Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How many QT for an opening one bid?
238 views
Skip to first unread message
Bertil
Oct 28, 2012, 11:30:30 AM10/28/12
to
In his very recent (Oct.27) comment about "Limit raise with 3 cards" axman
stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar requirements
in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
It's worth noting that about 1/3 of all hands are balanced with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2
to which one can add very veah 5-card suits in 5-3-3-2 hands. The very unbalanced
hands with singletons and/or voids also account for 1/3.
Let's discuss if these facts should be pointed out to intermediate/advancing
players by stressing that the norm of 2QT for an opener is only an average
with 1/2 standard deviatiion.
What are the pros and cons? Is anybody willing to chime in? What does a
Bergen acolyte think? I don't expect to hear from a Grant devotee.
Bertil
CT, USA
stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar requirements
in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
It's worth noting that about 1/3 of all hands are balanced with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2
to which one can add very veah 5-card suits in 5-3-3-2 hands. The very unbalanced
hands with singletons and/or voids also account for 1/3.
Let's discuss if these facts should be pointed out to intermediate/advancing
players by stressing that the norm of 2QT for an opener is only an average
with 1/2 standard deviatiion.
What are the pros and cons? Is anybody willing to chime in? What does a
Bergen acolyte think? I don't expect to hear from a Grant devotee.
Bertil
CT, USA
Carl
Oct 28, 2012, 4:10:26 PM10/28/12
to
David Stevenson
Oct 29, 2012, 10:47:08 AM10/29/12
to
Bertil wrote
certain other positions. Culbertson's methods are based on Honour
Tricks, a totally different valuation method.
Since it is many years since I used HTs, I may be wrong, but the
following chart is approximately right, done from memory.
HT QT
AKQ 2+ 2
AKJ 2+ 2
AK 2 2
AQJ 2 1.5
AQ 1.5 1.5
AJx 1+ 1
KQJ 1+ 1
KQ 1 1
KJx .5+ .5
Kx .5 .5
K + 0
QJx .5 0
Qx + 0
The + in HTs was effectively a quarter of an HT.
>It's worth noting that about 1/3 of all hands are balanced with 4-3-3-3
>or 4-4-3-2
>to which one can add very veah 5-card suits in 5-3-3-2 hands. The very
>unbalanced
>hands with singletons and/or voids also account for 1/3.
>
>Let's discuss if these facts should be pointed out to intermediate/advancing
>players by stressing that the norm of 2QT for an opener is only an average
>with 1/2 standard deviatiion.
>
>What are the pros and cons? Is anybody willing to chime in? What does a
>Bergen acolyte think? I don't expect to hear from a Grant devotee.
An aggressive pair who were considered the best in the area for many
years opened any hand with seven or fewer losers so long as it had 1.5
QTs.
In general the only use for QTs in Acol was that an Acol 2C was
defined as 23+ balanced, or 5+ QTs unbalanced with game values. Positive
responses to Acol 2C openings and Acol Twos showed 1.5 QTs.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>In his very recent (Oct.27) comment about "Limit raise with 3 cards" axman
>stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
>regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
>
>These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar
>requirements
>in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
No, Bertil, they are Quick tricks, a defensive standard used in
>stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
>regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
>
>These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar
>requirements
>in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
certain other positions. Culbertson's methods are based on Honour
Tricks, a totally different valuation method.
Since it is many years since I used HTs, I may be wrong, but the
following chart is approximately right, done from memory.
HT QT
AKQ 2+ 2
AKJ 2+ 2
AK 2 2
AQJ 2 1.5
AQ 1.5 1.5
AJx 1+ 1
KQJ 1+ 1
KQ 1 1
KJx .5+ .5
Kx .5 .5
K + 0
QJx .5 0
Qx + 0
The + in HTs was effectively a quarter of an HT.
>It's worth noting that about 1/3 of all hands are balanced with 4-3-3-3
>or 4-4-3-2
>to which one can add very veah 5-card suits in 5-3-3-2 hands. The very
>unbalanced
>hands with singletons and/or voids also account for 1/3.
>
>Let's discuss if these facts should be pointed out to intermediate/advancing
>players by stressing that the norm of 2QT for an opener is only an average
>with 1/2 standard deviatiion.
>
>What are the pros and cons? Is anybody willing to chime in? What does a
>Bergen acolyte think? I don't expect to hear from a Grant devotee.
years opened any hand with seven or fewer losers so long as it had 1.5
QTs.
In general the only use for QTs in Acol was that an Acol 2C was
defined as 23+ balanced, or 5+ QTs unbalanced with game values. Positive
responses to Acol 2C openings and Acol Twos showed 1.5 QTs.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Co Wiersma
Oct 29, 2012, 12:52:49 PM10/29/12
to
Op 28-10-2012 16:30, Bertil schreef:
I think that for the vast majority of the bridgeplayers in the world,
such discussions would not be very helpful.
For most its to complicated
And for some its to vague
Q1042
Q1053
A109
A10
how many quicktricks are this? 2?
Would there be any expert who would pass because it has only two ?
I think not!
Co Wiersma
such discussions would not be very helpful.
For most its to complicated
And for some its to vague
Q1042
Q1053
A109
A10
how many quicktricks are this? 2?
Would there be any expert who would pass because it has only two ?
I think not!
Co Wiersma
Fred.
Oct 29, 2012, 1:09:31 PM10/29/12
to
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:30:30 AM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
> In his very recent (Oct.27) comment about "Limit raise with 3 cards" axman stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional. These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar requirements in his "Golden BooK' of 1949. It's worth noting that about 1/3 of all hands are balanced with 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 to which one can add very veah 5-card suits in 5-3-3-2 hands. The very unbalanced hands with singletons and/or voids also account for 1/3. Let's discuss if these facts should be pointed out to intermediate/advancing players by stressing that the norm of 2QT for an opener is only an average with 1/2 standard deviatiion. What are the pros and cons? Is anybody willing to chime in? What does a Bergen acolyte think? I don't expect to hear from a Grant devotee. Bertil CT, USA
I'm inclinded to follow Edgar Kaplan's guidelines which start with a typical minumum opening cotaining 2 QT. A holding of 2-1/2 requires a total point less for opening whiles 3QT is just plain opened. A holding of 1-1/2 QT requires
a total point more for opening, except that anything played as a "sound"
opening requires 2QT.
I've heard flavors of this from others, for instance some teaching 13 total
points as an SA opening suggest opening on 12 holding 2-1/2 QT.
My own experience is that opening the likes of Axx-xxx-AKx-xxxx,
Axx-AQx-JTx-xxxx, Axx-QTx-KQx-JTxx or Axx-Qxx-KQx-Jxxx(NV) a 12-14 NT works
out OK despite the poor distribution.
Fred.
Bertil
Oct 29, 2012, 1:12:56 PM10/29/12
to David Stevenson
The primary difference between QT and HT is the QJx=1/2,if we disregard +.
Bob M
Oct 29, 2012, 1:18:21 PM10/29/12
to
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:30:30 AM UTC-4, Bertil wrote:
So it seems to me that if you play 2/1 GF, which a great number of players do, that an opener must have at LEAST 12 HCP and at LEAST 2QT. Of course not all 12 HCP hands are openers when you apply the appropriate “deductions” and they should not be opened. However the fact remains that when you do open, the hand should have at LEAST 12 HCP if you follow the teachings of Max Hardy.
It can hardly be wrong to teach “students” that an opener should have at LEAST 12 HCP and 2QT if they are to play the very popular 2/1 GF system.
Bob M
David Stevenson
Oct 29, 2012, 10:00:12 PM10/29/12
to
Bertil wrote
> The primary difference between QT and HT is the QJx=1/2,if we disregard +.
That's like disregarding jacks in the ordinary point count. It makes
a huge difference.
Of course you cannot disregard + without changing the count
completely.
> The primary difference between QT and HT is the QJx=1/2,if we disregard +.
a huge difference.
Of course you cannot disregard + without changing the count
completely.
Bertil
Oct 31, 2012, 10:53:45 AM10/31/12
to
think all or at least most HCP should be in the two long suits.
Move the Q's to the short suits and tell me if you would still open?
Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid
the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
You would need to do 1000 DD simulations to show that opening this hand
is likely to yield a plus score more often than a minus score.
I've been without el-power since Sunday. and just got it back.
Bertil
USA
france...@googlemail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 11:19:50 AM10/31/12
to
Q1042
Q1053
A109
A10
Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands. If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
You would need to do 1000 DD simulations to show that opening this hand is likely to yield a plus score more often than a minus score. I've been without el-power since Sunday. and just got it back. Bertil USA
- if the auction started 1C/1D (1S) dbl (P) then of course you bid 2H and are happy to do so, it's not a 'reverse' it is raising partner's 4-card heart suit showing a minimum hand.
- Doing any number of DD simulations will never tell you if it is correct to open this hand, because two of the huge benefits of opening minimum hands are
1. making the opponents' life difficult, and
2. finding a fit your way, helping partner to compete and/or find the right opening lead.
Neither of those will have any effect on DD results.
Q1053
A109
A10
Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands. If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
You would need to do 1000 DD simulations to show that opening this hand is likely to yield a plus score more often than a minus score. I've been without el-power since Sunday. and just got it back. Bertil USA
- Doing any number of DD simulations will never tell you if it is correct to open this hand, because two of the huge benefits of opening minimum hands are
1. making the opponents' life difficult, and
2. finding a fit your way, helping partner to compete and/or find the right opening lead.
Neither of those will have any effect on DD results.
Lorne
Oct 31, 2012, 12:09:36 PM10/31/12
to
On 31/10/2012 14:53, Bertil wrote:
> Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
> If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid
> the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
>
You need to review what the word 'reverse' means. An auction like:
> Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
> If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid
> the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
>
1C (1S) dbl (P)
2H
shows a minimum opener and is not a reverse. It shows the same values
as an unopposed auction like this:
1C 1H
2H
richlp
Oct 31, 2012, 8:29:31 PM10/31/12
to
>My own experience is that opening the likes of Axx-xxx-AKx-xxxx a 12-14 NT works
novice) I played against Edgar Kaplan and Leonard Harmon in a NYC
regional KO event.
(Sidetrack --- that was back when novices WANTED to play (way way) UP
as opposed to today when so many hate the thought of playing in
competition above their own skill level)
At any rate....I opened the hand a weak NT. We only lost 5 IMP on the
hand but were booked for a MUCH bigger loss until Harmon mis-
defended. His apology to Kaplan was
"I'm sorry Edgar. I know you say to open that in your book, but I
couldn't believe anybody would actually do it."
>out OK despite the poor distribution.
Back when I was a true novice (as opposed to a playing 40 years
novice) I played against Edgar Kaplan and Leonard Harmon in a NYC
regional KO event.
(Sidetrack --- that was back when novices WANTED to play (way way) UP
as opposed to today when so many hate the thought of playing in
competition above their own skill level)
At any rate....I opened the hand a weak NT. We only lost 5 IMP on the
hand but were booked for a MUCH bigger loss until Harmon mis-
defended. His apology to Kaplan was
"I'm sorry Edgar. I know you say to open that in your book, but I
couldn't believe anybody would actually do it."
derek
Nov 1, 2012, 10:38:43 AM11/1/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:53:45 AM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
> Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
Now? It's been permitted pretty well all my life - certainly since the 80s when I first played duplicate.
> Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
> If LHO bids 1M and partner responds with a negative double, would you bid
> the other M and thus reverse or bid 1NT?
Adam Beneschan
Nov 1, 2012, 11:26:56 AM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 7:38:43 AM UTC-7, derek wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:53:45 AM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
>
> > Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
>
> Now? It's been permitted pretty well all my life - certainly since the 80s when I first played duplicate.
It's been permitted at least since the GCC was introduced (1992, I think); it was probably permitted before that, on the Class A-F charts, but I don't have them in front of me. It may be that before things were clearly defined when the GCC came out, this use of 1C wasn't really considered to be a convention that had to be regulated (in the ACBL).
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:53:45 AM UTC-3, Bertil wrote:
>
> > Suppose you open 1D or 1C as permitted now by ACBL with 4-4-3-2 hands.
>
> Now? It's been permitted pretty well all my life - certainly since the 80s when I first played duplicate.
The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it, but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over 1C. (I think. There was some confusion about whether this new rule, adopted a little over a year ago, applied to allowed defenses or only to whether it had to be announced, and I don't remember what official answer we got.)
-- Adam
Steve Willner
Nov 5, 2012, 8:07:55 PM11/5/12
to
On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> 1C.
Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whether
> The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> 1C.
the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
Come to think of it, though, I think there is a difference along the
lines Bertil was thinking. In the past, any 1C bid shorter than 3c had
to promise 10 HCP. Now that 1C on specifically 4432 is natural, I think
it can be opened as light as 8 HCP. I have not seen this officially
stated, but it appears to be the effect of the new rule.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Will in New Haven
Nov 6, 2012, 3:46:26 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 5, 8:08 pm, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> > 1C.
>
> Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whether
> the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
> defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
Not quite. A Forcing Club, whether always strong or, as in Polish,
> On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> > 1C.
>
> Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whether
> the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
> defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
variable, is alerted, not announced. "Could be short" means an
ordinary one-bid in a generally natural system that could be a
doubleton in a balanced hand.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> Come to think of it, though, I think there is a difference along the
> lines Bertil was thinking. In the past, any 1C bid shorter than 3c had
> to promise 10 HCP. Now that 1C on specifically 4432 is natural, I think
> it can be opened as light as 8 HCP. I have not seen this officially
> stated, but it appears to be the effect of the new rule.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Bertil
Nov 6, 2012, 4:49:44 PM11/6/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:08:00 PM UTC-5, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
>
> > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
>
> > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
>
> > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
>
> > 1C.
>
>
>
> Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whether
>
> the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
>
> defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
>
>
>
> Come to think of it, though, I think there is a difference along the
>
> lines Bertil was thinking. In the past, any 1C bid shorter than 3c had
>
> to promise 10 HCP. Now that 1C on specifically 4432 is natural, I think
>
> it can be opened as light as 8 HCP. I have not seen this officially
>
> stated, but it appears to be the effect of the new rule.
>
>
> Must the announcement "could be short" be amplified with saying
> On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
>
> > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
>
> > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
>
> > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
>
> > 1C.
>
>
>
> Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whether
>
> the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
>
> defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
>
>
>
> Come to think of it, though, I think there is a difference along the
>
> lines Bertil was thinking. In the past, any 1C bid shorter than 3c had
>
> to promise 10 HCP. Now that 1C on specifically 4432 is natural, I think
>
> it can be opened as light as 8 HCP. I have not seen this officially
>
> stated, but it appears to be the effect of the new rule.
>
>
that the hand might be 4-4-3-2 but not 4-4-4-1, and thus ruling out
a 4-card D-suit in ACBL-land?
Bertil
CT, USA
Adam Beneschan
Nov 6, 2012, 4:57:37 PM11/6/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:46:26 PM UTC-8, Will in New Haven wrote:
-- Adam
> On Nov 5, 8:08 pm, Steve Willner wrote:
>
> > On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> > > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> > > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> > > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> > > 1C.
>
> > Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whethe
>
> > On 2012-11-01 11:26 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > The "new" thing that I think Bertil is confusing this with is that
> > > the 1C that could be a doubleton in a 4=4=3=2 hand is now considered
> > > "natural"; this doesn't affect whether you're permitted to use it,
> > > but it does affect what defenses opponents are allowed to use over
> > > 1C.
>
> > Exactly right. The announcement "could be short" is the same whethe
> > the 1C bid is "natural" or not. If the other side wants to know what
> > defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
>
> Not quite. A Forcing Club, whether always strong or, as in Polish,
> variable, is alerted, not announced. "Could be short" means an
> ordinary one-bid in a generally natural system that could be a
> doubleton in a balanced hand.
There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement would apply here.
> > defenses are allowed, they have to ask for an explanation of the bid.
>
> Not quite. A Forcing Club, whether always strong or, as in Polish,
> variable, is alerted, not announced. "Could be short" means an
> ordinary one-bid in a generally natural system that could be a
> doubleton in a balanced hand.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Nov 6, 2012, 5:02:45 PM11/6/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 1:49:44 PM UTC-8, Bertil wrote:
> Must the announcement "could be short" be amplified with saying
> that the hand might be 4-4-3-2 but not 4-4-4-1, and thus ruling out
> a 4-card D-suit in ACBL-land?
No. You are not supposed to provide additional information unless asked by the opponents, just as you're not supposed to say anything besides "Alert" for alertable bids until asked for more information. (*) As some people pointed out last year, this is a flaw in the new rules, because an opponent doesn't know, after hearing the announcement "could be short", whether it's a could-be-short bid that is treated as natural (so that only GCC-approved defenses are allowed), or one that is treated as artificial (so that almost any artificial defense is allowed). But as far as I know, we have to live with that.
> Must the announcement "could be short" be amplified with saying
> that the hand might be 4-4-3-2 but not 4-4-4-1, and thus ruling out
> a 4-card D-suit in ACBL-land?
(*) When the auction is over and your side is declaring, it's OK to volunteer additional information.
-- Adam
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 10:25:09 AM11/7/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57:37 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement would apply here.
Not correct. The ACBL alert chart says "natural and non-forcing openings". So this is precisely the point of changing the definition of "natural" for 1C. Opening 1C or 1D on any hand that is not, under the regulation, "natural" is still going to require an alert. So in your example, 1D is alerted, not announced.
> There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement would apply here.
Ed Reppert
Nov 7, 2012, 9:52:13 AM11/7/12
to
In article <2717c131-9c7a-448f...@googlegroups.com>,
You are mistaken. The procedure, not the alert chart, governs. The
procedure says 'After a non-forcing opening 1 or 1 for which the opener
could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened. After the opening
bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."' This doesn't
say a thing about whether the bid is natural, conventional, or
artificial. Also, look at the convention card. Minimum length of 0-2
cards, NF, is written in blue, indicating you announce, for both clubs
and diamonds. Consider also that an announcement is a kind of alert, in
that it alerts opponents to something unusual about the bid.
procedure says 'After a non-forcing opening 1 or 1 for which the opener
could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened. After the opening
bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."' This doesn't
say a thing about whether the bid is natural, conventional, or
artificial. Also, look at the convention card. Minimum length of 0-2
cards, NF, is written in blue, indicating you announce, for both clubs
and diamonds. Consider also that an announcement is a kind of alert, in
that it alerts opponents to something unusual about the bid.
Adam Beneschan
Nov 7, 2012, 10:58:57 AM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:25:09 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57:37 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>
>
> > There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement would apply here.
>
> Not correct. The ACBL alert chart says "natural and non-forcing openings".
The only place I see "natural [and] non-forcing openings" pertaining to 1C or 1D openings, either on the Alert Chart or in Alert Procedures, discusses when the opening bid is *not* *alertable* (which means no alert *or* announcement is required). The places where it says 1C or 1D are announceable do not mention "natural" at all. If you think I'm wrong, please provide a quote from the most recent versions of the documents (http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html or http://www.acbl.org/play/AlertChart.pdf).
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57:37 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>
>
> > There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement would apply here.
>
> Not correct. The ACBL alert chart says "natural and non-forcing openings".
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Nov 7, 2012, 11:02:34 AM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:52:13 AM UTC-8, blackshoe wrote:
> derek wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57:37 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that
> > > the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to
> > > require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner
> > > still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The
> > > same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even
> > > if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe
> > > the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not
> > > allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement
> > > would apply here.
>
> > Not correct. The ACBL alert chart says "natural and non-forcing openings". So
> > this is precisely the point of changing the definition of "natural" for 1C.
> > Opening 1C or 1D on any hand that is not, under the regulation, "natural" is
> > still going to require an alert. So in your example, 1D is alerted, not
> > announced.
>
> You are mistaken. The procedure, not the alert chart, governs.
The alert chart doesn't contradict the alert procedure in this case (yay, the ACBL managed to get one right). In the row on opening suit bids at the one level, under the column "Announce", it says "State “may be short” for non-forcing 1♣ and 1♦ calls which may be shorter than three cards". No reference to "natural".
-- Adam
> derek wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:57:37 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > > There doesn't seem to be any requirement that it be a doubleton (or that
> > > the hand be balanced), just that it be non-forcing. If someone wants to
> > > require 5 cards to open 1D and thus opens 1C on 4=4=4=1 hands, his partner
> > > still announces "Could be short" as long as the 1C bid is non-forcing. The
> > > same goes for a non-forcing 1D opening that could be fewer than three, even
> > > if it could be a singleton or void. In Match-Point Precision, I believe
> > > the system opening on a 3=4=0=6 hand is 1D, non-forcing (since 2C is not
> > > allowed with a four-card major). So the "could be short" announcement
> > > would apply here.
>
> > Not correct. The ACBL alert chart says "natural and non-forcing openings". So
> > this is precisely the point of changing the definition of "natural" for 1C.
> > Opening 1C or 1D on any hand that is not, under the regulation, "natural" is
> > still going to require an alert. So in your example, 1D is alerted, not
> > announced.
>
> You are mistaken. The procedure, not the alert chart, governs.
-- Adam
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 11:52:49 AM11/7/12
to
Adam Beneschan
Nov 7, 2012, 12:31:32 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:52:49 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
>
> I completely disagree about your interpretation. I agree that the alert procedure supercedes the alert chart, but first, it's out of date, as under "Natural Calls" it still says "Three or more cards in a minor suit.", which we know to be almost a year out of date. Secondly, it also says that "Most natural calls do not require Alerts" and "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED" (their caps, not mine), and conventional 1C and 1D bids are not included in the exceptions. You do not alert a non-forcing 1C on 2 cards, as it is natural; if you are opening any suit with a singleton, it's still alertable (and I admit I routinely hear the improper announcement "could be as short as 1" and never challenge it).
But the new rule that says that a 2-card 1C is natural (sometimes) only applies to 1C openings, not 1D openings. If your interpretation is correct, then a 1D opening could never be announceable because it would always be a convention, and by your argument, conventions have to be alerted unless they're specifically listed as an exception to the "almost all conventions must be alerted" rule. But if that's the case, why would they have included "may be short" 1D in language about announceable bids at all? It wouldn't make any sense. I think the only conclusion is that your interpretation is wrong; the fact that they included 1D as a possibly announceable bid means that they *did* intend for this to be the case even if a convention; and that the failure to include them in the list of non-alertable conventions is not meaningful (it's an oversight, perhaps, but the list of exceptions doesn't say it's an exhaustive list).
>
> I completely disagree about your interpretation. I agree that the alert procedure supercedes the alert chart, but first, it's out of date, as under "Natural Calls" it still says "Three or more cards in a minor suit.", which we know to be almost a year out of date. Secondly, it also says that "Most natural calls do not require Alerts" and "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED" (their caps, not mine), and conventional 1C and 1D bids are not included in the exceptions. You do not alert a non-forcing 1C on 2 cards, as it is natural; if you are opening any suit with a singleton, it's still alertable (and I admit I routinely hear the improper announcement "could be as short as 1" and never challenge it).
-- Adam
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 3:37:41 PM11/7/12
to
Adam Beneschan
Nov 7, 2012, 3:46:54 PM11/7/12
to
-- Adam
derek
Nov 7, 2012, 5:43:34 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> Ummm, if you say that it's a conventional opening and it therefore has to be alerted, then you haven't conceded my interpretation.
Well, I didn't say I _would_ concede it, but let's try "if I conceded that it might be right in some cases..."
> Ummm, if you say that it's a conventional opening and it therefore has to be alerted, then you haven't conceded my interpretation.
> The whole point is that there are some conventional openings that are announced, not alerted. (And that shouldn't seem strange since there are other conventional bids that are announced and not alerted, such as transfers.) Of course a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional. I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening", it may not look like any short opening you're used to (MPP isn't all that popular a system), but the alert rules don't define the term "short opening" nor do they need to.
Ed Reppert
Nov 7, 2012, 5:07:15 PM11/7/12
to
Ed Reppert
Nov 7, 2012, 5:10:32 PM11/7/12
to
In article <3284c0bc-3f18-4dec...@googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Meanwhile, I'll rule that opening either minor on a void requires an alert
> until told otherwise by the ACBL.
Which they might well do, *if* you ask them.
> Meanwhile, I'll rule that opening either minor on a void requires an alert
> until told otherwise by the ACBL.
Ed Reppert
Nov 7, 2012, 5:12:22 PM11/7/12
to
In article <468f3b75-491e-4856...@googlegroups.com>,
> non-forcing 1C and 1D calls which may be shorter than three cards". No
> reference to "natural".
Fair enough. I admit I didn't bother to look at the chart. :-)
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> The alert chart doesn't contradict the alert procedure in this case (yay, the
> ACBL managed to get one right). In the row on opening suit bids at the one
> level, under the column "Announce", it says "State ﾒmay be shortﾓ for
> The alert chart doesn't contradict the alert procedure in this case (yay, the
> ACBL managed to get one right). In the row on opening suit bids at the one
> non-forcing 1C and 1D calls which may be shorter than three cards". No
> reference to "natural".
Fair enough. I admit I didn't bother to look at the chart. :-)
Adam Beneschan
Nov 7, 2012, 6:53:23 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:43:34 PM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ummm, if you say that it's a conventional opening and it therefore has to be alerted, then you haven't conceded my interpretation.
>
>
>
> Well, I didn't say I _would_ concede it, but let's try "if I conceded that it might be right in some cases..."
Right, I understand that your statement was conditional. But you then made an argument that started "If I conceded that your interpretation might be right in some cases" but then made an argument that contradicted the premise.
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ummm, if you say that it's a conventional opening and it therefore has to be alerted, then you haven't conceded my interpretation.
>
>
>
> Well, I didn't say I _would_ concede it, but let's try "if I conceded that it might be right in some cases..."
> > The whole point is that there are some conventional openings that are announced, not alerted. (And that shouldn't seem strange since there are other conventional bids that are announced and not alerted, such as transfers.) Of course a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional. I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening", it may not look like any short opening you're used to (MPP isn't all that popular a system), but the alert rules don't define the term "short opening" nor do they need to.
>
> Of _course_ they need to, or we wouldn't be having this debate.
> Meanwhile, I'll rule that opening either minor on a void requires an alert until told otherwise by the ACBL.
-- Adam
Bob M
Nov 7, 2012, 11:07:51 PM11/7/12
to
Bob M
Ed Reppert
Nov 8, 2012, 12:08:58 AM11/8/12
to
In article <7cd82d43-9ebf-4e1d...@googlegroups.com>,
Bob M <bobri...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Say that I have the agreement with partner that my 1C opening is non-forcing
> and promises 3 clubs with one exception; it may be a doubleton with exactly
> 4=4=3=2 distribution. If my partner announces łmay be a doubleton˛ he is
> Say that I have the agreement with partner that my 1C opening is non-forcing
> and promises 3 clubs with one exception; it may be a doubleton with exactly
> breaking the rules (and subject to penalty)? But on the other hand, if an opp
> opens 1C and itąs announced as łmay be short˛ itąs possible that heąs void in
> clubs (possibly with only 10 HCP)?
Yep.
Adam Beneschan
Nov 8, 2012, 10:44:23 AM11/8/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:07:52 PM UTC-8, Bob M wrote:
> Say that I have the agreement with partner that my 1C opening is non-forcing and promises 3 clubs with one exception; it may be a doubleton with exactly 4=4=3=2 distribution. If my partner announces “may be a doubleton” he is breaking the rules (and subject to penalty)? But on the other hand, if an opp opens 1C and it’s announced as “may be short” it’s possible that he’s void in clubs (possibly with only 10 HCP)?
Pretty much yes, except that I don't know how "subject to penalty" you'd really be. You're not supposed to volunteer information other than what the rules tell you that you must. The problem, of course, is that volunteering information gives information to partner, which is UI; and if you and your partner aren't on the same page, then it's possible he could make a decision based on the UI, which is bad, and that could result in an adjusted score, which isn't a penalty, but as a director, if I thought the UI was transmitted because you said something you weren't supposed to say, I think that would be a cause to assess an additional penalty. (Hypothetically, that is. They don't actually let me direct, because on the director's test my answer to every problem was to whack the player who caused the problem with a duplicate board and go back to my coffee break.)
> Say that I have the agreement with partner that my 1C opening is non-forcing and promises 3 clubs with one exception; it may be a doubleton with exactly 4=4=3=2 distribution. If my partner announces “may be a doubleton” he is breaking the rules (and subject to penalty)? But on the other hand, if an opp opens 1C and it’s announced as “may be short” it’s possible that he’s void in clubs (possibly with only 10 HCP)?
But if there's no system disagreement involved, I'm guessing that you probably wouldn't get penalized for volunteering extra information, and probably wouldn't even get a director call. I don't think I've ever called the director when opponents do that (it happens pretty often that an opponent will alert and then explain the alert without being asked, which is not correct procedure, but I've never done anything about it). But I'm not saying that it's OK to deliberately break the rules.
-- Adam
Steve Willner
Nov 8, 2012, 9:23:27 PM11/8/12
to
On 2012-11-06 3:46 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> A Forcing Club, whether always strong or, as in Polish,
> variable, is alerted, not announced.
This is correct, but I think the reason is specifically because it's
> A Forcing Club, whether always strong or, as in Polish,
> variable, is alerted, not announced.
forcing.
The Alert Procedure document says:
1C: Not Alertable if natural (three or more cards in minor) and
non-forcing. Announceable if fewer than three cards is the only
unnatural meaning. Any other meaning must be Alerted....
This seems to be obsolete because "natural" now can include two cards.
This is far from the first inconsistency the ACBL has perpetrated.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner
Nov 9, 2012, 8:54:54 PM11/9/12
to
On 2012-11-07 3:46 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional.
> I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening",
I think we'd need to know more about the exact parameters of the 1D
> a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional.
> I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening",
opening to know whether it's alertable or announceable. If, for
example, it guarantees a 4cM, I think that would make it alertable under
"highly unusual and unexpected" if nothing else. If 1D could be
anything from 4405 to xx8x so doesn't guarantee much of anything, then
announcing is probably technically correct. As a practical matter, if
4306 is a possibility, alerting is probably less likely to draw complaints.
The one thing we should all agree on is that opponents are entitled to a
complete explanation of the 1D bid if they ask. Unfortunately, a lot of
Precision users seem incapable of that.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
derek
Nov 10, 2012, 9:24:13 PM11/10/12
to
You
You ask them. As far as I can see from the Alert Procedure document, and the Alert Chart, it requires an alert. You'll rule your, incorrect way, and I'll rule in mine.
derek
Nov 10, 2012, 9:26:15 PM11/10/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:53:23 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> You've already been told otherwise, by the ACBL Alert Procedures. The meaning is clear, as long as we assume that the list given around "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED" is not necessarily an exhaustive list, and if it states somewhere that some other convention isn't alertable, then it isn't.
And I disagree that the Alert procedure says anything like what you want it to say, and thus the Alert chart is useful for clarification. Why do you think you can make assumptions like that?
> You've already been told otherwise, by the ACBL Alert Procedures. The meaning is clear, as long as we assume that the list given around "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED" is not necessarily an exhaustive list, and if it states somewhere that some other convention isn't alertable, then it isn't.
Ed Reppert
Nov 11, 2012, 12:03:21 AM11/11/12
to
In article <4e8947e5-d68f-4610...@googlegroups.com>,
No. Because, you see, it's your way that's incorrect.
Adam Beneschan
Nov 12, 2012, 11:56:18 AM11/12/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 5:54:57 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2012-11-07 3:46 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional.
> > I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening",
>
> I think we'd need to know more about the exact parameters of the 1D
> opening to know whether it's alertable or announceable. If, for
> example, it guarantees a 4cM, I think that would make it alertable under
> "highly unusual and unexpected" if nothing else. If 1D could be
> anything from 4405 to xx8x so doesn't guarantee much of anything then
> On 2012-11-07 3:46 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional.
> > I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening",
>
> I think we'd need to know more about the exact parameters of the 1D
> opening to know whether it's alertable or announceable. If, for
> example, it guarantees a 4cM, I think that would make it alertable under
> "highly unusual and unexpected" if nothing else. If 1D could be
> announcing is probably technically correct.
I think the latter is pretty much the situation in MPP, except that 4405 hands would be opened 2D, not 1D. From what I recall, 1D could be (1) a limited opening with a real diamond suit--the hand may or may not include a 4cM, (2) a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range, (3) a balanced hand in 1NT opening range but with a 4cM, (4) any other hand below a 1C opener that doesn't qualify for any other opening. I think that only hands with long clubs and a side 4cM fit into #4, since MPP retained the traditional Precision meaning of 2D (three suits, short diamonds). That would be the only case where a 1D opening could be shorter than two diamonds. Of course, there may have been pairs that have done things differently (the 2D opening has never been all that popular, I think); I'm trying to recall what the original Andersen-Wei book said.
> The one thing we should all agree on is that opponents are entitled to a
> complete explanation of the 1D bid if they ask. Unfortunately, a lot of
> Precision users seem incapable of that.
-- Adam
Steve Willner
Nov 14, 2012, 8:55:56 PM11/14/12
to
On 2012-11-12 11:56 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> in MPP, except that
> 4405 hands would be opened 2D, not 1D. From what I recall, 1D could
> be (1) a limited opening with a real diamond suit--the hand may or
> may not include a 4cM, (2) a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range,
> (3) a balanced hand in 1NT opening range but with a 4cM, (4) any
> other hand below a 1C opener that doesn't qualify for any other
> opening. I think that only hands with long clubs and a side 4cM fit
> into #4, since MPP retained the traditional Precision meaning of 2D
> (three suits, short diamonds).
So 1NT denies a 4cM?
> in MPP, except that
> 4405 hands would be opened 2D, not 1D. From what I recall, 1D could
> be (1) a limited opening with a real diamond suit--the hand may or
> may not include a 4cM, (2) a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range,
> (3) a balanced hand in 1NT opening range but with a 4cM, (4) any
> other hand below a 1C opener that doesn't qualify for any other
> opening. I think that only hands with long clubs and a side 4cM fit
> into #4, since MPP retained the traditional Precision meaning of 2D
> (three suits, short diamonds).
As I read the Alert Procedures, the 1D opening as described would be an
announcement. In practice, I'd probably alert it because of the (highly
unusual and) unexpected hands that contain a 4cM, specifically the long
club types. But that's just me. I wouldn't complain if an opponent
using this method announced the 1D bid.
As I indicated earlier, when I played a method where 1D was either
balanced out of the 1NT range or else guaranteed a 4cM, our partnership
alerted it. Nobody complained about the alert, though some weren't too
happy with our using the method despite its being GCC.
SW> The one thing we should all agree on is that opponents are entitled
SW> to a complete explanation of the 1D bid if they ask.
SW> Unfortunately, a lot of Precision users seem incapable of that.
> I haven't experienced this, but I probably haven't run
> into that many Precision opponents. When I played Precision (not
> MPP) in a regular partnership, I wrote down the meaning of the 1D
> opening (along with 1C and 1NT) on a pair of 3x5 cards and let the
> opponents read them whenever they asked.
It occurred to me, long after I'd hit "send," that my text quoted above
could be taken as criticism of Adam. That was the furthest thing from
my mind. I've known Adam from rgb for a good many years, and I'm sure
his disclosure is exemplary. (I think he has mentioned the 3x5 cards
before.) It's my experience with local opponents that is not always
satisfactory, though some opponents do fine. I just wish the others
would be more diligent.
Adam Beneschan
Nov 14, 2012, 9:21:27 PM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:56:04 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote:
> On 2012-11-12 11:56 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > in MPP, except that
> > 4405 hands would be opened 2D, not 1D. From what I recall, 1D could
> > be (1) a limited opening with a real diamond suit--the hand may or
> > may not include a 4cM, (2) a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range,
> > (3) a balanced hand in 1NT opening range but with a 4cM, (4) any
> > other hand below a 1C opener that doesn't qualify for any other
> > opening. I think that only hands with long clubs and a side 4cM fit
> > into #4, since MPP retained the traditional Precision meaning of 2D
> > (three suits, short diamonds).
>
> So 1NT denies a 4cM?
Yes. That makes the system afterwards interesting, but I don't remember it all. Obviously Stayman isn't needed. 2C asks for opener to describe his hand, but I don't remember the details. Since 1NT denies a 4cM, it promises a four-card minor (or two), so 1NT-2NT shows both minors and asks opener to bid a 4-card minor, which is then passable. 2D and 2H are transfers, but I don't remember any other details.
> On 2012-11-12 11:56 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > in MPP, except that
> > 4405 hands would be opened 2D, not 1D. From what I recall, 1D could
> > be (1) a limited opening with a real diamond suit--the hand may or
> > may not include a 4cM, (2) a balanced hand out of 1NT opening range,
> > (3) a balanced hand in 1NT opening range but with a 4cM, (4) any
> > other hand below a 1C opener that doesn't qualify for any other
> > opening. I think that only hands with long clubs and a side 4cM fit
> > into #4, since MPP retained the traditional Precision meaning of 2D
> > (three suits, short diamonds).
>
> So 1NT denies a 4cM?
-- Adam
Adam Wildavsky
Nov 20, 2012, 10:18:24 AM11/20/12
to David Stevenson
On Monday, October 29, 2012 3:55:49 PM UTC+1, David Stevenson wrote:
> Bertil wrote
> >In his very recent (Oct.27) comment about "Limit raise with 3 cards" axman
> >stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
> >regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
> >
> >These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar
> >requirements in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
>
> No, Bertil, they are Quick tricks, a defensive standard used in
> certain other positions. Culbertson's methods are based on Honour
> Tricks, a totally different valuation method.
>
> Since it is many years since I used HTs, I may be wrong, but the
> following chart is approximately right, done from memory.
>
> HT QT
> AKQ 2+ 2
> AKJ 2+ 2
> AK 2 2
> AQJ 2 1.5
> AQ 1.5 1.5
> AJx 1+ 1
> KQJ 1+ 1
> KQ 1 1
> KJx .5+ .5
> Kx .5 .5
> K + 0
> QJx .5 0
> Qx + 0
>
> The + in HTs was effectively a quarter of an HT.
Thanks David! The distinction between Quick Tricks and Honor Tricks was never clear to me until now.
"Totally different" seems like an overbid. They are different, but related. Not a big deal either way -- I am happy to have learned something.
> Bertil wrote
> >In his very recent (Oct.27) comment about "Limit raise with 3 cards" axman
> >stated that his minimum starting hand has 2.5 QT if balanced, 2 QT if a
> >regular distributional and 1.5 with an extremely distributional.
> >
> >These standards are 1/2 point reduction of Culbrtson's very similar
> >requirements in his "Golden BooK' of 1949.
>
> No, Bertil, they are Quick tricks, a defensive standard used in
> certain other positions. Culbertson's methods are based on Honour
> Tricks, a totally different valuation method.
>
> Since it is many years since I used HTs, I may be wrong, but the
> following chart is approximately right, done from memory.
>
> HT QT
> AKQ 2+ 2
> AKJ 2+ 2
> AK 2 2
> AQJ 2 1.5
> AQ 1.5 1.5
> AJx 1+ 1
> KQJ 1+ 1
> KQ 1 1
> KJx .5+ .5
> Kx .5 .5
> K + 0
> QJx .5 0
> Qx + 0
>
> The + in HTs was effectively a quarter of an HT.
Thanks David! The distinction between Quick Tricks and Honor Tricks was never clear to me until now.
"Totally different" seems like an overbid. They are different, but related. Not a big deal either way -- I am happy to have learned something.
0 new messages