Chamaco

I like the use you suggest of 3NT but I do not like it in ths hand. It should show a poor heart suit 8as it is, but the extra heart makes it a little better than expected; and it should also show (as a consequence) scattered valued in the short suits. But the main point is that all short suit should be decently stopped. Here clubs are totally unstopped: this is very very bad, if u bid 3NT pard will just pass., as he expect 5 hearts and all side suit stopped. If one has no special gadgets here, and has to bid "naturally" it is better to consider AKQ of spades a 4 card rather than show aNT hand when instead your clubs are unstopped.

Contiguous range two-suited overcalls. People using them never know who the hand belongs to, whereas opener and responder tend to know better because opener has guaranteed opening strength and responder knows his own strength. :lol: They claim to be able to solve this by relays but the auction gets quickly crowded and your relays go down the sink. :angry:

Once i told this rule you mentioned to my pard who was unsure about when to alert. She alerted a bid of mine that was not to be alerted, opps called TD and we got penalized. If you meet an opp who wants to, he will insist to mmake you talk about bidding to grasp the slightest mistake and exploit it.

Matchpoints or IMPs, the important thing is to be consistent with agreements with pard. Deviations are allowed within a reasonable range. Balancing 3H should show an opening hand, either in strength or distribution. But: - if pard has a decent hand he will raise to 4H for sure and we'll go down even in hands where 3C goes down, - if he has a bad hand we'll be doubled in 3H and get a bottom even at MP. The sad truth is that here, even when 3H can be the par of the hand, there is no longer any way to reach it, as pard will go overboard. Passing will save you from going overboard and from all the other hands where the hand simply belongs to the opps. Needless to say, sometimes you'll get a zero, that's why people preempt. One needs to learn to accept the occasional bad results from opps preeempt, and be disciplined to avoid the "bidding fever" that makes people bid with insufficient value just because opponents preempted. Nevertheless, in bridge one should play the odds, and here the odds are that: - bidding is wrong much more frequently than passing - the cost of bidding when it is wrong is much higher than the cost of passing when it's wrong. The lesson from these difficulties is : PREEMPT MORE OFTEN YOURSELF, and be less restrictive on the criteria for preempting; you 'll put opps in trouble much more often (and sometimes your pard, but with good agreenments preempting aggressively pays off more than the losses).

Overtake. You were lucky to hit the killing opening lead, since bidding tend to suggest the lead of a major. Do not try for more when you already have an advantage on the field based on opening lead.

Paul, totally agree with you. The bridge world is full of such people who at any board will try to catch every single word you say 8or do NOT say) to steal the board. Very very unpleasant. The most unpleasant thing is that at the end, they will justify themeself saying to the world that it is YOU who tried to steal and so you were rightly punished. These are the sort players that will not accept "commoinsense" rulings by a director. But, like a I said, perhaps a better thread would be "Are bridge players difficult persons to play with and against?"

Thee is much more to it. Cerrtainly when double is penalty is a major issue, and defining precisely all sequences when a bid is forcing or not, is a must, otherwise you cannot even talk of partnership. But there are also other frequent issues: 1- quality and length of preempts in different seats 2- suit quality, length, and hcp content of all 2-suited bids, in all cases 3- policy for simple overcalls (quuality, strength etc) and how to respond to them (which advances are forcing and which are rescue- if any); 4- reopening obligations/expectations (e.g. frequent case of misunderstanding is hcp range for balancing 1 of a suit and balancing 1NT) 5- how light can an opening be ? how strong should an invitation be ? 6- phylosophy: solid vs aggressive bidding (perhaps implicit in the previous points) 7- specific competitive sequences: e.g. lately (in Italy) I always have to check if pard plays negative free bids after opps overcall. 8- other little things: do you reverse bidding 3 card suits ? do you bypass longer minors ? 9- developments after 2C strong opening: do you have oprecise agreements when 2C opener is unbalanced ? What do 2nd round bidding mean if ytou have not found a fit ? What do you do if opps interfere? I am sure I miss much, but the abovementioned cases usually raise lots of other points. You'll need more than one session (probably more than 3 or 4) to fix them all: so much for those who think to have agreed a sistem just by saying "2/1, 15-17 notrump, 1430, inverted minors, bergen and jacoby 2NT, dont/capp vs NT, Michaels, Unusual 2NT, 4sf, nmf".

Perhaps a better thread would be "Are bridge players difficult persons to play with and against?" :D But I'd better stop this before we lose control of the discussion LOLLL

Esattamente, 100% d'accordo su questo punto, che mi da' l'occasione di chiarire una delle mie convinzioni. So benissimo che non tutti la pensano cosi', ma siamo qui sul forum per dire la nostra no ? :D Quando dico che c'è un equivoco e non è detto che BBO debba essere assimilato un circolo o una federazione, lo dico rivolto in due direzioni: 1) agli utenti, che a mio avviso dovrebbero capire che essendo BBO doiverso da un circolo o da una federazione, non devono confrontare i costi e i servizi offerti dall'una e dall'altra parte, xche' appunto si parla di mele e di pere(anche se siamo un po' fuori stagione... che ne dite di un cocomero? :D ); 2) agli amici di BBO Italia, che, nelle mie speranze, preferirei evitassero di replicare certe strutture (in particolare, punteggi e classifiche interne) che nei circoli e federazione avvelenano l'atmosfera; come detto, BBO non è un circolo nè federazione, perchè prenderli come modelli di sviluppo delle attività, e copiarne le parti peggiori ? :angry: Invece mi piace molto il riferimento di Vincenzo alla didattica online. Ho cominciato a giocare 3 anni fa da autodiatta quando ancora ero all'estero, e le lezioni su BBO di "shep" mi hanno aiutato tantissimo. Una cosa del genere fatta in italiano sarebbe secondo me un incredibile passo avanti nella didattica.

Don't think so. Have 2 losers in clubs and 2.5 in hearts, bidding game loses only when pard has wasted values in diamonds. Even if he contributes as little as Ax/Kx in hearts, and nothing else useful, 4H will have some play. Sometimes I may hit pard with a really bad hand, but I prefer to go down in this game rather than proceed scientifically, stop in 3 H because pard has a really bad hand, and find out I was making anyways 4H with overtricks. It's not double dummy evaluation, but the acknowledgement that a game should be bid below 50% chance. Put constantly your opponents under pressure, bid tight games, and they'll do mistakes- REAGARDLESS OF THEIR SKILL LEVEL. If you go down once or twice, it just happens.

Yes, your pard with a 12-14 hcp hand, balanced, SHOULD pass in direct seat over a 3-level preempt. Read better Lawrence's article about the "Rule of seven": in direct seat you bid assuming you find your pard with 7 "normal" hcp. That means, usually that if you have a balanced hand you need a hand close to a reverse (not a minimum 12-14 opener hand, with a minimum opener you pass and wait for pard to balance), if have an unbalanced hand you need a 5.5 losers hand(you may stretch to 6 losers if you really like your hand) , more or less. You can adjust the requirements but hat is important is that OVER A 3 LEVEL PREEMPT, IN DIRECT SEAT, A 13 COUNT PASS 99% OF THE TIMES. the corollary to this is that if you hold a minimum opener and you pass, if your pard reopens you will bid game (in NT or in a suit). Of course if you have the habit to play with bad partners that feel the urge to bid with 13 hcp over a preempt in direct seat only because they have a minimum opener, well... that does not apply :D ---------------- One more thing: your reopening has no logic even if you believe your pard to have less than an opening hand, otherwise with a minimum opener he would have bid, which I believe is a terrible agreement. But let's assume you have this poor agreement. Then your pard has at most about 10 hcp. You have 6 hcp. That means that the opponents have at least 24 hcp, in the best scenario. Why do you think your RHO passed his pard preempt if the has the strongest hand at the table ? If he is a good player, he passed with a strong hand because he has nowhere to go: he does not see a major suit game, 5 of a minor gets too high, and 3NT in misfit in clubs rates to score no clubs if the opponents duck the first trick. These misfit auction are terrible: who plays the hand is in trouble. If you stick your nose in, I will hear the sound of your RHO shouting "DOUBLE!!" from my hometown in Italy. :D If your opps are bad players, then RHO has passed because he does not have the skill and judgment to reach game even if it is there. Balancing from you will reopen the bidding and give them a chance to bid game (how many times does that happen with palookas?) or to be doubled : they 'd score maybe less than game but still better than just 3C making.

if you double with your hand and pard has this very good hand: ♠AQTx ♥xx ♦KQJx ♣xxx He will jump to 4 spades, when a forcing defence in hearts may be a disaster if you get doubled (remember, , after preempts you must assume bad trump splits, here 4-2 in spades- if you are lucky - most likely 5-1). Then you may wish you had balanced 3 hearts, but your pard, with an opening hand will raise ur 3 hearts to 4 hearts most of the time. E.g.Say you balanced with 3 hearts. With the following hand pard can do nothing but raise to game. ♠AQTx ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣AJ Even this "dream hand" loses at least 2 trumps and 2 diamonds, probably not a spade. There are many other even worse scenarios (you double, opps redouble, you have to bid and get crushed because responder of the preemptor had a nice -for them- 15 hcp with a void in pard suit) but I think u get the picture. The bottomline is that if pard holds any hand that woould allow you to realize a partscore, he will raise you to game and you will go down. If he passes your bid, you do not have enough for yuor partscore. In both case, better pray not to be doubled and that your pard has not violent tendencies.... :D

Maybe we should all try to be less serious :D PS Slothy where are you ? :D

Read this article of Mike Lawrence on bidding over preempts. It is not specific to *balancing*, but you get the point, just assume that in balancing seat you can nudge the required strength by 2-3 hcp (according to optimism and luck :D ) http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/Lawrence_lecture.html

5H. Dbl fit + favourable vuln allows this. 4H is useless, they'll bid 4S and then double oyu or compete or explore slam with more info. Jumping to 5 forces them to decide in the dark between doubling, compete or bidding a slam.

How frequently do you use the Lightner double ? Once every how many boards ? I guess that on a sufficiently long time-window, you use more frequently (and score many games/slams or stay out of bad ones) Stayman (or puppet or Baron, or whatever you like) , takeout doubles and Blackwood or 4th suit forcing (to rightside NT game or show extra strength) :P But of course everyone - including myself - feels proud to defeat an unbeatable contract thanks to a lead-directing convention, even if it happens twice a year or so :D

Agree with Todd. I forgot carding agreements. Add them to my list :P

Scusate se mi intrometto nella discussione, spero di uscirne vivo ! :P Dico la mia, quasi una provocazione, se vogliamo, per favorire il dibattito (chi mi conosce sa che cerco sempre di essere costruttivo se posso). Io personalmente non vedo tanto di buon occhio i tornei pay, ma non per motivi economici: pagare il prezzo di un caffè non mi cambia la vita, e se vanno agli amici di BBO Italia mi fa piacere perchè so quanto impegno e dedizione ci mettono. Il motivo per cui i tornei pay mi vedono poco entusiasta è principalmente per il tipo di mentalità che portano: una mentalità di tipo agonistico/competitivo, che aumenta in percentuale il numero di giocatori incarogniti, scorretti e sgarbati che giocano per vincere e non per divertirsi, che avvelenano l'atmosfera o barando/non allertando eccetera da un lato o chiamando sempre l'arbitro dall'altro; che non sono mai contenti perchè "ho pagato e voglio un servizio decente"; che rifiutano di giocare con partner scarsi o se ci giocano li infamano, perchè "non voglio buttare tempo e denaro a insegnargli a giocare a bridge, che si paghi un istruttore". Eccetera, credo di aver spiegato la mia posizione. E' vero che si puo' sempre giocare in lobby, ma la proliferazione dei tornei pay portera' all'espandersi di questo modo di fare anche a molti altri tavoli, secondo me. Detto questo, aggiungo solo una mia osservazione sulla discussione in atto ("Ma quanto si paga al circolo per un torneo?"). C'è un grosso equivoco: BBO non è un circolo, e non è detto che debba seguire le medesime logiche di un circolo o una federazione. Anzi, ho già scritto in passato che per me il bello di BBO è proprio che non ha niente dei circoli e delle federazioni. Sinceramente se penso a tutti i circoli di bridge che ho visto, mi viene in mente un ambientino non proprio raccomandabile, con giocatori rissosi e altezzosi, provinciali (tutte primedonne anche senza averne i requisiti), spero tanto che BBO non diventi cosi'. Ok, ho finito il comizio, vado a farmi un aperitivo, cin cin :D Mauro

To name the best convention I will choose as criteria: 1) high frequency 2) high benefits 3) no memory burden Given that, my votes are for the classics. They may be abused for sure (being played so frequently by so many people, it's more likely they get screwed up), but the benefit/cost ratio is high compared to what the bridge would be without them: 1) takeout double (any form: t/o doubles, negative dbls, responsive dbls, etc.) 2) stayman (any form) 3) Blackwood (any form) 4) cuebidding agreements (any) 5) 4th suit forcing Other conventions are - in my opinion - improvements on the overall structure, but not so fundamental. Among these, my personal vote will go still to simple but effective tools such as splinter raises and, for those who play them, fitshowing raises: they both help describing the hand fairly accurately. Drury major raise can be also a life safer if you play with wild partners :P

That is where I differ from most. 18hcp + weak 6h = 3H rebid. You want responder to increase the value of heart honors. I don't see how rebidding in a 3-card suit is better to honestly showing a 6-card suit? To me, this the KISS rebid. The Gazzilli convention that I suggested is not 3 card rebid, but a relay to get info from pard's hand. It solves many of opener's rebid so that 3-level jumps are "pure". "KISS" rebids like this will lead to many poor contracts, and missing many laydown slams (1NT responder vs strong opener) when you cannot rely on the quality of the trump suit. 3 level jumps should be well defined in terms of honors concentration, not only hcp, because they take away so much space. However, I guess it's a matter of taste to choose one's system.

CASE 1 If 2S is gf it must have 19+ hcp. In this case I bid 3NT. I expect pard to have 4+ tricks in H and get 4 tricks in spades with my spades Q. If we can survive a clubs lead we are home. With xxxxx, if pard has as little as x in clubs, opps may probably score only 4 club tricks and we get the rest. If we do not survive the club lead, chances are that a forcing defence in clubs may defeat 4 spades. CASE 2 If 2S can be as little as 17+, I bid 2NT Ingberman/Lebensohl to which pard relays to 3clubs with a minimum reverse and I pass or correct (here I'd signoff in 3S).

Yuk! Jump rebid 3H with such a lousy suit is awful. A system that forces you to jump rebid 3H with such a suit just to show a reverse is terrible. I much prefer to jump bid it with 14 hcp and solid trumps rather than 16/17 with an empty 6 bagger.

To reopen vs an enemy preempt you need opening hand strength, either in hcp, or in distribution. With shortness in enemy suit you can stretch a bit, but even if you want to balance only on distributional values, and not on hcp, you will need a 7-loser's hand. Here you have a 9-loser hand, so the hand does not qualify (it doesn't even accounting for the much aggressive Zar points! :) ). You should pass. Never bid over a preempt with a preemptive hand urself. Cautiosness like this will bring you sometimes a few matchpoint bad scores, but that's life. Sometimes preempt do work ! :-) In the long run, however, it will save you from other poor scores, as well as avoid major disasters and argues with partner.

This hands suit well the "Gazzilli" convention, useful for thos reverse or "half reverse" which need to know more from resoponder rather than just jump rebid at 3 level (like here, terrible trumps to jump rebid). 1♥:1NT 2♣*:2♥** 4♥*** * = I have either a half reverse or better (15/16+) OR a natural 2 clubs rebid. Pard please bid 2 diamonds if you have a constructive hand (7/8+ hcp), otherwise bid naturally to show weaker hand. **= weak preference to hearts, guarantee 2 cards *** = with 2+ card support by responder and such a strong hand, I want to gamble for game. Pard has bid 1NT, and no matter whether 1NT is forcing or not, he is not broke. Game may not make but there are too many layouts where it will. Gazzilli: http://www.padovabridge.it/varie/gazzilli.htm

I think North's invitation 3♠ is good only on a double dummy basis, as we know of the double fit, but it is terrible and plain wrong if we have no side suit fit. If South has the following hand (not unlikely), with duplication of values in spades and misfit diamonds honors, even 3 spades is not safe. ♠ KJT2 ♥ J4 ♦ KJxxx ♣ xx Therefore I believe the optimist should be South, the one who knows of the club fit, and N cannot bid 3S: south with his double promises a minimum of a 9 loser's hand, so N needs a 5.5 loser's hand to jump. Without a known club fit, North's hand is closer to 6.5 losers (1/1.5 in spades, 3 in H, 2/2.5 in clubs). If South has reasons to be optimistic (either double fitt or 8 loser's hand), he will talk again. I like the point of EricK, who suggests a 3♣ bid by South to show the double fit, having already promised a 4 card spades fit, letting North decide now.