Chamaco

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sk7h842dkq2ckjt63&w=sq96532hqt76da7c8&e=sajt84hjd98653c42&s=shak953djt4caq975]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Italy vs Czech rep, NS = Forth/Volhejn EW= Bocchi Duboin W N E S p 1NT 2♠ 2NT 4♠ p p 4NT X 5♣ p p 5♠ p p 6♣ p p X al pass I 'd like to use this hand as one example for high level forcing pass. I will appreciate any comments on my considerations below :P Thanks a lot !! :D For the bidding, I will assume 1NT by N is 10-12 balanced, and that South's 2NT is some sort of xfer to clubs (with the optoion of showing a second suit later). After West's 5 ♠, using the "standard" agreement for forcing pass (please correct me if I am wrong ! :unsure: ), N should: - double with wasted values - double with a minimum hand and low ODR - bid on with high ODR - pass when in doubt (no defensive potential and a fair ODR) - pass then pull pard's double as a stronger slam try (unlikely by a limited hand here which has bid 1NT). Here it would be a Grand Slam Try, since simply bidding would commit to small slam. Question 1 If the above is true (1NT shows 10-12 bal, 2Nt shows clubs, and the forcing pass agreements follow the abovementioned list), I disagree with N's pass. Kx in spades is wasted values and strongly suggest doubling. Do you agree ? Question 2 Suppose that the same auction occurred but rather than holding Hand 1 (the original) ♠K7♥842♦KQ2♣KJT63 North holds instead Hand 2 ♠xx♥Kxx♦KQ2♣KJT63 In this situation, no wastage in opps suit suggest not doubling. Yet it is unclear whether 6 clubs makes or not. I would pass, given the best offensive hand I can have. Question 3 Suppose that the same auction occurred but rather than holding Hand 2 North holds instead Hand 3 ♠xx♥Kxx♦Axx♣KT632 In this situation, I have still no wastage in opps suit. Yet I have a minimum hand (10 hcp), which suggests that outbidding 5♠ should not work. I would double despite no defensive tricks. Question 4 Suppose that the same auction occurred but rather than holding Hand 2 North holds instead Hand 4 ♠xxx♥Kx♦KQ2♣KJT63 This hand is exactly like hand 2 but with one extra card in opps suit. This suggests to double, even if it is a small card (Law of total tricks anyone ? - PS Notice how I did not call it the Law withg uppercase letters not to hurt anyone's feeling LOL).

1) you mean that opener should pass responder's 2♥ ? 2) you mean that any opener's rebid over 2♠ (major suit rebid) is a Game Force ? Thanks !! :D

Free, you are right about the 3♦ rebid. this was a late night post, and I just made a bblunder. opener's hand was not a reverse hand, let's say more similar to ♠AKxxx♥ void♦AJTxx♣Jxx. Now I will correct the post to this hand-type, so that the meaning of the question remains.

Thanks all for the contributions so far ! Here is the second part of the question. 1♠:1NT (forc.) 2♦:? What should one bid as responder with the following hand ? ♠xx♥AQTxxx♦x♣xxxx 1) a 2♠ preference ? 2) or 2♥ ? (This second option is strictly dependent on the meaning of 2♥, if it does deny a good hand and only shows a decent long suit). Assume this is the right bid. Is opener supposed to pass holding: ♠AKxxx♥ void♦AJTxx♣Jxx ? In the actual hand that occurred, opener and responder held somthing similar to these 2 hands ♠xx♥AQTxxx♦x♣xxxx ♠AKxxx♥ void♦AJTxx♣Jxx. and bidding went: 1♠:1NT (forc.) 2♦:2♥ 3♦:3♠ all pass

South is close to a minimum for balancing 2S, North should not even dream of raising with horrible 4333 and wasted values, and he should probably pas even a jump bid to 3S by the balancer.

I'd like to add to the list of "worse-ever" convention, the application of the Jordan/Truscott invitational+ unbalanced raise to minors openings. 1m-(1Y)-2NT or 1m-(Dbl)-2NT or 1m-pass-2NT Used as 10+ with good support for the minor is the very best way to wrongside the 3NT contract. Obviously the conventional use of 2NT is not a problem when you have a fit in a major .

I would double a second time (for takeout). If pard bids heart, I bid 3NT, if he bids a minor, I raise to 5. Pard's penalty pass is unlikely given my Kxx and opps raising each other.

Mike, Thanks a lot ! One final point: what is 1C opener supposed to rebid if the bidding is at 1 level, he has 16-18 bal with at most three small in opps suit ? (e.g. too dangerous to leave in the dbl).

One point in favour of Cappelletti. In Italy "cappelletti" is the name of a kind of pasta filled with hashed meat and cheese (much similar to Tortellini or Ravioli), very good with Bolognese sauce or even other kind of sauces. Suddenly the perspective about Capp becomes much more ... appetizing ! Can you say the same about "DONT" , "Landy" or "CRASH" ? :lol:

Regardless of feasibility or not on BBO, I would be intersted to know if somewhere someone has developed, in real life bridge, a criterion for seating the players using a reliable ranking (e.g. natinal ranking) for matchpoints events. In italy, after the first half of the tourny, some pairs (usually the even numbered) change direction, and the final standing are computed in a single standing list for both directions (E-W and N-S). 1) This is highly sensitive to the strength of players sitting on the NS dir vs those sitting E-W: it may happen that the first in the EW direction has, say, 56% whereas the first pair NS has around 70%, an obvious bias; 2) it is also sensitive to the number of tables. Especially with less than 10 tables, results may be quite random, and an appropriate sorting could at least reduce the bias.

1) Cut for partners by SJ Simon -close call with Darvas Right thru the pack- (bridge anedoctes coupled with technique review- good or bad :rolleyes: ) 2) Matchpoints by Woolsey (bidding/hand evaluation) 3) Killing defense at bridge by Kelsey (card play/ card reading)

Assume you play Precision with: - weak NT opening , so the weakest balanced option of strong club is 16-18 - 1C-(1-level overcall)-Dbl shows 5-7 hcp ANY shape (I know this may not be your preferred option, but just assume you have to play this agreement) You are dealer at matchpoints, say all vuln ♠AKxx♥AQxx♦Axx♣Kx 1♣-(1♦)-Dbl-pass ? 1D overcall was natural; Dbl shows 5-7 hcp ANY shape. What is the right bid ? I suppose 1NT should show the minimum 16-18 bal + stopper. So I chose to cuebid 2D. I found it extremely difficult to figure out the kinf of hand of the double. He could have a bal hand + stop, a bal hand without stop, a shapely hand; moreover, he may be maximum or minimum. Especially if opeenr has to cuebid, most responses to the qbid will still leave responder's hand undefined, and that will nbe a problem especially when opener has a close decision between game or not. I suppose this is a problem conditoioned by the use of 1-level dbl showing only hcp and nothing about shape, but right now I HAVE to stick with this approach. Any comments ? (besides "just change approach" or "just change system" or "just use semipositive/seminegative responses" or "just change game" = comments on what would you do if you had to play the same agreement) :rolleyes: Question 1 Should I maybe bid 2NT ? Would it be different if I held 19 uinstead of 20 ? Question 2 If the cuebid is correct, the questions are: a) what is responder's priority ? - show a stop in overcall suit ? - show a 5 card suit? show a 4 card major ? - what should responder bid with ♠JTxx♥xx♦KJxx♣xxx (bal, diamonds stopped ) - what should responder bid with ♠JTxx♥KJxx♦xx♣xxx (bal diamonds unstopped ) Question 3 Assuming the same bidding sequence, what should be the bid with a 16-18 balanced *without stopper*, and how to differentiate the hcp ranges (16-18/19-20 ot 21/22-23 or 24, etc). If it is a cuebid anyway, assume in all of these hands you will receive a responder rebid in clubs, should u cuebid again with hand 3.2 and 3.3 ? 1♣-(1♦)-Dbl-pass ? Hand 3.1 ♠AQxx♥AQxx♦xx♣Ax Hand 3.2 ♠AKQx♥AQJx♦xx♣Ax Hand 3.2 ♠AKQx♥AKQJ♦xx♣AK

Ben, the 5+ level forcing pass is exactly the area of forcing pass where we need more concrete examples, because: - we need to know whether a pass is forcing or not, but... - THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS HAND EVALUATION: WHEN TO USE A FORCING PASS, WHEN TO BID ON, WHEN TO DBL. My generic knowledge is: - double with a weak hand that does not foresee outbidding opponents and making - double with wasted values = potential defensive tricks - bid with a goodish hand with high ODR - pass in between. - pass+pull as slam try asking for control in opps suit (correct?) Yet when I explain this to my teammates, they say (or might say): - when is your hand weak to justify doubling even without defensive tricks in their suit ? when should you pass instead and leave it up to pard ? Based on what do u evaluate this ? - when is your ODR high enough to justify outbidding ? I think I am capable to explain to my teammates the underlying *general* principles of the forcing pass, but I need many *concrete* examples to communicate the message in practical terms. I may try to construct examples for this, but I am not experienced enough to do this, nor I am sure I'd pick the right ones. That's why I was looking for concrete example hands, and especially for competitive bidding at the 5+ level, describing concretely the type of holdings suggested for the various choices (defensive tricks in opp suit, losers/ controls in opps suit, etc). ------------------------ Admittedly, there is a lot on hand evaluation of the ODR potential, in Robson/Segal, but I have tried to show my teamates that material, and it would require a much lenghtier preliminary discussion of fitshowing raises and other things.

Ben, thanks for your suggestion, everytime they are very helpful. I have downloaded and printed that book months ago (when u posted that suggestion) I like that chapter and have read it (not really studied hard yet). The problem for me is to have examples that are straightforward right now (maybe imopossible with forcing passes). The chapter has two "problems": 1) reverses the use of pass and double from std; 2) uses in his examples fit showing raises. (not that i do not like them, but I doi not want to introduce an extra factor of complication: learning new things, I want that for the bidding examples, only *known* tools are used). Since I have to use the material to *try* to explain it to some players which are even less experienced than me on bidding and hand evaluation, I thought it was not the right material, so, before accepting to use it a reference, I was looking for an alternative source which uses: 1) std meaning of pass/dbl; b ) does not use fit showing raises.

Thx a lot Dwayne, this is exactly the sort of material I am looking for. Any further hint by other posters, along the same lines (just to have more examples) will be absolutely awesome !! Just for the record: the web link does not work with lowercase "forcpass.htm". This one works: http://home.earthlink.net/~ironhawker/FORCPASS.htm

Hi all, I would like to discuss with my partners/teammates forcing pass issues, both a low level and at high level bidding. In particular the issues of the agreements I'd like to set would be: - which sequences set a forcing pass; - at 4+ level, what does , *VERY specifically* a forcing pass mean in terms of quick tricks and/or controls in opp suit. Which are the sources you recommend which deal with this with lots of examples and details (e.g. specifies precisely the requirements for passing, bidding or doubling in high level auctions) ? Low level is (apparently) easier, so most of the material, would be needed for strong competitive bidding that jump quickly to the 4-5-6 level. Anything would be good: Commercial book titles and online material. (e.g. I know of a Kantar booklet on forcing pass, hard to find though: yet someone has discouraged me to but, since it would say nothing more than commonsense, no real added value) . Thanks !! :D

Hi all, I have such a basic question on 1NT forcing I am almost ashamed to ask :lol:) I have further questions on the followup by responder, but first I need to know the standard meaning of this sequence :P ------------------------------------- 1♠:1NT (forc.) 2♦:2♥ What should I expect by responder ? Hand 1) ♠x♥AQTxxx♦xxx♣xxx a hand that wants to be passed out Hand 2) ♠xx♥AQTxx♦KJx♣xxx An invitational hand --------------------------------------

Just to clear a minor point up....In case you thought i was referring to you (which i wholeheatedly was hee hee ..just joking) i would classify you quite unashamedly as If this description, Chamaco, in any way undermines your macho, "bash-'em-over-the head" credibility in the forum please send me a Personal Message and i will make a point of re-highlighting it in red :D :D jajaja My main irritation was with other people (not necessarily in this thread), and for them to remain nameless, who, I believe, express themselves in such a way that they think they know better and have answers for everything and ooze a sense of superciliousness that makes me wanna projectile vomit. (I dont do so only because i have a new monitor and my stock of screen-wipes is running low.) I don't care whether it is their command of English or otherwise which they use as an excuse: there is a way of discussing and projecting criticism (and vomit hee hee) in such a way that it gets listened to by those who may gain by doing so and, frankly, there are other ways in which it, quite justifiably, gets ignored by the 'powers-that-be' as it comes over as offensive, ill-thought-out and more about having one's own voice heard rather then about having what one wrote actioned. Anyway, that my gripe for the day. (well, it ain't over yet, so who knows?) As you started the thread, you may have thought i was directing that particular comment at you. I wasn't. (that doesnt mean that in a future thread my opinion may change :lol: ) Anyway, back to the battle-field.. Uff my lunch-break at work :P(( STILL havent posted what i wanted to write but just wanted to clear that up :D Alex LOL @ Slothy !!! :D So much for all my attempts to be mistaken for the bloodthirsty Sandokan, the Tiger of Mompracem !! :P

well, I do not know. If Negative free bid and wjs is not a convention, then neither inverted minors are. (same phylosophy= the suit bid is natural but the hcp content promised is different from "standard"). I think that any treatment which adopts different hcp ranges from standard is a convention, even if the bid is not artificial in the distributional sense. But I may be wrong of course. In this case, preemptive raises are NOT a convention, Walsh major-suit-first is not a convention, and so forth. Yet they change the picture of bidding dramatically, compared to "standard" (SAYC?) bidding. I guess it' just a matter of semantic definition. In the actual world, these bids are treatment that include some specific agreements between partners and that that expect specific sequences of possible rebids. And they have an underlying phylosophy.

3Nt broken minor preempt associated to Namyats is IMO much better than Gambling 3NT which let the wrong hand play 3NT. We played the broken minor pre-empt for a while and I did not like it. Partner never knows when to pass. And although I still play Namyats I am not sure that they are a great convention. Having two bids for a 4-level major pre-empt is over-kill especially when some of them can be opened at the one-level. Playing 3NT as broken minor, the key to decide whether to pass or not is strict definition of the quality of 4 level preempt. My pard will pass only at fav., expecting very little. Our preempts are destructive. ----------------- Namyats shd be played only by 1st-2nd seat, they are very descriptive and pard will know if slam is possible. 3rd seat-4th seat, all preempts are natural, regardles of suit quality (odds against slam even if one has 8/9 playing tricks in a major). But I think the best advantage of 3NT broken minor is to avoid altogether gambling 3NT which wrongsides the contract. The Gambling type hand can be opened either as 1m opening (1st-2nd seat) or as a 4-level preempt (3rd-4th seat) with little loss.

I am Italian , so I know ... LOL But recently, in an interview, even Garozzo has changed his mind, stating that in modern bidding, people interfering with yarboroughs, it is fundamental to give distribution first :lol:

3Nt broken minor preempt associated to Namyats is IMO much better than Gambling 3NT which let the wrong hand play 3NT.

LOL @ Wheregles !! :lol: :P Did you offer to the same partner to play exclusion Blackwood ? :P

In 99% of natural 2/1 systems, 1Nt is considered forcing ONLY to 1♥/♠ opening. 1♣/♦:1NT is natural, non forcing.

Hi folks, :) I know that it is also very common to play 1m:2NT as invitational, but I am specifically asking opinions on the sequences after the other agreement, proposed by Mike Lawrence (namely, 1m:2NT GF 12-14 or 18-19, 1m:3NT = 15-17). In a different thread I may ask why do experts prefer one or the other treatment, but in this thread it is not my main concern. :D I have quite a few of Lawrence's books but could not find the descriptions of the followups. As trpltrbl points out, 1m:2NT should not be a big deal, as not many 1m openers will look for slam opposite 12-14 balanced. On the other hand, 1m:3NT (15-17 bal) is another beast. Comments ? ;) Thanks ! :D Mauro