[Fluffy]

---

Table 1, scientific aproach:

1♠-2NT (7+ HCP, 4+ spades, no shortness)
3♠-pass (3♠ = minimum, typically 12-14, no shortness , or 11-12 with shortness)

Table 2, natural aproach:

1♠-2♦ (2/1 not game forcing)
2NT-3♠ (2NT = 15+ GF, 3♠ slam try, no serious/non serious available)
4♣-4♦
4♥-4NT
5♣-6♠

[aguahombre]

I don't understand. This is a simple Spade invite to game and an acceptance with any modern natural opening (not Roth Stone) system. With R/S or Fantunes, it is a simple Spade G.F. and signoff.

[Bbradley62]

Table 1: It looks like your system gets you to this contract. No blame if 4♠ makes. (I gave myself a headache trying to estimate the probability.)

Table 2:

• Is 1♠-3♠ a traditional limit raise?
• What would 3N have shown directly over 2♦?
• Would 1♠-2♦-2N-4♠ have shown a minimal GF with support?

In the future, maybe W1/E2 and W2/E1 should play together

[whereagles]

Table 1: 3♠ is an underbid. Counting this 3 ace hand as a mere 14 HCP seems like bean counting to me, not science. But hey why argue with success?

Table 2: no blame. What happened is precisely the reason gadgets like serious/frivolous and LTTC were invented.

[MrAce]

1 NT-3 NT is ny choice of auction (15-17 NT)

I may as well be biased by seeing both hands and perhaps resulting.

1♠-3♠ or 3 NT (4333)
4♠ is probably the normal auction.

I don't really get the idea behind both auctions you posted Gonzalo.

[gszes]

Your natural approach has west going off the deep end by taking control of a hand where
they are minimum for previous bidding. There is no reason west should not bid 4s (over 4h)
to try and get the idea across tht they are min. east knows about all of the suits being
controlled and should be willing to subside.

Both players :overbid: some 2d temporizing with no length and west never limiting their
hand when able. Both sides are under the delusion their p has extras because no one is
trying to say otherwise.

While there is some deeply buried admiration for being able to stop in 3s I am pretty sure
it is because the card combinations make 4s speculative. 4S should be pretty standard and any
"scientific" system with a range of 7+ is just plain unplayable and sent back to the lab for
destruction and new programming.

[ahydra]

I like 1S-3S; 4S-p. Clean and simple. 1S-2NT; 4S (min) is also OK, or maybe West replies 3NT if that shows a balanced hand.

On the first auction how can you play this 2NT=7+ HCP sensibly?! You've eaten a lot of room and all we found out is that responder has a raise to about 2.3 spades or higher. But to be honest 3S looks like the right place to play, 4S looks like it requires two finesses or maybe one finesse with something like ♦Q10 or K10 onside.

On the second hand East making a slam try is a sizeable overbid. 4333 = not good as any fule know. If he's afraid of missing slam opposite a huge hand in West then maybe he should cuebid once and then sign off (if you use that to show a mild slam try, not having serious 3NT or similar available). But to be honest I would just bid 4S.

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

gszes, on 2014-August-09, 14:15, said:

There is no reason west should not bid 4s (over 4h) to try and get the idea across tht they are min.

Not sure which auction you mean here. In the OP it is West that bids 4♥ and East that takes control.

[NickB50014]

Wouldn't Jacoby be much better than your styling of 2NT? Puts you in the game 1♠ 2 NT 4 ♠ Pass

[PhilKing]

In a seven table duplicate the only pair that got to exactly game were playing Bergen Responses.

All the others played in 3, 5, 6 or 7 apart from one pair of loons that bid 1NT-3NT and made an overtrick.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2014-August-29, 16:17, said:

In a seven table duplicate the only pair that got to exactly game were playing Bergen Responses.

All the others played in 3, 5, 6 or 7 apart from one pair of loons that bid 1NT-3NT and made an overtrick.

The actual tool (Bergen) they use to show an invitational raise doesn't seem relevant; apparently that pair was the only one which treated the hands as an invite and a simple acceptance.

Congrats to the 14-16 NT and a 4X3 3NT.

[rhm]

whereagles, on 2014-August-09, 03:32, said:

Table 1: 3♠ is an underbid. Counting this 3 ace hand as a mere 14 HCP seems like bean counting to me, not science. But hey why argue with success?

Table 2: no blame. What happened is precisely the reason gadgets like serious/frivolous and LTTC were invented.

Table 1: 3NT by East looks odds on to me (what I would have bid over 3♠) . LTTC, which is not a gadget, helps pointing to 3NT.
That is precisely one important reason why gadgets like serious / frivolous are too high a price to pay. But I understand some people believe in gadgets as a substitute for judgement. It is a poor one.

Table 2: I blame East. Abuse of Blackwood.
I can understand 4♦, but I would do it reluctantly and I would not criticise 4♠ directly. This could be a matter of style though.
But bidding anything but 4♠ over 4♥ is the height of folly.
East knows opener is balanced. Where can he underwrite 12 tricks? If 12 tricks are cold opener will continue over 4♠.
It is the same old story. People cuebid and believe when the control situation is satisfactory 12 tricks will somehow automatically be present.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Standard cuebidding rules are clearly insufficient to sort out stuff. Besides, they are very unclear.. just look at Rodwell/Grant's book on 2/1 and you'll realize even world champions have trouble explaining it at a basic level.

I once devised a scheme to get over it, but it was too complicated. No one below pro level would want to study it.

[rhm]

I just ran a random simulation on the North South hands to find out how often 3NT can be beaten double dummy.
result (1000 deals):

3NT makes on 979 (97.9%) deals even double dummy
Average number of tricks 9.76

4♠ makes on 775 (77.5%) deals.
Average number of tricks 9.97

With the East hand I want a bidding system where over 1♠ I can show spade support and suggest 3NT as a final contract whether IMPs or matchpoints

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

The scheme I mentioned above used 3NT as an artificial bid, but it could be easily tweaked to leave it as natural.

The idea was very simple: setting up a forcing situation at the 3M level asks for hand type, not cuebids. Example:

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♠ (slam invite, asking)
3NT = balanced/semi balanced, scattered honors, mildly accepting the slam try.
4♣ = I have a bad hand for slam. Proceed at your own risk. (Direct or denial cuebids ensue.)
4♦ = fat max in context, HCP based. (D/D cues ensue.)
4♥+ = great hand for slam, runoff to RKCB.

(Full scheme was way more complicated than this and included singleton asks, etc.) If you want to leave 3NT as natural, tweaking is simple:


1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♠ (looking for best game or slam)
3NT = balanced/semi balanced, scattered honors, proposal to play.
4♣ = bad hand for slam, probably with a singleton (else bid 3NT)
4♦ = fat max, HCP based
4♥+ = great hand for slam, runoff to RKCB.

[jgillispie]

whereagles, on 2014-August-09, 03:32, said:

Table 1: 3♠ is an underbid. Counting this 3 ace hand as a mere 14 HCP seems like bean counting to me, not science. But hey why argue with success?

Table 2: no blame. What happened is precisely the reason gadgets like serious/frivolous and LTTC were invented.

Agree that W underbid his hand, provided that there is a way to show this good hand @ the 3 level.

2nd hand E doesn't have a slam try, IMO. Flat w/ 12 looks like a minimum 2/1 (but is 2N promising extras?).

[PhilKing]

It's somewhat amusing that in the second auction East made five bids all of which were ridiculous.

The last misbid is interesting. Arguably you are forced to slam once partner shows three key cards, but you can manufacture a way out of it by asking for the trump queen. West bids 5♠ and now you just have to hope for a very favourable layout.

aguahombre, on 2014-August-30, 11:17, said:

The actual tool (Bergen) they use to show an invitational raise doesn't seem relevant; apparently that pair was the only one which treated the hands as an invite and a simple acceptance.

Congrats to the 14-16 NT and a 4X3 3NT.

And I wasn't expecting anyone to respond to my first post.

[Zelandakh]

whereagles, on 2014-August-31, 04:51, said:

I once devised a scheme to get over it, but it was too complicated. No one below pro level would want to study it.

Denial cue bids, which lead directly into Asking Bids, are simple and very easy even for intermediates.

rhm, on 2014-August-31, 02:52, said:

Table 1: 3NT by East looks odds on to me (what I would have bid over 3♠) . LTTC, which is not a gadget, helps pointing to 3NT.
That is precisely one important reason why gadgets like serious / frivolous are too high a price to pay. But I understand some people believe in gadgets as a substitute for judgement. It is a poor one.

Sorry Rainer but this is just silly. Serious/Frivolous is an aid to judgement between 4M and looking for a slam. A natural 3NT is an aid to judgement between 3NT and 4M. Sometimes the latter is more useful but the majority of the time it is the former. If you have an expert system then certainly mix and match according to the auction; but for those who can only have one, they are going to get a lot more use out of Serious/Frivolous than natural.

[whereagles]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-31, 15:35, said:

1. Denial cue bids, which lead directly into Asking Bids, are simple and very easy even for intermediates.

2. Serious/Frivolous is an aid to judgement between 4M and looking for a slam. A natural 3NT is an aid to judgement between 3NT and 4M. Sometimes the latter is more useful but the majority of the time it is the former. If you have an expert system then certainly mix and match according to the auction; but for those who can only have one, they are going to get a lot more use out of Serious/Frivolous than natural.

1. That was the easy part

2. You can have both in a very simple manner that intermediates can follow:

1M 2x
2M 3M (looking for best game/slam. opener assumes 1st case, on grounds of "game before slam")
??

Now:

3NT = usually not interested in slam, proposal to play. Now responder signs-off in 4M or cues (at his own risk; "you were warned" style)

1st free step = not interested in slam, but prefer to play 4♠. Responder does as above.


2nd/3rd free steps = good hand for slam. Responder keeps cueing or bids 4M as "I was only checking for 3NT").


4M = good hand for slam, but no cue in 2nd/3rd steps (probably cue in 1st step suit, thus)

[Zelandakh]

Even if I could get a class of intermediates to understand this I am not sure I would want to. After 1♠ - 2x; 2♠ - 3♠; 4♣ we cannot find out about a club control below 4♠. I think I would sooner play responder's rebid of 3NT as cog with spade support than this, assuming 2NT is forcing.

I do play something like this after a 1NT opening and have done for a long time (from ordinary Stayman days) but there the call initiating it is 3M-1 and that extra step makes all the difference.