[Scarabin]

Is there any interest in asking bids? Particularly those used in the Roman Club system and in some forms of precision. I think some may have been incorporated into Kaplan Sheinwold.

[dake50]

Absolutely. A peeve of mine is not using low levels
to get slammy info. Some bid should initiate Trumps ask,
relay for Aces, relay for Show Kings. This should almost
always be asked and shown below 4M.
Now Support-This-Suit-Ask and Control-This-Suit-Ask are rarer.
Decide if they are worth the reserved bid to initiate them.
I think Ask trumps, relay ask aces, relay ask show Kings
scheme is way more efficient than relay-for-pattern
with relay-more-pattern next.

[Zelandakh]

dake50, on 2012-January-24, 07:35, said:

Absolutely. A peeve of mine is not using low levels
to get slammy info. Some bid should initiate Trumps ask,
relay for Aces, relay for Show Kings. This should almost
always be asked and shown below 4M.
Now Support-This-Suit-Ask and Control-This-Suit-Ask are rarer.
Decide if they are worth the reserved bid to initiate them.
I think Ask trumps, relay ask aces, relay ask show Kings
scheme is way more efficient than relay-for-pattern
with relay-more-pattern next.

I think this is really bad... really really bad. If you are relaying then the basic premise of your system is to ask the most general questions first and gradually become more specific. Shape information is always necessary whereas control information is only necessary on a few hands. Relay breaks are good for hands where the general questions do not work well. A classic example is for suit quality issues such as stopper asks in fragments. Only if you have space after covering these basics should you start devoting relay breaks to control asks. Ideally you use a different control-asking mechanism for the relay breaks than for the general relay sequence to maximise the options for gathering information.

I personally dislike the alpha-beta style of asking bid with a vengeance. I think it is a highly inefficient way of producing a mono-directional bidding system. That said, if the OP is interested in this approach then I would suggest joining the BIL is a good option since this is the Precision variant that is taught there. Since there are several players learning at once it is also a good way of picking up a partner playing the same system and eager to learn and practise.

[akhare]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-24, 09:47, said:

I think this is really bad... really really bad. If you are relaying then the basic premise of your system is to ask the most general questions first and gradually become more specific. Shape information is always necessary whereas control information is only necessary on a few hands. Relay breaks are good for hands where the general questions do not work well. A classic example is for suit quality issues such as stopper asks in fragments. Only if you have space after covering these basics should you start devoting relay breaks to control asks. Ideally you use a different control-asking mechanism for the relay breaks than for the general relay sequence to maximise the options for gathering information.

+1...

[benlessard]

Also when you shape first some card have higher frequency and higher importance and you can skip some cards. Shape first is simply the best way to go, dont waste too much time doubting this. Even for balanced hands I prefer knowing where the doubleton is rather than knowing wich minor K partner have.

[PrecisionL]

BRIDGE IS A GAME OF SUITS:

Benito Garozzo is arguably the best Bridge theoretician the world has ever known. He writes in one of his books that
describing suits is more important than any other aspect of Bridge bidding. Suits are more important than HCP’s, singletons, controls or any other aspect of Bridge bidding. I agree with him whole heartedly . - Bob Crosby, Edmonton Alberta Canada

http://www.pitbulls....-%20Garozzo.htm


Don't like Alpha Asking Bids? Neither do we, so we changed them!

Replies to a support asking bid combines support with Beta:

1st Step = 0-1 cards, 2nd step equals 2-cards exactly, 3rd step = 3+ cards and 1-2 controls, 4th step > zoom to 3 controls etc.

We have changed the relay paradigm from the balanced hand asks to the strong hand asks (as Precision was designed).

PrecisionL & Keylime

[dake50]

Zelandakh
I think this is really bad... really really bad. If you are relaying then the basic premise of your system is to ask the most general questions first and gradually become more specific. Shape information is always necessary whereas control information is only necessary on a few hands. Relay breaks are good for hands where the general questions do not work well. A classic example is for suit quality issues such as stopper asks in fragments. Only if you have space after covering these basics should you start devoting relay breaks to control asks. Ideally you use a different control-asking mechanism for the relay breaks than for the general relay sequence to maximise the options for gathering information.

I personally dislike the alpha-beta style of asking bid with a vengeance. I think it is a highly inefficient way of producing a mono-directional bidding system. That said, if the OP is interested in this approach then I would suggest joining the BIL is a good option since this is the Precision variant that is taught there. Since there are several players learning at once it is also a good way of picking up a partner playing the same system and eager to learn and practise.

*** Absolutly amazing! Create a straw dog (falsify what they do)
*** then hammer them as unable to do what pattern relays do do.
*** When will pattern relays discover C:A10xxxxx is opposite C:KQ?
*** That's immediate in support ask. Now this is a slammy hand.
*** When does pattern relays find D:top opposite D:AKxxxx?
*** Yes to D:top ask MAKES this hand worth a slam try.
*** Trump relay WILL find 3xtops or one missing!
*** Then will find controls - even a doubleton = third round control.
*** Do you not think askers have step-outs as pattern-relayers do?
*** Or straw-dog only pattern relayers can do step-outs for just
*** those hands you claim makes pattern-relays so adaptable?
*** The most general question of all is "DO WE HAVE TWO TRUMP LOSERS?"
*** Askers ask that most general question first. Why do you not?

[hrothgar]

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

The most general question of all is "DO WE HAVE TWO TRUMP LOSERS?"

Silly me, I would have thought this question was predicated on knowing what the trump suit is...
Or knowing whether we should be playing in a a suit contract or in notrump...

[Zelandakh]

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** Absolutly amazing! Create a straw dog (falsify what they do)
*** then hammer them as unable to do what pattern relays do do.
*** When will pattern relays discover C:A10xxxxx is opposite C:KQ?

This would rather depend on how strong the hands are and precisely which system is being employed. If you need to find out below 3NT then one obvious solution would be to make a club stopper ask which could only be answered in the positive with the king. Of course you could also set clubs as trumps and ask for partner's opinion - with KQ I would auggest they would be keen to accept.

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** That's immediate in support ask. Now this is a slammy hand.
*** When does pattern relays find D:top opposite D:AKxxxx?
*** Yes to D:top ask MAKES this hand worth a slam try.
*** Trump relay WILL find 3xtops or one missing!

I cannot say I understood this 100% but I think you are suggesting that findind the ♦Q opposite makes the difference between the hand being a slam try or not. I would suggest to you that there are other aspects of the hand which are almost certainly just as important. If I need partner's opinon then the procedure above is quite handy.

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** Then will find controls - even a doubleton = third round control.

Indeed, but is this not an argument in favour of shape?

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** Do you not think askers have step-outs as pattern-relayers do?

Most asking bid systems allow asks of a particular type and then have rules for when asks move onto the next type. If by "step-outs" you mean changing the asking type or sign offs then of course they do since is the very basis of the method.

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** Or straw-dog only pattern relayers can do step-outs for just
*** those hands you claim makes pattern-relays so adaptable?

There are many different "pattern relay" systems around, mostly based on either symmetric or Meckwellian principles. I have one too and designed it according to the principles I described. I believe this logic is sound and works well in practise. Some others use different relay breaks, for example straube's system uses few stopper asks but has more slam-oriented relay breaks. A few of the systems that BBF posters have described are very slam-oriented and use practically all of their relay breaks for this. It is a matter of choice for which hands these are available. FWiiW natural systems are generally better then relay ones for discovering suit quality issues, although there are certainly cases where this is not so.

dake50, on 2012-January-25, 08:14, said:

*** The most general question of all is "DO WE HAVE TWO TRUMP LOSERS?"
*** Askers ask that most general question first. Why do you not?

This is where you and I part company completely. For me the most general questions are "Do we have enough for game" and "What are the possible trump suits". Once I have satisfied the first question then getting partner's shape will answer the second. The question "Do we have 2 trump losers" is only relevant once a. I know the trump suit; b. I think we have enough for slam; and c. I am not looking at the trump AK.

I would also generalise this question to "Do I have 2 losers in any suit". If worried about this it is usually possible to set trumps and start cue bidding. This answers the question for the side suits and then RKCB will answer for the trump suit. Yes, it would be possible to reverse this to ask in trumps first. One of the nice aspects of having both relays and cues + RKCB available is that the relays do reverse this to some extent by first checking for a general number of controls (whether AK or AKQ) and then for controls from the longest suit. Most of the time trumps will be one of partner's longer suits, naturally not always though.

I understand that your approach to bidding is different to mine. There are many approaches which can be successful and I am not so arrogant as to think I have even the majority of the answers here. But I think in this you are swimming against the tide of bidding theory. Many others read these forums and I would not want them to think that what you are suggesting is mainstream or established practise. Rather, I would suggest to anyone wondering about system design that they optimise these lower level sequences first and foremost to finding the best game contracts. Slams are important but secondary to this. Using precious bidding space for purely slam information when we are still not even sure which game we are heading for (and will usually have no slam interest anyway) is poor system design.

[dake50]

Zelandakh, on 2012-January-25, 08:59, said:

This would rather depend on how strong the hands are and precisely which system is being employed. If you need to find out below 3NT then one obvious solution would be to make a club stopper ask which could only be answered in the positive with the king. Of course you could also set clubs as trumps and ask for partner's opinion - with KQ I would auggest they would be keen to accept.




I cannot say I understood this 100% but I think you are suggesting that findind the ♦Q opposite makes the difference between the hand being a slam try or not. I would suggest to you that there are other aspects of the hand which are almost certainly just as important. If I need partner's opinon then the procedure above is quite handy.




Indeed, but is this not an argument in favour of shape?




Most asking bid systems allow asks of a particular type and then have rules for when asks move onto the next type. If by "step-outs" you mean changing the asking type or sign offs then of course they do since is the very basis of the method.



There are many different "pattern relay" systems around, mostly based on either symmetric or Meckwellian principles. I have one too and designed it according to the principles I described. I believe this logic is sound and works well in practise. Some others use different relay breaks, for example straube's system uses few stopper asks but has more slam-oriented relay breaks. A few of the systems that BBF posters have described are very slam-oriented and use practically all of their relay breaks for this. It is a matter of choice for which hands these are available. FWiiW natural systems are generally better then relay ones for discovering suit quality issues, although there are certainly cases where this is not so.



This is where you and I part company completely. For me the most general questions are "Do we have enough for game" and "What are the possible trump suits". Once I have satisfied the first question then getting partner's shape will answer the second. The question "Do we have 2 trump losers" is only relevant once a. I know the trump suit; b. I think we have enough for slam; and c. I am not looking at the trump AK.

I would also generalise this question to "Do I have 2 losers in any suit". If worried about this it is usually possible to set trumps and start cue bidding. This answers the question for the side suits and then RKCB will answer for the trump suit. Yes, it would be possible to reverse this to ask in trumps first. One of the nice aspects of having both relays and cues + RKCB available is that the relays do reverse this to some extent by first checking for a general number of controls (whether AK or AKQ) and then for controls from the longest suit. Most of the time trumps will be one of partner's longer suits, naturally not always though.

I understand that your approach to bidding is different to mine. There are many approaches which can be successful and I am not so arrogant as to think I have even the majority of the answers here. But I think in this you are swimming against the tide of bidding theory. Many others read these forums and I would not want them to think that what you are suggesting is mainstream or established practise. Rather, I would suggest to anyone wondering about system design that they optimise these lower level sequences first and foremost to finding the best game contracts. Slams are important but secondary to this. Using precious bidding space for purely slam information when we are still not even sure which game we are heading for (and will usually have no slam interest anyway) is poor system design.


*** Am I hearing you say pattern-relayers know when a
hand is strong enough to pattern-relay BUT ASKERS aren't
smart enough to ask with appropriate strength? STRAW DOG.!!!!

[mgoetze]

Wow, am I the only one who has dake50 on ignore?

(To be a bit on-topic also, no, I am not interested in this style of asking bids at present.)