Help
ArcLight, on Aug 16 2010, 05:12 PM, said:
>>I don't know Lawrence's take on 2/1 but are you sure 1m - 2NT isn't 12+ there ?
In the example from my notes on MLs books/CDs 2NT shows 11-12, not 12+. I'm not saying this is the best treatment, just that there are many who play this, and if you are playing with a new pard, you shouldn't assume they are doing something different. ML also says to discuss this sequence, as people have different continuations over 2NT.
>>Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages.
>Thinking this way is sure way to never make progress. You can assert any random treatment and say "well every system/treatment has some advantages and disadvantages" so it can't be bad !
This is you misinterpreting what I said. Actually more like twisting it.
A response to a bid (say over 2NT) over a large set of hands will win some and lose some. If the overall expected value is higher than another meaning, its probably a good set of responses. But you wont always get a good result and the worse set of responses may sometimes give a better one.
>.I made simple simulation for this hand.
What were the parameters?
>3♦ makes 90% of the time while 2Nt makes 31% of the time.
Then you need to discuss with pard ahead of time other responses to 2NT, like 3H, 3S, etc. What does 4D mean? 4C? Standard might not be the bets, but if you and pard have a bididng misunderstanding, you will get burned. Making a bid that works out poorly and blaming pard for assuming standard (whatever that is) will harm your partnership.
In the example from my notes on MLs books/CDs 2NT shows 11-12, not 12+. I'm not saying this is the best treatment, just that there are many who play this, and if you are playing with a new pard, you shouldn't assume they are doing something different. ML also says to discuss this sequence, as people have different continuations over 2NT.
>>Because every system/treatement has some advantages and disadvantages.
>Thinking this way is sure way to never make progress. You can assert any random treatment and say "well every system/treatment has some advantages and disadvantages" so it can't be bad !
This is you misinterpreting what I said. Actually more like twisting it.
A response to a bid (say over 2NT) over a large set of hands will win some and lose some. If the overall expected value is higher than another meaning, its probably a good set of responses. But you wont always get a good result and the worse set of responses may sometimes give a better one.
>.I made simple simulation for this hand.
What were the parameters?
>3♦ makes 90% of the time while 2Nt makes 31% of the time.
Then you need to discuss with pard ahead of time other responses to 2NT, like 3H, 3S, etc. What does 4D mean? 4C? Standard might not be the bets, but if you and pard have a bididng misunderstanding, you will get burned. Making a bid that works out poorly and blaming pard for assuming standard (whatever that is) will harm your partnership.
Well said. There are two schools of players. One school is trying to find a reasonable spot in every hand, the other is trying to maximize their gain in good hands and don't mind playing a not so great partial. For the first school of players, their 3C/D have to be nonforcing because that's the only way to allow them to play the best possible partial in a certain layout. For the second school, they don't mind playing some bad 2NT, and they have a higher bidding accuracy in determine whether 3NT, 5C/D or slams are good. I certainly belong to the second school.