Chamaco

I think playing 2-level Fantunes openings requires to use 1NT = 12-14 , even offshape as a catchall opening, to handle hands too weak for a 1-level opening but too dangerous/defensive for a 2 level opener. Adopting the F-N phylosophy means passing balanced 10/11 hands, which after all is not a tragedy. :P

Without other agreement, it sounds strange that a takeout hand that was too weak to double 2S, is now ready to reopen over 3S. Alright there might be a few hands where 4th hand had to pass with length in opps suit and reopening with little hcp would collect a number, but I doubt the frequency of such layouts would be high. All in all my vote is for penalty.

....ehm... ho sempre pensato che una 6/4 fosse sbilanciata come una 5/5... :P Forse conosco solo l'aritmetica del bridge... :P Lo so che è sbl :P Volevo solo dire: dichiaro e non lascio contro SOLO se ho GROSSE chances di giocare in un colore diverso da quello di apertura :P Con la 64 è una scommessa, e allora preferisco scommettere sul fatto di mandarli down :P

Alright, at the cost of sounding too rigid, I'll try to formalize verbally more or les the guidelines I try to follow. The rules are not that rigid, but I guess you get the idea :-) In my opinion, a 1S free bid should guarantee: - either overall 8 hcp, regardles of whether they are quacks or not; - about 5+ hcp (with at least 1 K) outside opps suit (unless we hold an Ace in opp suit). The above requirements can be shaded if we hold extra shape. (55+, or a 6+ bagger). With balanced or semibalanced hands (including 5422), I stick to the listed requirements. In my opinion this is true especially if pard's opening is not ultrasound. As I wrote in another post, although I am a big believer in the "In quick/out quick" principle, I have recently experimented with passing such hand types, and the pluses seem to have been superior to the minuses. Especially, when it's opps' hands, having passed made declarer misguess the side suits much more often. However, I guess that in a MP anything goes.

I would pass although I can nderstand bidding 1H. Only 3 hcp outside opps suit is a bit light to make a free bid. Also, we do not have extra shape, hence, I expect that if bidding is right, then partner will have the right shape to take action. Sure, opps might bounce to a number of diamonds, but with this shape I prefer to be conservative this time. Bidding 1NT would be appealing if only I had a few more high cards, it does not appeal to be to make a 1NT free bid with 5 hcp. Perhaps I am just getting used to play with partners who like to open light, but I believe that even in a weak NT context, passing this hand will be right more often than not, even if I am a big believer of the "in quick- out quick" principle.

CASO 1 E' vero, la situazione è analoga alla sequenza del surcontro del p. Tutavia, il mo comprtamento in quei casi non è dettato dal punteggio, ma dalla distribuzione: - se ho una distribuzione molto sbilanciata, porto via il contro, ma voglio avere un palo laterale 5+ e non solo 4o . Nel caso specifico, la mia mano perde molto valore offensivo perchè l'opp ha mostrato tenuta nell'unico colore veramente lungo che ho (picche). In questi casi, la nostra mano ha valor difensivo, nonostante i pochi punti. Mantenere il contre vince in molti casi in cui non abbiamo manche , ed anche in casi in cui abbiamo manche ma 1NT cade di 3-4 prese. Ed anceh qualora ci facciano 1NTX senza surlevee, se non altro non è manche (anche se è vero che i doppi scores pesano, ma molto meno). In sostanza, se ho una 64, passo sempre il X, se ho una 55 no. CASO 2 Il problema dei "problemi" (intesi come quiz :lol: ) è che chi fa la domanda ha sempre in serbo un trabocchetto ! :lol: In genere quando nei problemi di controgioco fain una scelta sbagliata, l'autore del quiz ti aspetta al varco con una frase del tipo: "Ma ti pare che il dichiarante, se avesse avuto la mano che speravi, avrebbe giocato/dichiarato in quel modo ?" Qui invece siamo di fronte al caso contrario, ovvero l'autore del quiz mi dice che non mi devo fidare degli opps ! lol Un opp che sia niente niente appena capace, anche se dichiara lo slam "a peso", dovrebbe comunque garantire controllo nel colore aperto dall'avversario, a mio modesto parere, e allora io dico: cari autori di quiz, mettetevi d'accordo ! :P

1) Passo. 2) Se mi fido degli avversari, il p ha 3 fiori e il dichiarante 1 fiori soltanto. In questo caso escludo ovviamente il ritorno fiori, ma qualunque altro ritorno potrebbe funzionare o naufragare. Purtroppo avendo noi aperto, il dichiarante sa che abbiamo quasi tutti i punti noi, e pertanto il ritorno a picche per "fare scegliere" il dichiarante avrà poche chances di riuscita. Si puo escludere che il dichiarante abbia 4 cuori (non ha usato Stayman), quindi se ha 3 cuori non c'è moo di evitare che tagli la 3a cuori con un ritorno in atout. Pertanto mi limito ad un ritorno neutro a cuori.

Happy BDay :lol:

This hand is less dangerous, at least there is one sure, known suit that will be a safe haven if the rest of the hand misfits. So wiyth a one suiter that good, I'd understand overbidding with a GF. But two suiters like the one posted are by far more dangerous, given the likelihood that opener might be 55/65/66 in majors.

In my opinion, it is perfectly xconsistent that someone can open KQxxx Axxxx xx x in ONE system, and refuse to upgrade the responder hand here, using Fantunes system. I am sure you know better than myself that changing the psylosophy of the system affects the borderline choices like this one. remember, in Fantunes, opener opens at the 1-level with hands that are will to go to game opposite a 10 count. That means it's not necessarily 14, but can be also: AKxxx-AQTxx-x-xx or similar. Here, our shape si a warning that opener MIGHT be in that shape, so it's better to start slow with 1NT, limit our hand. Other wise, if we start by a GF we'll be unstappable ina hopeless game contract in misfit.

One more extremely common version of a conventional 2D response in italy: 1M-2D 2D =either a game force in diamonds, or a bust with 3 card support in the major. Some players also include the invitational hands with an unspecified minor single suiter (shown later via 2NT lebensohl)

I bid 1NT. The problem I see with "stretching" a GF with 2D is not so much if pard holds a normal 14 count. In that case, we might avoid (or not...) getting overboard. The main problem is, OPENER might indeed be stretching too: if opener holds a good 13 and sometimes even 12 with 55 or better in the majors and nothing wasted, he will never open at the 2 level (see example hand by Han's post), because the risk of missing game is too high with those handtypes, which do make game opposite many 10 counts. Our shape is a warning: pard MIGHT be 55 in the majors, and, if so, he has a high likelyhood to be "underweight", not having a real 14 hcp. Under such circumstances, we should avoid stretching too. I'll bid 1NT, if pard has anything good, it should probably comeout from the later bidding. In case he bids Gazzilli, I'll respond with a positive 2D. Of course, much depends on how accurate is the Gazzilli scheme that the partnerships has chosen.

Hi all ! :-) I'd like to know from the folks who play Leaping Micheals over opps preempts (actually NON-Leaping Michaels, but too late to modify the thread title ! B) ), how they modify their structure to account for that. Especially, 3 issues: 1) Long minor based hands. How do you bid, say over 3S .......a. xx- KJ-Axx-AQJxxx .......b. x- AQ-AQxx-KQJxxx .......c. x- AK-Axx-AKQxxxx .......d. void- AKx-Axx-AKQxxxx 2) Basically I'd like to know the difference in strength between: - double and bid 4m over pard 3M - double and bid 4m over pard 3NT - double and bid 5m over pard 3M - double and bid 5m over pard 3NT - double and bid 5m over pard's 4X - direct 5m bid Please add concrete examples (perhaps referring to , or changing the way you like, hands abcd above), because t's easier for me to get the idea with real hands :) 3) If you use the takeout double to include long minors hands without stopper, the to DBL becomes more of a stopper ask tool than a 4cM asking tool. So that affects responder's choices: Say bidding goes 3H-(DBL)-pass- ? You hold AQxx-Axx-AJxxx-x What do you bid ? 4S, 3NT or what ? If you bid 4S, the risk is that pard's hand is the club-based hand and he will pull to 5C. If you bid 3NT, the risk is that we might lose a cold slam in spades. Comments from the Leaping Michaels aficionados ? :-)

One slightly favourable point to using 3NT (when spades agreed) and 3S (when hearts agreed) as NON-serious, is that, when you are not interested in slam you want to give opps the least information possible. If you were using "serious" 3S/3NT, when you held a non-slam hand, you would bypass it and make a cue, giving opps additional info for the lead/defense. In that respect, the non-serious 3S/3NT avoids a potentially useless (useless for us, but useful for defenders) cuebid with many hands that will end up in game and not slam.

I ran a quick simulation on this, and from the first 50 hands (I do not have a hand analyzer so I just look by myself), it indeed supports your evaluation :-) (cool, I learned something today ! ;) ) No simulation yet for hand 2.

Yes the idea sounds good, I remember someone mentioned here on the forum he was playing the same way about 1.5 years ago. I am sure Kaplan and Rubens would also approve this agreement ;)

Thank you very much for sharing. This sort of contribution is particularly helpful for intermediate/advancing (not "advanced" :) ) players like myself.

Pass. I think opener is likely to be in the 17 hcp range with 4=1=5=3 or so, responder likely has 3=5=2=3 with say 6 hcp or so We are red vs white, we have Qxx in spades and KQTx in a suit of theirs. The only offensive hints are the club 5 bagger headed by a K, and the diamond singleton. I might bid, but not today: even if we escape undoubled, 1NT or 2C down 100 or 200 might be a bad score opposite letting them play a contract making 80 or 110.

The two example hands for responder are VERY DIFFERENT in my view: one is aceless, the other not, and that is a huge difference in my opinion. IMO this is a game force hand opposite whatever minimum opening. Even playing in Notrump, aces are worth more than 4 hcp. I'll be happy to play 3NT with 23 hcp if I am dealt this hand as responder. I might treat a hand with 2A+ a K as invitational ONLY in the case of 4333 shape and absolutely worthless intermdiates (e.g. no 10s and 98s around), or if the K is doubleton. With this hand I'd invite only. 3NT might depend on whether the diamonds run, but I have no way to find out, and the club singleton is a danger warning. I might move towards game if the small xxxs were 109s

I think that, evem if the opener can be as low as a shapely 10 count, this hand should be a GF, given the sure fit in hearts. IMO 2 light opening hands (unless "light" is defined as 8-10 range) should drive to game when fit is there. I think this tactics *might* lose some boards at matchpoints pairs, but that it should be a bigtime winner at IMPS (which is the specified form of scoring here).

I'll try to make some points about what are my belief in this area, partly because I am currently convinced about this, partly because I'll be happy to hear comments and criticisms. I do think that losing 1NT is a loss, *when the right hand comes up*. On the other hand, sometimes, even overcalling 1NT with the "right hand" goes for a number. However, there are also hands where having available Raptor wins. And indeed, when the Raptor shape is dealt for our side, it hardly goes for too big a number, since the partner of the overcaller usually can evaluate the safest partscore to run to. It seems to me that evaluating the cost-benefit in the choice of a convention, we should assess the frequency of occurence of the 2 hand types, and the magnitude of the gains obtained from the 2 choices. I think someone made some statistics and found that the Raptor hand is very slightly more frequent than the natural 1NT hand. Concerning the magnitude of the gains/losees, perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the natural 1NT wins in those hands where it helps finding 3NT, and Raptor wins in finding best partscores. So I am led to think that in MP events, Raptor should score better, whereas at Teams, the natural 1NT might have an advantage.

What about 4NT ? (I'd bid 4NT even over a direct 4S opener) The offense/defense ratio suggests to me that in a suit contract, the 5-level should hardly be too high, but again, I am neither good nor experienced as most Forum posters here.

I think that if responder jumps to 3H to invite, the real risk is not being doubled (as you say, 4C could be a decent spot but then again I'd much prefer to play 2C LOL), but that you are left tom play 3H undoubled -1 while we have 9/10 tricks available in clubs. So basically the risk is a double partscore swing at IMPS. The ideal would be to be able to invite in hearts without bypassing 3C.

The only game in prospect could be in a major, not in the minors nor 3NT. So, if I have a tool to checkback if pard has moderate support in hearts, I'll go further, but if not, I'll pass 2C and take the safe plus, and won't raise to 3C. I am not sure if I understood well the options, but it seems to me that a signoff in 2H would be pointless (if I want a partscore, I'll play in clubs), and that 3H might be a disaster if pard is in misfit. And, I am not that smart to plan a "tactical bid" to verify in some cool way if pard has some fit in hearts. So I'll pass. I wish I could have rebid 2H invitational, though ;)

I think it should be a minimum opener, say, (9)10-15, but like most 2-suited overcalls, I prefer to define it in terms of losers (which is only a simplified method to account for shape and honors concentration in long suits). That means that the more shape we have, the less hcp we need. 7-5 losers is the range I prefer. KQxx- xx- AKJxxx-x is a max Axxx-x-KJTxxx-xx is a minimum non vuln When the shape is 54 (especially with no shortness) rather than 64, that requires about a Q/K more in hcp strength.