[barmar]

awm, on 2013-June-24, 19:21, said:

Second, strong club pairs tend to bid a lot more pushy game contracts

It's always interested me that the typical 1♣ opening is 16+, and positive responses are 8+, which means they bid game with all 24 counts. I know Meckwell consider that to be "extras", but most of us like to have at least 25 HCP or compensating shape.

Of course, this only happens when both are dead minimum for their bids. But they may already have upgraded their hands due to distribution when choosing the initial bids: 1♣ might have been a shapely 15 count.

[Zelandakh]

Was there not some analysis done suggesting that most of the early gains of Wei's Precision team over their competitors was down to their routinely bidding game on most 24 counts whereas the prevailing theory of the day said this was not enough?

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-25, 09:16, said:

Was there not some analysis done suggesting that most of the early gains of Wei's Precision team over their competitors was down to their routinely bidding game on most 24 counts whereas the prevailing theory of the day said this was not enough?

Maybe someone did that, later. At the time and in the aftermath, what I read seemed to be skewed toward promotion of the system. Even Alan Sontag's Power Precision follow-up hyped up the importance of bidding system to an extremely high percentage in the mix of factors for victory. And, there was much less competition by the opponents; but, they themselves were attuned to competitive bidding.

They just flat out played better than the opposition in all aspects of the game when they were having their successes. They were also ahead of their time with regard to mental/physical preparedness ---especially Weischel.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-June-25, 09:13, said:

It's always interested me that the typical 1♣ opening is 16+, and positive responses are 8+, which means they bid game with all 24 counts. I know Meckwell consider that to be "extras", but most of us like to have at least 25 HCP or compensating shape.

Of course, this only happens when both are dead minimum for their bids. But they may already have upgraded their hands due to distribution when choosing the initial bids: 1♣ might have been a shapely 15 count.

Interesting ... when I played a strong-club system our explicit standard for 1♣ was 5 points better than a minimum opener with the same shape. So e.g. Kx AKxxx KQxxx x would qualify, but Kx AKxxx KQxx xx would not. I don't remember landing in an excessive number of hopeless 24-point games.

[aguahombre]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-25, 10:14, said:

Interesting ... when I played a strong-club system our explicit standard for 1♣ was 5 points better than a minimum opener with the same shape. So e.g. Kx AKxxx KQxxx x would qualify, but Kx AKxxx KQxx xx would not. I don't remember landing in an excessive number of hopeless 24-point games.

It is interesting. I would think the 5-5 hand would be especially problematic to open 1C, where there will likely be competition and we haven't begun to show either of our suits.

[Wackojack]

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

[aguahombre]

Wackojack, on 2013-June-25, 10:59, said:

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

Proudly announcing that they use Blackwood while doing their greeting is a clue as well.

[Cyberyeti]

Wackojack, on 2013-June-25, 10:59, said:

3 pages in this thread and amazingly so far no mention of the G word and no mention of Capelletti.

In f2f tournaments, I make no assumptions about opponents skill level from their cc. However, on BBO if they say Stayman on their profile I assume that they are very inexperienced.

I mentioned one of the two G words in post 3, the other one is only truly dubious if it's your only way to ask aces.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-25, 11:14, said:

Proudly announcing that they use Blackwood while doing their greeting is a clue as well.

Or asking the meaning of your 1♦ opener. Is that bulls eye on your forehead a tattoo or a birthmark?

[GreenMan]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-25, 10:40, said:

It is interesting. I would think the 5-5 hand would be especially problematic to open 1C, where there will likely be competition and we haven't begun to show either of our suits.

It's been years since I played this system, but I don't recall any particular difficulties of that nature. Maybe that's just nostalgia.

[Phil]

barmar, on 2013-June-24, 08:42, said:

Flannery is my favorite, because it often provides a roadmap to the defense gives no information to the defense because most of the time responder is playing the hand.

fyp

[Phil]

TylerE, on 2013-June-24, 13:26, said:

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I'll continue to score up consistently good-to-great results against it.

I use Suction over strong clubs and a 2♣ opening too.

Frankly I love it when the pairs we play it against are in completely darkness on whether or not doubles are takeout or penalty over pass or correct bids, and trying to flounder without a cuebid available.

And I've never gone for a phone number using it.

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-24, 22:03, said:

Do the cards stand for the same suits if they are discarded slowly?

Actually it's best to play revolving. A fast discard means the suit below it would normally call for, normal is the suit, and slow is the suit above.

[Zelandakh]

ggwhiz, on 2013-June-25, 12:01, said:

Or asking the meaning of your 1♦ opener. Is that bulls eye on your forehead a tattoo or a birthmark?

You lost me. What is wrong with finding out if the opponents play 1♦ as 3+, 4+ or 5+ and whether it can include balanced hands or not, providing you do not wait until you have a fistful of diamonds in hand before doing it?

[Free]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-24, 22:03, said:

Do the cards stand for the same suits if they are discarded slowly?

I looked it up, especially for you

2-3-4 preference for other suit in same color (♥2 asks ♦)
5-6-7 encouraging for the discarded suit (♥6 asks ♥)
8-9-T preference for other suit of same rank (♥8 asks ♠)

The best part of this method is when you play for example a ♠ and they discard ♣2 asking for ... yes indeed, ♠!

Oh, and I forgot that revan also includes the following signals when partner leads a suit:
small = encouraging
high even = discouraging, asking the remaining highest suit
high odd = discouraging, asking the remaining lowest suit
(not strictly ofcourse)

[fromageGB]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-24, 15:06, said:

Suction seems at least playable over 1NT, but I sometimes see people using it over strong 1♣, which means advancer cannot bounce the overcall because they have no idea what overcaller has.

ArtK78, on 2013-June-24, 19:25, said:

Not true. You bid to your highest level of safety given the suction bidder's possible hands.

Also you are perhaps overlooking the fact that the suction bidder does not just bid 1♦ but jumps to 2♦ or 3♦, to the extent of reasonable safety afforded by his hand. Advancer can pass, knowing that the initial bid has done it's job of taking away some of the opponents' useful space.

Like Phil, I don't recall excessive poor scores using it over a strong club or an unspecified strong 2♣/♦, but I do recall many times that the opponents have not had the room to end up in the right contract. And, as a matchpoint person, I would be delighted by a big negative for every 9 gains.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2013-June-27, 09:00, said:

Also you are perhaps overlooking the fact that the suction bidder does not just bid 1♦ but jumps to 2♦ or 3♦, to the extent of reasonable safety afforded by his hand. Advancer can pass, knowing that the initial bid has done it's job of taking away some of the opponents' useful space.

With CRASH, Suction, or similar nebulous suit methods I believe Advancer passing loses a lot, even though it might be safe at the time. Advancing to the comfort level for the "best of the worst" with pass/correct continuations is much more effective.

[fromageGB]

I agree that advancer should advance if he can, but even so, it is better for overcaller to bid as high as his hand warrants.

[GreenMan]

My way of thinking tends toward preferring advancer to bounce the pre-empt as high as possible, and this is facilitated by overcaller showing at least one actual suit. I can see the argument the other way. Thanks for the discussion.