise 1H/1S opening with 2 trumps, just
: because 1H/1S doesn't deny 7 cards(MAX)?
: 2. would you systematically go over 4S to try slam in case your partner is
| | | m*e
发帖数: 155 | 11 I said 1. "direct-raise", not after intevention
2. "systematically", i.e. not just random/occassionally,
but consistently and convention-like.
it
bridge,
That is DIFFERENT: when I open 1N/2N strong or open 2H/2S preemptive, or even
a regular 1H/1S, of course I am risking parnter's having 0hcp and got set a
lot.
But it is not what I called "unwise" risk. At opening time, you don't have
info.
about others' hands, you have to assume and act. When you have enough info
later
in biddi | m*e
发帖数: 155 | 12 1N.
0+hcp,
and denies 6+hcp.
this
any | f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 13
when
yes, but 1n is not direct, it is after intervention if i am correct.
Does
even
1N.
0+hcp,
this
Competely agree with this x and nt. It should be sth 18, 9.
any
wrong.
risk
【在 m*e 的大作中提到】
: 1N.
: 0+hcp,
: and denies 6+hcp.
: this
: any
| c****u
发帖数: 3277 | 14 well, x then 1NT showing 16-18 HCP is actually playable.
suppose you have such a hand:
SAKxx HKJxx DAxx CKx
over 1C opening, still double works fine,
because you would be able to bid 4H when partner holds something like
this:
Sxx HAQxx Dxxx Cxxxx
you take 2 spades, 4 hearts, 1D, CK and two possible ruffs.
if you bid 1NT, partner would usually pass. which might not play well.
Also, double would allow you to find 8 card major fit when partner is
broken:
Sxx HQxxx Dxxx Cxxxx, 2H would be better th
【在 m*e 的大作中提到】
: 1N.
: 0+hcp,
: and denies 6+hcp.
: this
: any
| m*e
发帖数: 155 | 15 1. Yes, it makes all the sense to allow the responder to bid "BOTH
weak hands with a long suit AND good hands with a long suit" through
a sort of transfer. Mike Lawrence recommends a similar variation,
a variation of Capp too. In that sense, 1N would contribute much
more than what is defined by precision (the normal 1H/S-2H/S hands).
2. In terms of giving opps more room, it is not a fatal drawback to me:
Using 1N rather than 2D/H to show direct raise to 2 hand, opps get
free:
【在 c****u 的大作中提到】
: the idea is that it allows you to show both weak hands with a long suit
: or good hands with long suit. so with Sxx HAxx Dxx CAQJTxx,
: you don't have to worry what to bid over opp's double over your partner's
: 1S opening,
: you can just bid 1NT, then later raise partner's 2C to 3C.
: Without this convention, you have to guess what to bid, since you
: play weak jumpshift, you can't bid 2C as well, so you have to redouble,
: which might not work well here.
: The major draw back of the precision 1NT is that it g
|
|
