[AL78]

Whatever North intended the double to mean in the first auction, I think converting to penalties is clear on the South hand. Overcalls on trash need to be punished.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-December-28, 09:46, said:

I don't understand this, partner opened 1nt
I expect he has 2+ hearts

I was considering West's decision whether or not to overcall, and the partner I was thinking of is East.

AL78, on 2023-December-28, 10:24, said:

Whatever North intended the double to mean in the first auction, I think converting to penalties is clear on the South hand. Overcalls on trash need to be punished.

There's no points for having the moral high ground. You should simply take your percentage action. Most of the time that means having a constructive auction despite possibly trashy interference, though in this case converting to penalties seems best to me.

[nullve]

AL78, on 2023-December-28, 10:24, said:

Whatever North intended the double to mean in the first auction, I think converting to penalties is clear on the South hand. Overcalls on trash need to be punished.

Converting to penalties here is obvious if you apply the corollary of the Law of Total Tricks which says that the number of total tricks if we play in notrump equals the number of trumps in their suit plus seven.

[mycroft]

jillybean, on 2023-December-27, 20:40, said:

Michael, this question about 2D GF came from several different views of the hand, none of those offering an opinion had played the mini nt.

Having seem all 4 hands, it's very difficult for people to give an unbiased opinion, although they think they can.

That makes sense. It was just odd with the auction and "we play 2-way, is this good enough?" One of the confusions of the hand editor, I guess.

I think I'll stick with my answer, though ("Not good enough, but it might go 1NT-2♣; 2♥-4♥").

Quote

Obviously, my partner and I need to discuss these sequences and I think revisit our 'don't give up at the 2 lvl' rule.
Interference Don't give up the 2 level.
Doubles are negative (but partner can convert with the right hand - usually, however, O, after opening 1N, cannot possibly have enough to convert and should bid best suit)

Hindsight is wonderful, I would have been a winner passing 2♥x

Remember, the weak NT (and in particular the 10-12/3) is a preempt. There's no need to stick your neck back out if they come in; the preempt may have done its job by taking away the level that tells them the right suit to play in, or gives you -170 (or -200!) defending at the 2 level because they both have "a little extra" this time.

That's one of the reasons you have to have definition to responder's double - whether it is specifically "cards" (setting up a force), or "takeout" which still needs to be on competitive strength (and maybe setting a different force) - we found our 8-card fit! Great, but with 15, 16 high, it was still -300 - and if it's on the 3 level, -500?

"It's our hand, if they don't have a huge fit" (and conversely, "it's not our hand, leave them alone") is great knowledge. I'll let sfi continue from there, he wrote it better than I could:

sfi, on 2023-December-27, 23:24, said:

Your side can take advantage of this situation, but only if you systemically start looking for places to punish them instead of just bidding your own hands constructively. One of the first questions you should be asking yourself when partner opens 1NT and the opponents take some action is "are they in trouble?" or "are they likely to get into trouble?". Yes, you should probably ask if you're in trouble already, but that's why you agreed on a good runout structure for when the auction starts 1NT-(X). If they are likely to be in trouble, you then want to be thinking about two things - "are we going to punish them?" and "how do we avoid letting them get out of their predicament?"...

Knowing your agreements is crucial to getting and keeping them in trouble, which is why I said you started off well. The first double let your side know that they may be in trouble and the second double gave responder the option of punishing them. With the majority of the points (23+) and the opponents in at most a seven-card fit, defending should be a very easy choice to make.

Or, as I said before:

mycroft, on 2023-December-27, 10:39, said:

[T]here's no worse feeling as a weak NTer than to let 800 (or 200 into nothing, or 300 into NV game (losing to all the +110s, too!)) get away, especially because you also frequently go down if you end up declaring.

A different topic:

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 08:25, said:

If [Garbage Stayman] that's a lot of hearts in the pack. It's possible but not that likely. Also, RHO having hearts with LHO having a balanced hand does not really argue for playing 2♥ vulnerable, even if you have over half the points - under those assumptions partner has at most a singleton and is a favourite to have a void.

jillybean, on 2023-December-28, 09:46, said:

I don't understand this, partner opened 1nt. I expect he has 2+ hearts.
Yes, we play 2C as garbage - invitational stayman. 2D art gf

He's talking about the "1NT-p-2♣ and you're West" auction. You have a good hand, with ♥KQ-sixth. Either:

• South has bid garbage Stayman. Then sure, you have the points, but North has 2 hearts, South has 4, you have 6,...
  
• South has bid invitational Stayman. Now, sure, it's reasonable that South just has spades, we have a heart fit, but North has 11ish HCP, South has 12ish, you have 13,...
  
• Of course, there are the hands where South does have both hearts and invitational values...

[jillybean]

Yeah, I get that now.
Still, if East will show a 2 suiter with the crap they had, put them in the West seat and they are going to be bidding hearts.

Anyway, it's been a very useful hand for me to post. I'll be sure to post other Kamikaze disasters as they happen.

[DavidKok]

Make sure to also post the successes
My personal experience is that Kamikaze NT can win in unexpected ways, because you are frequently opening when the field is passing. Even 'automatic' partscore continuations can be big swings.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-29, 02:29, said:

Make sure to also post the successes
My personal experience is that Kamikaze NT can win in unexpected ways, because you are frequently opening when the field is passing. Even 'automatic' partscore continuations can be big swings.

Back in the day, I used to play 10-15 in first and second seat, 14-19 in 3rd and 4th, 15-20 1N overcall.

It won because the defenders didn't know if they were trying to beat the contract or prevent overtricks.

[mycroft]

I didn't mention the "opening hands others are passing" bit (implied it with 'preempt'), but I did think about it.

The issue with that is back in The Day, "most" hands opened a 10-12 NT were being passed in the room. And that was a serious advantage. Now, though, "I look for reasons to pass an 11, not reasons to open with it" - to the point where 14-16 (or at least "good 14-flat 17") is becoming a common NT range, despite its flaws, because 11-14 is an uncomfortable rebid range.

And the Precision pairs are opening "10s that don't look like 9s" NV, even if they have to do it with their "grunt" 1♦.

So that benefit is much lower - and the downside of "the opponents *are* opening this one, but we have to guard against the flat aceless 10-count" still exists.

The obvious answer to that is to return the NT range to "most pairs are passing this hand". And in some places in the world, that is feasible, and has been done for decades. But since, due to the influence and vociferous argumentation of Some Players, the only thing worse than a psych in the ACBL is a desire to open KQTx KJTx xxx xx 1NT (*) - that's not an option for Jilly and I.

Which is an interesting thing, because "dropping all EHAA ranges 1 HCP", while it causes a number of issues that might be unresolvable, has some "advantages"(**) under the new rules. Advantages to unscrupulous players and SBs who want a pointed example of "you want to play 'I'm only required to do <this>, and I am happy to gain from minimizing disclosure'? Well, we can do that too, and better", maybe, but advantages nonetheless.

(*) One of my comments on the proposed new Convention Charts was: "It's interesting to see that 10-12 1NT is easy enough for novices to play against [legal on the Basic chart], but 9-12 is too hard for the finals of the Reisinger (not legal even on Open+). I know why, but I do find it interesting." Also interesting - I didn't get a response to that comment at all...

(**) One of my issues with the new Alert Procedure is that by and large, the minimum range of a call does not make that call Alertable, even if it's surprising. My concern really is experts playing "standard expert" against C players for whom 10-12 NTs still open "many hands they pass", and frankly, many of those who think that "but it's obvious to open Jxxxxx and a Q 3♣, why would anybody need to know about that?" I am happy to play "Our 2 bids are 8xxxx to AKQxxxxx, that's obvious, why would we need to tell *you*?" against, if just to get the point across (see above, "SB"). One of the comments I made in *that* workup was "if I drop the EHAA 2-bid range to max 11 (**a) (and add the "KQxxx and ATxxx and out" hands that I had to pass before, but are still better than many 6-counts that were 'forced openers'), there's no Pre-Alert, no Alert of any opener except 1NT (required range announcement) and 2♣ ('weak 2-bid in clubs'). Sure, all the responses are Alertable, but by then it's way too late - and even then, we don't have to explain *why* we play an invitational raise '14-bad 17 or so'. Is that fair?"

(**a) Weak 2s (and other Preempts) that could contain 12HCP are Alertable in the first 3 seats (**b). I am pretty certain that that should be changed to "first 2 seats", and I bet that a large fraction of our players, who believe in "in third seat, it shows 'some hearts' and 'some points'" don't Alert them, and probably don't even realize they have to. And, frankly, I'm not sure that "Natural weak 2, but very wide-ranging, could be 6, could be 12 or a poor 13, frequently 5 cards" is something we *want* the opponents to be thinking about (because it's much more likely to be on the "weaker than 1/2 seat" than the "would have opened at the 1 level in 1/2 seat").

(**b) "Weak 2s" that could be 4-cards are also Alertable. I guess that's something else for the third-seat "anythings" to think about. Those who play "Natural Weak 2s" that are two-suited already know this, so I'm not worried about them.

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2023-December-29, 12:11, said:

One of my issues with the new Alert Procedure

The only solution to such disclosure issues is to ask about every call. If a pair do not give full disclosure after a question, they are at fault and you have potential recourse.

[mikeh]

I played 10-12 for many years but eventually dropped it, for about 16 years, before now playing 10-13.

We stopped for four reasons

1. It was so common (relatively speaking) that strong opponents defended it quite well, and we always then and now design our methods on the assumption that we’re hoping to play WC opps, even though most of our opps aren’t WC.

2. We found that having to open 1m with the strong notrump hands led to poor results when the opps could get in…especially auctions such as 1C (P) 1R (1S)…where after say 1N (P) we would get to 3N, either directly or after stayman, without 4th seat being able to insert a spade bid…all too often LHO would have been unlikely to find that lead otherwise…plus once in a while the 1S bid preempts us because opener has no stopper.

3. On defence, if a passed hand, in a weak nt seat, showed up with 8 hcp, declarer was able to play virtually double dummy. Iirc, this was a major reason given by Rodwell when he and Meckstroth dropped the 10-12

4. NV, 1m 1x 1N had to be either 13-16 (already unmanageable) or 13-17 (far too wide) which meant that we’d rebid 2N on 17, which led to some poor contracts, especially since we’d routinely respond with say KJxxx in a major and nothing else(indeed, standard expert practice has become that one rarely passes a possibly short 1C without clubs)


Two of these reasons still persist, but 10-13 is (slightly) more difficult to defend against…that extra hcp can be very important.

Plus our view, not yet tested at the highest levels, is that so few pairs now play very weak notrumps that even strong opps will be less comfortable against it than they were when lots of pairs played it.

The rebid problem has been reduced by two things. Firstly, the inclusion of 13 point hands within 1N means that the rebid after opening 1m shows 14-16, which is our strong nt range. Secondly, we open all balanced hands lacking a 5 card M with 1C….even 3=3=5=2 is 1C….and after 1C 1R (transfer response) 1N shows 17-19 so we aren’t stuck with an ugly 2N rebid.

Anyway, we’re having fun with it. We haven’t gone for a number since we returned to it some 3 years ago. But, otoh, we haven’t played much against very strong opps…we played the seniors in Salsomaggiore but, iirc, never ran into a potentially dangerous hands.

[mycroft]

Gilithin, on 2023-December-29, 12:53, said:

The only solution to such disclosure issues is to ask about every call. If a pair do not give full disclosure after a question, they are at fault and you have potential recourse.

Never mind the fact that after two or three of these, the director will be called to ensure that if there are late penalties, they are applied "correctly"...

What is "full disclosure"? I opened 1♠, it's "natural". That's what you're going to get from 99% of players, after they look at you funny. Okay, "5 cards, opening values". Now what? What are you looking for? If it's "how often do you open on 10?", how are they to know that? As opposed to the next pair who asks, who want to know "with 5-5 in the majors, which one do you open?" or the next who want to know "what's the upper limit on strength?" And then there's the most likely meaning for the question, "natural, but fewer cards in the suit than you have. Thanks for letting your partner know."

And what about the (huge number of) people who simply do not know that there's something to ask? How many people, if you ask about their 2-bid opening style, will say "weak" ("obviously") and not know what else to say? If you ask further then about suit strength, they "have no agreement". Maybe later, they might mention "well, it'll be 6 to 2/top 3, of course"... How many of them - who clearly don't realize there's any other way - are going to ask about the opponents 3♥ opener, until they take the finesse, twice, and lose to ♥AQ offside (and probably call the director about it)?

Or know that people frequently - especially if they play 1♣ "clubs or balanced, with transfer responses", will "never respond with fewer than zero HCP"? How do you ask - or even think to ask - about "what hands would you not pass on with fewer than ..."?

The "good news" is that we've "solved" the "2♣ strong and forcing on an overstrength preempt" issue - which caused frequent complaints (note, from experts and A players, rather than the "strange bids" made by those same players against the rabble) in the before times. Now, they can do it (Open/+ charts, at least), but they have to Alert their 2♣ openers. And, the way the new Procedures are written, basically "if I could make 5♠, but got talked out if it by the opponents and their 2♣-2♦; 2♥-3♣; 4♥ auction on ♥AKQ-ninth and out, we weren't made aware of this", the director should adjust. Which at least will ensure that pair alerts their 2♣ openers in future (assuming they don't just "sure, the experts can't win *enough* against us, they have to take away our good boards with the Director. Why come back?", of course) - but I bet that a huge majority of players who play "8.5 PT, doesn't need defence" have no clue it's Alertable, even 4 years in. So the problem is "solved" to the extent the "must announce your NT range, it's for your own benefit", or the "explain your slam probes at end of auction, that way you won't get them asking at inappropriate times" problems have been solved.

I truly wish it was as easy as you make out.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2023-December-29, 13:40, said:

Never mind the fact that after two or three of these, the director will be called to ensure that if there are late penalties, they are applied "correctly"...

What is "full disclosure"? I opened 1♠, it's "natural". That's what you're going to get from 99% of players, after they look at you funny. Okay, "5 cards, opening values". Now what? What are you looking for? If it's "how often do you open on 10?", how are they to know that? As opposed to the next pair who asks, who want to know "with 5-5 in the majors, which one do you open?" or the next who want to know "what's the upper limit on strength?" And then there's the most likely meaning for the question, "natural, but fewer cards in the suit than you have. Thanks for letting your partner know."

And what about the (huge number of) people who simply do not know that there's something to ask? How many people, if you ask about their 2-bid opening style, will say "weak" ("obviously") and not know what else to say? If you ask further then about suit strength, they "have no agreement". Maybe later, they might mention "well, it'll be 6 to 2/top 3, of course"... How many of them - who clearly don't realize there's any other way - are going to ask about the opponents 3♥ opener, until they take the finesse, twice, and lose to ♥AQ offside (and probably call the director about it)?

Or know that people frequently - especially if they play 1♣ "clubs or balanced, with transfer responses", will "never respond with fewer than zero HCP"? How do you ask - or even think to ask - about "what hands would you not pass on with fewer than ..."?

The "good news" is that we've "solved" the "2♣ strong and forcing on an overstrength preempt" issue - which caused frequent complaints (note, from experts and A players, rather than the "strange bids" made by those same players against the rabble) in the before times. Now, they can do it (Open/+ charts, at least), but they have to Alert their 2♣ openers. And, the way the new Procedures are written, basically "if I could make 5♠, but got talked out if it by the opponents and their 2♣-2♦; 2♥-3♣; 4♥ auction on ♥AKQ-ninth and out, we weren't made aware of this", the director should adjust. Which at least will ensure that pair alerts their 2♣ openers in future (assuming they don't just "sure, the experts can't win *enough* against us, they have to take away our good boards with the Director. Why come back?", of course) - but I bet that a huge majority of players who play "8.5 PT, doesn't need defence" have no clue it's Alertable, even 4 years in. So the problem is "solved" to the extent the "must announce your NT range, it's for your own benefit", or the "explain your slam probes at end of auction, that way you won't get them asking at inappropriate times" problems have been solved.

I truly wish it was as easy as you make out.

The ‘new’ CC deals with some of this. We use it and disclose light opening bids and that we respond to 1C with most 4 counts.

Btw, club bridge is so random, that I’ve stopped getting worked up over ‘non-disclosure’ issues. In my experience, the worst offenders smply don’t know any better…they are not ‘cheating’ and they’re so bad that the rare good board they get from failing to reveal agreements when asked is just a cost of doing business in a club environment

The other day I had Kxx in dummy, with xx in hand, playing 3N.

The Queen was led…I ducked and RHO played the 2 in tempo. I asked my usual question: leads and carding? I was told ‘standard’. Having previously been burned by assuming that the opps knew what standard was, I asked further…low discourages, high encourages? Yes.

LHO continued the Jack so I popped the king, losing to RHO who held A9xx!

Obviously I had nothing to be upset about. They ran the spades, ending in RHO. He held the club Ace…the setting trick…he underled it and I took the rest of the tricks.

Last year, in a sectional, I asked. About the opps’s carding and was assured that it was standard. I noticed on the first board that RHO had played high low n a three card suit…so I repeated my question next board and was assured by both opps that they played standard.

On the hand, I had to guess the location of missing high cards. RHO pitched a high spot, and I was pretty sure they weren’t good enough to falsecard…so I engineered an endplay to force him to lead away from his king, rather than hooking his partner.

He had xxx. On enquiry, it turned out that they thought that high discouraging and low encouraging was ‘standard’….and, equally, high low in a count situation showed an odd number.

I’ve stopped worrying about this sort of thing…it never happens against competent players.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-December-29, 13:40, said:

What is "full disclosure"? I opened 1♠, it's "natural". That's what you're going to get from 99% of players, after they look at you funny. Okay, "5 cards, opening values". Now what? What are you looking for? If it's "how often do you open on 10?", how are they to know that? As opposed to the next pair who asks, who want to know "with 5-5 in the majors, which one do you open?" or the next who want to know "what's the upper limit on strength?" And then there's the most likely meaning for the question, "natural, but fewer cards in the suit than you have. Thanks for letting your partner know."

Around here there are still people who would roll their eyes that "5 cards" is natural (not that it invalidates your point). And I even went to bat for them, asking that "5+ cards" in a major should be announced on the same principle that "3+ cards" in a minor should be announced. I lost that battle but won some others, watch this space when our 2024 regulations become public.

But my thought in general is that there is only so much we can do about disclosure in a f2f scenario. Electronic bidding is another matter entirely.

[jillybean]

Mike, you beat me to it. I was going to say that after many years of trying to play by the rules I have given up. I have lowered my expectations and I'm no longer concerned at any level I'm playing at. Club <-> Regional. One partner demands that we disclose our methods, other partners are less strict and no one cares.
It's a much more pleasant "game".

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-December-29, 14:48, said:

Mike, you beat me to it. I was going to say that after many years of trying to play by the rules I have given up. I have lowered my expectations and I'm no longer concerned at any level I'm playing at. Club <-> Regional. One partner demands that we disclose our methods, other partners are less strict and no one cares.
It's a much more pleasant "game".

Seen that way it looks more like a mediocre pastime to me.
I became a TD and tried to enforce, explain and improve the rules instead.

[DavidKok]

The 9-12 and 10-13 NT are very popular here in the Netherlands (well, depending on seating and vulnerability. Technically the 'variable' or 'chicken' NT is popular here), to the point that most strong young players have adopted it. It was also mentioned in the IMP a few months back, so quite possibly more pairs have picked it up in the last few months. I think at higher level most of our field has experience in facing these NT ranges - it's somewhat frequent at our local clubs, which isn't even a competitive field.

Personally I think that opening 11's is often straight up good, but it puts pressure on the rest of the system. Regularly opening 10-counts is more troublesome, and I think you need to carefully think about the continuations or it will likely be a net loss. In a system like Dutch Doubleton or balanced club with T-Walsh or most Precision variants the consequences are mostly contained, especially if you adopt the Kamikaze NT. You swap some balanced hand ranges, and almost all balanced hands open one particular opening with a very thorough set of continuations, so those systems can take the strain of a 10-13 NT with relative ease and that of a 9-12 NT with significant effort.

Mikeh's point on inference on defending is a very good one, and I'll be paying more attention to this in the future. It's difficult to spot when exactly we lose because declarer can place our cards too well.

As for the swinging, and the field opening or not opening, and the Kamikaze NT working better against unprepared opponents: I don't really care. Personally I think the treatment is good even against well prepared world class players, and I suggest playing it because I think it's going to lead to a positive average score compared to not playing it. I only brought up the swings in my previous comment because selective reporting is unpleasant, not because I care for what the field is doing.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-December-29, 15:44, said:

Seen that way it looks more like a mediocre pastime to me.
I became a TD and tried to enforce, explain and improve the rules instead.

I admire your intentions. How's it going?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-December-29, 18:38, said:

I admire your intentions. How's it going?

And I understand your compromises.

In my club, it's going well, overall.
The reaction of the players to my attempts even exceeded my expectations.
There were a good number I doubted would ever adapt: some of those died of old age and/or covid, some grumpily gave up, some simply started playing their cards straight (and winning too).
The first day I dared to start a 9pm tournament at 21.00 with several players missing, issuing (mininal but real) penalties for late arrival was epical, but the next week they were all there on time. And now they appreciate that they can turn up at 20.55 and enjoy a coffee too, certain that they will be home before midnight.
The club management has so far offered modest support: no opening to sessions for explaining the Laws, no obligatory System Cards(even though the standard ones are there), limited support in discipline and no great example at the table. But there are elections next year and we have two other certified TDs, so I could decide to do something about that (the roles of TD and President or board member are incompatible).

My intentions to improve Laws and Regulations is a bigger picture, I have some influence on both but have a lot of work cut out to go forwards, and limited time.

As a player? I lose out, of course. But in this moment I think that is less important.

Happy New Year.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-December-31, 16:37, said:

And I understand your compromises.

In my club, it's going well, overall.
The reaction of the players to my attempts even exceeded my expectations.
There were a good number I doubted would ever adapt: some of those died of old age and/or covid, some grumpily gave up, some simply started playing their cards straight (and winning too).
The first day I dared to start a 9pm tournament at 21.00 with several players missing, issuing (mininal but real) penalties for late arrival was epical, but the next week they were all there on time. And now they appreciate that they can turn up at 20.55 and enjoy a coffee too, certain that they will be home before midnight.
The club management has so far offered modest support: no opening to sessions for explaining the Laws, no obligatory System Cards(even though the standard ones are there), limited support in discipline and no great example at the table. But there are elections next year and we have two other certified TDs, so I could decide to do something about that (the roles of TD and President or board member are incompatible).

My intentions to improve Laws and Regulations is a bigger picture, I have some influence on both but have a lot of work cut out to go forwards, and limited time.

As a player? I lose out, of course. But in this moment I think that is less important.

Happy New Year.

I'm impressed, I hope your success will continue to grow.

Where I direct, many of the players are new and don't know the rules, these players are often keen to learn and will ask questions about rulings after thew game.
There's a faint glimmer of hope there.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-January-01, 10:56, said:

Where I direct, many of the players are new and don't know the rules, these players are often keen to learn and will ask questions about rulings after thew game.
There's a faint glimmer of hope there.

It's more than a glimmer I think and they deserve to learn and to be protected while they do so. A sport can only be healthy if the players know and accept the rules.

Although as I have mentioned before, we currently encounter some "newcomers" who are new only to bidding and disclosure, not to Whist-like card games: often they have a disconcerting array of dubious habits which in their previous card playing were regarded as a normal part of play. Re-educating them and avoiding contamination of the true beginners is delicate and challenging.