Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
To answer Barbara, you should alert partner’s 2NT since the bid is artificial (if playing online the 2NT bidder self-alerts). If the opponents ask, you should not describe the bid as “OGUST” or “Feature Ask” since these tell partner how you will interpret the response. An appropriate reply to the opponent would be: “Artificial, forcing relay. Shows at least invitational values.”
Note that the response to the OGUST inquiry should also be alerted. If asked, the response should describe your agreements, for example the three diamond response might be described as: “Six to a poor eight points, with two of the top three heart honours”.
Does anyone watch the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures? Maybe you should institute the “BMB Christmas Lectures” with a guest speaker, maybe a senior figure in the world of bridge invited to give a series of lectures. I would love to hear (say) Boye Brogeland talk! Or it could be Mr Bridge – health permitting.
Or it could be the “BMB Christmas Debates” – a series of debates on an interesting bridge topic.
It would be good to have some humour on the site for Christmas – how about a BMB advent calendar with a new bridge joke, bridge story, bridge cartoon etc. revealed each day?
Hi David, 1NT was an over-call, not an opening. A transfer over an opening 1NT is announcable in England and completing the transfer requires neither an alert or announcement. But I had always thought that both the transfer and completion of the transfer over a 1NT overcall were alertable. Have I misunderstood?
This sequence is usually controversial! 🙂
The traditional Acol approach is to open 1H and rebid 2D as you describe. It also tells a big lie about the length of the hearts. I am strongly of the opinion that a 1D opening is better because I would rather mislead partner about my length in a minor. Of course the bidding might start 1D-2C-2D and you have rebid a four-card suit. This seems like a really bad idea, but in practice, I have never yet been left to play in 2D on a 4-2 fit. If it happens one day, we lose a few IMPs on a part-score hand – there are worse disasters.
Hi Wainfleet,
For a number of years, it has been known that computer programs can calculate the optimum number of tricks, seeing all four hands (often called Double Dummy). If you play at a club (before Covid) that uses computer dealing, you will usually get a print-out of the hand records and this will tell you the optimum number of tricks in any contract. There are limitations to this type of analysis: the computer always “knows” to drop a singleton king etc.
But if used sensibly a double dummy analyser can be a useful method of looking at a particular hand. You asked for recommendations so I will recommend Bridge Solver. It has been developed by John and Mirna Goacher, who a I know personally because they play at one of my clubs. It is free software and is available as an Android App and as a Google Chrome extension, which allows you to take hands directly from BBO and analyse a hand card by card. It is also incorporated into the Bridge Webs websites, used by many clubs – the “Play it Again” button.
This type of Double Dummy analysis was used to look at opening leads in a couple of books written by David Bird and Tac Anthias. Their technique was to develop a large sample of hands (100,000), consistent with the auction analyse each double dummy in order to assess the best lead. Because of the large sample size, many of the double dummy limitations will even out giving some useful conclusions – but the value of this analysis is the subject of a lot of debate. You can replicate this type of analysis using programs such as Lead Captain. I have no personal knowledge of the developer, it isn’t free, but it isn’t expensive. I do use it.
Hope this helps?
Bernard will no doubt give us some very persuasive arguments why we should choose Benji rather than 3 week twos. But since this thread has already kicked off the discussions, here are the reasons why I dislike three week twos:
- As a pre-empt 2D is pretty feeble. Opponents can still bid either major at the two level.
- It is often unhelpful as a constructive bid. Imagine partner with 16+ and wanting to investigate game. 5D isn’t usually attractive, but four of a major is more likely if you hold a three-card suit and partner holds five. Unfortunately the 2NT inquiry makes it very difficult to find the major.
- There is a gap between the upper end of a one-level bid and a game-forcing 2C bid. In the US they fudge the 2C bid to not make it game forcing. This leads to double negatives and other complications.
- The EBU still has 2C as game forcing (except the specific 2C-2D-2NT), but this means that the range of a one-level bid is extended to often include 21 or even 22 HCPs. But this needs a lot more judgement and a knock-on impact on responses with the need to keep the bidding alive with most five counts and many four counts.
- The 2NT opening also becomes distorted with unsuitable hands.
- Slam bidding becomes more complex as opener tries to over-compensate for top-heavy bids of 1X.
- A weak two diamonds is far from the universal choice across the world, suggested in comments above. There are probably more uses for 2D than any other bid. Multi, Weak-only Multi, Transfer, Flannery, Mexican 2D (balanced 18-19), Precision 2D (4414) … the list goes on!
I have a lot of experience playing Benji and also a lot of experience playing a Multi with Lucas twos. In my opinion, both of these options are better than three week twos.
Although I like Benji, it has one significant weakness which has nothing to do with the loss of a weak two in diamonds. The problem is that you start your big hands with 2D and consequently the negative (or relay) bid is 2H. Now opener has to bid 3H to show a heart suit and the search for the right game/slam starts a level higher. To make matters worse, a heart contract will now be wrong-sided, played by the weak hand with the lead going through the strong hand which is visible on the table. Reverse Benji will solve this problem – but will instead have the same problem on the 8-playing-trick hands.
No big philosophical point Charles. I was hoping that people might enjoy the anecdote and in particular the play of the king of hearts which took me completely by surprise and was a clever ruse.
1D is a perfect opening … just so long as you can get through the first round of bidding and get a second turn! But yes, I think that this would be my second choice.
Michael, it is completely standard Acol for the sequence 2C-2D-2S to show a five-card suit and partner will support with three cards. You could easily find yourself in a Moysian fit (a 4-3 fit), with the opponents forcing you to ruff hearts with your four-card spade suit and losing trump control.
If you bid spades, then diamonds partner will expect better spades than diamonds and might give preference back to spades on a two-card spade suit. What would you bid after 2C-2D-2S-3H? You really would be in an impossible place!
Michael, as Julian says, nothing is perfect with this hand. Your suggedtion (2C-2D-2S) has the flaw that you are not showing diamonds – your best suit. This sequence would usually show a good five-card spade suit.
You might be better bidding 2C-2D-3D since this tells partner your best suit and with this strength, a slam will be likely if partner has a few values and some support. But with three playable suits (D, S, C), it must be better to show your overall strength and semi-balanced nature with Julian’s 2NT rebid. Yes the singleton king is a flaw, but player will not always lead unsupported aces.
In Acol, Ray should respond 2S initially to show 16+ and set up a game-forcing auction.
In other systems a 2S response is weak (ssy 5-9, 6+ cards). If this is the case, 1H-1S-2D-2S would be invitational 10-12 and 1H-1S-2D-3S can then be forcing. This would need to be agreed in advance and is not standard Acol.
This looks like a routine 2D preempt in third seat, if playing weak twos.
We do have a note on our convention card that states: “Light openings possible – particularly in third seat. Pre-empts may be stronger in third seat” and we would of course explain this if asked. But as David says this really is normal bridge.
