Chamaco

Ok, thanks whereagles for your contribution. It is a bit aggressive in my view to balance with 9 losers (even by a passed hand) if pard will raise with 13-14 and a moderate fit, but as long as the partnership is intune, fine. The reason why I asked this was to run a set of simulations to verify winning and losing decisions by raising or passing the balance. I will let you know. Thanks again :lol:

Earl, I know the difference between MP and IMPS tactics. What I am asking here is - given the tactics you mention - what are at matchpoints: - the best hand that should pass a balancing 3H (two cases: by passed and unpassed hands) - the worse hand that should bid game opposite a balancing 3H (two cases: by passed and unpassed hands) You say "bid what you can make" but it is unclear what you can make if balancer can have a wide range of strength So I just think it is good bridge and partnership practice to have precise requirements in these cases, if not for balancer, at least for balancer's responder (not to miss good games and not to bury a light balancer). Can you give some examples (not general principles- they are generally quite clear) ? Thanks !

Esatto. Questo è un caso, ma ce ne sono innumerevoli, soprattutto in licita interferita: - un altro è il 2/1 in competizione a passare, che dovrebbe essere allertato ma parecchi giocatori credono standard perchè al loro circolo giocano tutti cosi'. - Oppure la licita 1♣/♦-p-p-1NT in riapertura: secondo tutti gli standard, la RIAPERTURA 1NT è piu' debole di 15-17 o 16-18, ma molti la fanno con la stessa forza dell'intervento diretto, per ignoranza. - oppure 1♠-dbl-3♠, che puo' essere sbarrante o costruttivo. Ora, malafede o ignoranza che sia, posso dover trovarmi a fare una scelta DURANTE LA LICITA sulla base del significato della licita avversaria. In questi casi preferisco chiedere agli avversari il soignificato nel dubbio, ance in corso di licita: è vero che possono trarne vantaggio loro se non si sono capiti, ma sinceramente non ne sono molto turbato .... :D Avevi interpretato bene le mie parole (come sempre :P ), sara' l'aria di Romagna ? :lol: Beky, cio' che dici è giusto, per carità. Tuttavia a me è capitato piu' volte di domandare, ricevere un semlice "£standard" o "naturale" in risoposta, e allora di fare domande piu' specifiche (non mi vergogno di chiedere): un sacco di volte le risposte erano omertose (ripetevano "standard", e basta, oppure zitti, senza aggiungere altro) oppure a volte addirittura irritate sul genere "vuoi che ti dica le carte che ha in mano?" Ora, cerco di specificare ancor meglio il significato del mio post: supponiamo che il mio avversario surliciti l'apertura del mio compagno, allertata come "surlicita Michaels". Se gli avversari non aggiungono altro, la mano deve corrispondere agli standard della surlicita Michaels come definito nel libretto delle convenzioni pubblicato dalla WBF, e scaricabile dal sito ecatsbridge. Questo libretto è scaricabile in rete e contiene lo standard di riferimento per quelle licite. In caso di contestazioni fra 2 parti, quel documento contiene i requisiti della mano che ha usato la convenzione Pincopallino; una dichiarazione allertata e spiegata semplicemente come "Pincopallino" senza altre informazioni aggiuntive deve corrispondere alla descrizione in quel libretto. Questo è possibile proprio perchè esiste un documento PRECISO di riferimento. Esiste lo stesso per lo std italia? Infine, una piccola considerazione "filosofica": nel caso non venga formalizzato dalla federazione un documento di riferimento ufficiale (compelto di anno di pubblicazione, visto che poi anche lo std italia viene aggiornato e modificato nel tempo), è improprio il termine "Standard".

Sure, Earl, but I would like some example hands. I think balancing need specific requirements in terms of losers (if unvbalanced) or hcp (if balanced); on the basis of these expectations (which may vary from passed and unpassed hand balancing of course), the responder to the balancer may choose whether or not to raise holding a good hand, without having to guess whether pard is broke or if he has a decent playing strength hand (such as the one you suggested with an extra heart). Otherwise it is always a guess whether to raise a bad balancing or pass a good balancing. As many say, a bad agreement is better than no agreement whatsoever, if anything because the "no agreement-just judgment" policy tends to bring up "blaming each other" issues; instead if the agreement is fixed (of course with some tolerance for pard's judgment), then the system/agreement may fail, but there is not mutual blaming. So either balancing is sound, or it is weak, it cannot be both. The definition of "sound" and weak may vary from passed/unpassed hand but it should not vary by more than 2 tricks, I would say. I believe this is true no matter whether MP or IMPS scoring. So my question is: what requirements do you suggest(/expect from pard) for raising or passing a passed hand valaancing and an unpassed hand balancing ? Would you pass pard's balancing with an opening hand and 3 card support if pard is passed or if he is unpassed hand ? Example hands of the 4 situations I asked in my post will make the point much clearer :D Assume Matchpoints scoring.

This seems a brilliant idea, useful both for avoiding cheating without restricting kibitzing.

Some players in similar situations play that XX means "I have nothing else". E.g.: I saw a Meckwell auction like this 1♥-(3♥*)-p-(3NT**) p-p-Dbl-p p-Rdbl*** 3♥*= stopper ask to play NT. Often 3NT Gambling-type hand 3NT**= I have the stopper Rdbl***= pard I have nothing else except the running minor, please run if you do not have decent stoppers It seems to me this may applied similarly in the auction presented: I have "only" a 7 card minor and a solid stopper in the suit. Please run if other suits are unstopped. This allows to pass the buck to partner so he can decide.

LOLL Sure thing, now you have used the easy answer... :) However sometimes you HAVE to :) (ready to listen to the tougher anwer.... :) )

Dangerous vs notrump, since pard will drop the K or J if he has it

Hi all, I would like to have moreinsight on the best card to lead from 3 cards tenaces composed of 3 of the top 6 honors (including the 9). I have quite a few books on opening leads (Blackwood, Ewen, Lawrence, Sowter, and others specifically on opening leads + Kantar's defence books) and a few others), but none of them deals in details with these sequences. Assuming that: 1) you play J denies, T and 9 = 0 or 2 higher honors 2) vs Notrump, A and Q leads ask for unblocking or count 3) vs suit contract, A and Q ask encouragement, K asks count Given the following holdings, what do you lead ? The question is due to the following potential problems: 1) HJT/HJ9: if lead the J, it denies a higher honor, pard with a good holding may switch and lose a tempo; lead T or 9 may work, but potential blockage ? 2) AQT/AQ9: similar problem 3) HT9: similar to HJT: leading 9 here promises, but pard has no idea of potential blockage 4) in some instance, I have seen world class leading the highest honor from those sequences, as unblocking play. How to recognize these situations ? AQT AJT AQ9 AJ9 AT9 KJT KJ9 KT9 QT9

Grazie della risposta Vincenzo ma purtroppo i miei dubbi permangono, quindi provo a riformulare la domanda con un esempio, poichè il regolamento FIGB che avevo gia' consultato sul sito non mi è di molto aiuto. Lasciamo perdere- ai fini di questa discussione- le licite di contre/surcontre, i range di senza atout e le cuebid e le innovazioni dell'ultimo anno su cio' che va allertato oppure no. Esaminiamo invece il seguente esempio concreto. Supponiamo che il mio avversario faccia una licita e io ne chieda il significato. Il suo compagno mi spiega la licita dicendo solo "standard" (svariati giocatori spesso si rifiutano di aggiungere altro, affermando che la definizione "standard" fornisce tutte le informazioni). Ora, supponiamo che io abbia un'idea sbagliata di "standard italia" ; oppure che il mio avversario abbia un'idea sbagliata di "standard italia". In poche parole, io ed i miei avversari abbiamo un'idea diversa del significato "standard"della licita. Nel seguito della licita (o del gioco), baso le mie scelte cruciali sulla base della spiegazione "standard" data dai miei avversari e questa non coincide con quanto mi attendo e pertanto faccio un cattivo risultato. E' ovvio che qui il problema nasce dalla definizione univoca del termine "standard italia" ed è necessario un testo specifico di riferimento, definito dal regolamento in caso di disaccordo sul significato di standard. La mia domanda è "quale è questo testo"? Grazie in anticipo ! :(

As I said in the other thread, adding a 7th heart increases the playing strength by about 2 tricks here, it is not a minor change... However, it may be interesting to move at the other side of the table. Could you make an example of: case 1: balancer is a passed hand. Which is the strongest hand that would pass 3H case 2: balancer is a passed hand. Which is the weakest hand that would raise 3H to game (either 3NT or 4H) case 3: balancer is a unpassed hand. Which is the strongest hand that would pass 3H case 4: balancer is a unpassed hand. Which is the weakest hand that would raise 3H to game (either 3NT or 4H) These kind of examples would be useful for my simulations.

Borderline statement, I would rephrase it as follows: "Calling the director to ask for appeal for a psyche is not reasonable unless you think that there has also been an infraction. But it is reasonable to record the psychers to log their psyche in a psyche's database to ensure that a concealed agreement is not there"

I think this hand has slam potential. I double, then show my 2 suits. I want to be in slam in a red suit.

We play that after a Support asking bid, any non-jump bid is CAB or repeated TAB (asks more detailed type of support). Jumps past game are Exclusion KCB. Responses to CABs past game start with 1st step = no control or 3rd rnd control, 2nd step = 2nd control.... etc (collapse the 3rd round control in 1st step). However, CABS may be space consuming (e.g. pard holding A or void bids the 4th step), so unless you KNOW that pard cannot bid too high, it is better to expect to be able to make 2 CABs staying below game. --------- There are sure more complex designs of SABs/TABs/CABs. I strongly recommend OliverC's Precision BIL lessons, there is also his Precision notes online.

Only step that bypasses 4H (after 3S spade ask) would be showing BOTH AK of spades, impossible given my holding. So yes, in the end spade ask seems the way to go.

Mc Bruce, your one is really a bad reaction, but unfortunately I see it is becoming widespread (see the thread on excluding advanced from BIL lounge). 1) there was no "grumbling". This forum is for the people to express their ideas, as long as they are polite. It may sound strange for you, but they may express disappointment even about your actions. Or do you want everyone to agree with you ? 2) The fact that you are volunteer does not mean at all that everybody will like the way you handle things. I have been volunteer too and this is a fact that one should accept. When volunteering, I have never-ever used this status as a shield from (polite) criticisms. 3) there are many ways a volunteer can face polite criticicisms: a ) accept confrontations [edited ui] ; among these, you may view polite criticisms as feedback. Maybe you could even like to know how many people like the things you organize(or, more likely, you do not care of what people think). For example, this policy has been used by Fred and Uday for their BBO software. I cannot imagine how many crazy criticisms or suggestions they receive, but they respond politely, first explaining their reasons, and if the requirements are insisting, they just say that they have other priorities given the available resources. This is answering like an adult b ) [para edited ui] "I do what I do the way I like, and if you do not like, do it yourself your own way". This approach is not worth any further comments... This does not mean you should run your tourn they way other people want. It is obvious you run them as you like, you put the effort, you decide. I simply wish to be able to express my disagreement without having to be called destructive. This post may have been aggressive, but the previous ones weren't, they were only defending the right to say I do not like this policy, then do whatever you like. If we can discuss nicely about one point, nice. But if the argument is like in the above "b" line, the discussion is not a discussion anymore, it just shows a lack of argument. An argument like "I just do what I want", expressed in this form, is not bound to generate a nice discussion (e.g. an EXCHANGE of ideas). I thought this was obvious, perhaps it is not.

Ciao a tutti ! Ho una domanda regolamentare dovuta alla mia ignoranza del regolamento (e non solo! :D ). Quando un giocatore effettua una licita non allertata, oppure se la carta delle convenzioni è compilata in maniera incompleta, il significato di tale dichiarazione va assunto "Standard". Lo stesso avviene qualora, per esempio, io chieda ad un avversario il significato di una licita: egli - almeno cosi' credo - ha il diritto di limitarsi a dichiarare che il significato è "standard". Ora, il problema nasce nel caso -ahimè frequentissimo- in cui per me "Standard" significa una cosa, mentre per un alttro giocatore ha un significato diverso. Spesso accade che due giocatori, e non necessariamente di primo pelo, abbiano idee diametralmente opposte sul significato di "Standard" e quindi , anche in buona fede, ci siano equivoci. L'unico modo per evitare equivoci sul significato di "standard italia" è che nel regolamento venga menzionata esplicitamente la pubblicazione di riferimento: infatti se io studio lo std italia sugli appunti di un istruttore ed il mio avversario lo ha studiato, magari, su appunti di un altro istruttore o su un testo, diciamo, Mursia, e dicon cose diverse, chi ha ragione se sorge una contestazione ? E' pertanto indispensabile che il regolamento menzioni esplicitamente un testo specifico, unico, di riferimento. Ecco infine la domanda: Qual'è la pubblicazione specifica di riferimento per lo Standard Italia ? Grazie in anticipo a chi rispondera' in dettaglio :D

Wayne, thanks for the sympathy :D RHO had trump ace.

That's (once more! :lol: ) stating the obvious :) These sessions could not be viewed as playing session but only as mentoring session. In the past there has been a thread on this(Thinking with Fred), with luis and Rado among others (forgive me if I forgot other people's names) offering their availability for that. Of course, as any mentoring session, it requires the availability of players to play -for a give time frame- not for the sake of playing but for the sake of teaching, basically. I know that many players do have a life and log on BBO to relax and not for additional work, so it is completely understandable that this does not happen frequently.

The idea of first class players playing for an audience is a great idea, although not new. Especially having the player "think aloud" telling the kibitzers his thought process is great, there has been a few initiatives like that. I wish there were more but of course all depends on the goodwill of some good players :)

"Dealer" is a free software for DOS/Unix. You have to create a text file for constraints, you can use one of the example constraints files supplied, change them according to your needs and play with these. After playing with it for a while, it becomes easy. If you need some help, message me your email, I'll send you an example file and the basic commands. In order to run it for DOS, you may need to download from the net also the cygwin1.dll library (any google search will help) and place it in the same folder.

I may do that. I usually use as a criterion for raising a balancer the following: - with a fit, I raise to game with a 7/7.5-losers hand; with an 8 losers hand the decision is close and I may pass or raise according to "table feel" - without fit, I raise to NT or major game with a full opening hand. Balancer assumes I have about 10 hcp (or an 8 losers hand), so he is alreadyt bidding my values. Therefore I raise only with some extra. Do you agree with these criteria ? YThey are the same I am using to evaluate the simulations.

Ok, I was a bit tricky :lol: The club ask is obvious but only if we have any chance for slam. Here pard needs the perfect hand. I bid 3C ask, pard showed a K, and i signed off in 4H.Pard had [hv=s=skqxxhjxxdxxckxxx]133|100|[/hv] LHO led a club, RHO cashed club Q, club A, gave a club ruff to pard, and finally they cashed trump A for down one. My Control Asking bid directed their lead; at other tables only few west selected clubs as a lead. i like though Ben's idea of a spade ask. That would have avoided a club lead, and allowed to signoff in game without regrets.

Hi all, you may recall a tough discussion over light balancing over a preempt, with the following hand posted by helene(Balancing over this preempt thread): South's hand: ♠ Jxx ♥ JT8xxx ♦ ATx ♣ x MP, None vuln pass (3♣) pass (pass) ? Most people agred that balancing at IMPS would be crazy, but quite a few posters argued that 3♥could be a good gamble at MP. This position is quite different from the accepted standards of balancing, and the discussion was quite "hot" :lol: As I like to verify things objectively, I decided toi run a simulation, keeping Souith's hand and using the following constraints: 1- west (the preemptor) has <10 hcp and at most 2 losers in clubs, no side 4 card suit 2- north (balancer's pard) has either 7+ losers or a good balanced hand unsuitable for t/o double (with 4+ clubs and wasted values in clubs), but not strong enough to bid 3NT (e.g. a 18 balanced hand) 3- east (preemptor pard) has <16 hcp and has no 3 card support in clubs nor Hx in clubs: with such holdings, it is usual either to raise preemptively if weak, OR to bid 3NT if good hand. The simulations assume that balancer's pard raises 3H to 4H if he has at least an opening hand playing strength with 3 card support in hearts. I expected that the 3H balancing choice had a 20/30% chance of success or worse. But I was surprised. Instead, from the first simulations, it seems that, at MP, the chances of success are close to 50%. When it is wrong, the balancer goes for a number, but this is not a big issue at MP. So I decided to post a few hands for the benefirt of the readers, as these results are quite interesting and they made me think a lot about my previous assumptions. In particular, I should give credit to those who suggested that balancing is quite a stretch, but not completely foolish at MP. I may post more hands or send them by email if anyone is interested. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [board "1"] [Deal "N:652.AK9.QJ5.Q853 AKT8.Q7.K9764.J4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q97.62.83.AKT972"] [board "2"] [Deal "N:Q6.K762.KJ87.AJ2 AK9752.Q.Q653.53 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T8.A9.94.KQT9874"] [board "3"] [Deal "N:7.KQ2.KQ98.AJ873 AKT862.A97.763.2 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q95.6.J54.KQT954"] [board "4"] [Deal "N:T.A96.KQ985.KQT9 AQ8762.KQ7.764.4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 K95.2.J3.AJ87532"] [board "5"] [Deal "N:T982.K76.KQ3.AT3 KQ6.AQ2.J9875.J4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 A75.9.64.KQ98752"] [board "6"] [Deal "N:A5.972.Q983.AJ92 KQ962.KQ6.KJ75.7 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T87.A.64.KQT8543"] [board "7"] [Deal "N:K76.A72.J84.AT75 AQ85.K9.KQ653.43 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T92.Q6.97.KQJ982"] [board "8"] [Deal "N:A65.AK2.764.A984 K987.Q976.KQ95.3 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 QT2..J83.KQJT752"] [board "9"] [Deal "N:Q6.AQ6.K863.AJ97 AT987.K97.QJ9.T8 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 K52.2.754.KQ5432"] [board "10"] [Deal "N:A95.Q97.K96.AJ94 QT72.AK2.QJ43.32 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 K86.6.875.KQT875"] [board "11"] [Deal "N:A7.AK92.853.JT72 KQ9865.Q.KQJ964. J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T2.76.7.AKQ98543"] [board "12"] [Deal "N:A9875.K2.Q.AJT87 Q2.AQ97.K87643.4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 KT6.6.J95.KQ9532"] [board "13"] [Deal "N:Q72.AQ92.953.A53 AKT865.6.KQJ6.J9 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 9.K7.874.KQT8742"] [board "14"] [Deal "N:K872.A7.QJ74.JT5 AQ96.KQ9.K863.84 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T5.62.95.AKQ9732"] [board "15"] [Deal "N:K9765.AK.J87.A72 AT.Q62.KQ96543.9 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q82.97..KQJT8543"] [board "16"] [Deal "N:KT9.Q76.KJ64.A95 AQ8652.K.Q973.J4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 7.A92.85.KQT8732"] [board "17"] [Deal "N:AQ6.6.QJ983.KQ93 KT82.AKQ2.K74.T8 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 975.97.65.AJ7542"] [board "18"] [Deal "N:KT962.Q97.Q3.A84 A7.AK62.KJ875.T3 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q85..964.KQJ9752"] [board "19"] [Deal "N:KQ2.A76.J98.A972 AT76.KQ9.KQ643.4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 985.2.75.KQJT853"] [board "20"] [Deal "N:K98.KQ96.643.A53 AT652.A7.KQJ95.T J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q7.2.87.KQJ98742"] [board "21"] [Deal "N:K872.AK.J83.QJ85 AQ965.Q97.KQ75.2 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T.62.964.AKT9743"] [board "22"] [Deal "N:852.K62.K43.KQ72 AK96.AQ7.J9765.8 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 QT7.9.Q8.AJT9543"] [board "23"] [Deal "N:AK9.A2.J653.KQT7 T865.KQ6.K874.98 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q72.97.Q9.AJ5432"] [board "24"] [Deal "N:AT8.KQ2.643.K875 KQ952.A6.KQ75.T2 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 76.97.J98.AQJ943"] [board "25"] [Deal "N:Q8.A972.QJ4.K873 AK652.KQ.8753.J9 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T97.6.K96.AQT542"] [board "26"] [Deal "N:AK82.A72.J96.K32 Q96.KQ96.K8743.J J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T75..Q5.AQT98754"] [board "27"] [Deal "N:AK5.Q.J9753.KQT7 QT862.AK76.Q84.5 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 97.92.K6.AJ98432"] [board "28"] [Deal "N:A76.Q62.763.AJ83 KT52.AK7.KQ94.T5 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 Q98.9.J85.KQ9742"] [board "29"] [Deal "N:T.AK92.Q87.AJ952 AKQ9765.Q.KJ43.4 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 82.76.965.KQT873"] [board "30"] [Deal "N:Q975.A72.K75.AJ5 AK6.KQ6.J9843.74 J43.JT8543.AT2.6 T82.9.Q6.KQT9832"]

2NT is not available because pard bid 2NT :lol: 2NT by pard also defines that he has some support AND is in the lower range, 8-10, so he cannot have a holding with ♥A and ♣AKQ.