Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for posting this Stewart and thanks for the comments Julian.
I’ve been playing around trying to find any combination where you need to return a spade – turns out that it rather difficult! Maybe this is consistent with the bidding:
Hi David, you didn’t comment that the tournament bans psyches. Is this consistent with the Laws?
Thanks
I guess that East often plays Precision and the 2C bid was intended as natural and intermediate. Unfortunately he was playing Acol on this iccasion! 🙂
Which small card did partner lead? And which card did declarer play?
Also, were you playing pairs or teams?
The original Acol was a system based on a variable no trump, but over the years it morphed into a weak no trump system. I love playing a weak no trump, but you are sticking your neck out when you open 1NT, vulnerable on a 12-count in third seat. If I were to put a system together for a new partnership, I would definitely play a stronger range (14-16 maybe?) in third seat.
Interesting way of thinking about it Reg!
I guess that it is a more important consideration playing teams. Based on your rough calculation (I haven’t checked the maths!), we might be doubled and risk a large penalty once every three matches. I am playing a quarter final match in our county knock-out next week … we might be alright! If we win we will play the semi-final … again, we might be alright. But I reckon that we should switch to a strong no trump for the final* ! 🙂 🙂
* This is intended as tongue in cheek, in case anyone thinks I am being serious. 🙂
Yes Robin, there are almost endless possibilities.
I was interested in today’s presentation that a number of commentators seem to be playing Exit Transfers as including a forcing pass with two four-card suits. This is certainly the version that I was originally shown (20 years ago now?).
Equally Bernard’s simple wriggle is the system that I play – but I describe it as Halmic. As far as I am concerned the forcing pass on the 4333 hands is an extension to the basic Halmic structure – and not a particularly useful extension at that. I notice that this is also the system that Julian plays: See here.
I have never played Helvic, but it is similar to SWINE, which I played until last year. These systems cope very badly with 4333 shape hands.
As Bernard says, the standard Acol NT ladder in the protective seat is usually quoted as something like:
- 1NT overcall = 11-14
- Double, then bid NT at the lowest level = 15-18
- 2NT overcall = 19-20 (Note that 2NT is not played as “Unusual” in the protective seat).
- Double then jump in NT = 21-22
This is the range that I favour. This range works well over a 1♣ or 1♦ opening. It becomes difficult if partner is forced to respond at the two level (say):
(1♠) – Pass – (Pass) – Dbl
(Pass) – 2♥ – (pass) – 2NT
Bidding 2NT on a 15-count feels a bit much. For this reason, some play a wider-range 1NT in the protective seat (say 11-16) or even vary the range depending on the suit opened (maybe 11-14 if a minor, 11-16 if a major). But this has the disadvantage that you need some form of Crowhurst-type range inquiry to make it work which is easily disrupted when the opponents make further bids – and they will make more bids because someone has to have some points! So you never get to clarify the range to make it helpful to partner.
So, for me, Bernard’s standard Acol ranges are the best compromise.
I don’t think that there is any history on teaching tables.
If you install the Google Chrome extension Bridge Solver, it will probably allow you export (I haven’t tried it from a teaching table).
I’m not really the right person to answer – I don’t use tags! I presume that the search utility uses these tags? Do searches also use the topic title? Do they use text?
I have occasionally tried to search for an old comments, with patchy results. It will always be problematic because different terms are used for the same concepts. For example some use the term Protecting, whereas others call it Balancing; some players Wriggle, others Escape and some employ Negative Doubles but others use Sputnik Doubles.
But I am happy to include a tag if others find it useful.
Interesting. The first time that I came across the type of double described by David was in this article – although the term Action Double is not used.
I never use the term Action Double and can’t speak with any authority, but I always assumed that it was synonymous with Cooperative Double or Value-showing Double?
Thanks Robin. I think that most of us have experienced – problems, particularly in the last week. I have had some email correspondence with Hereward and he has been trying a few things. These resulted in some very old comments coming through a few days ago when he shook the box (or some other techie thing!).
Sorry, I tend to forget about the tags! I will try to remember.
It certainly has the merit of simplicity – requiring little change to your normal methods.
The 2C Stayman response looks a little bit odd. In an uncontested auction it will normally show 11+ points, but you are very unlikely to hold this much if partner has 12-14 and the doubled has 16+ and if you did hold 11 you would happily sit the double. So presumably 2C is Garbage Stayman?
