Chamaco

Why do you say that you are not sure why I asked this question ? It is obvious that I asked it because I believe it is not an easy choice and I want to improve my feeling for this preempt situations ! :D I just think that this hand has 6 losers (= equivalent in playing strength to a good opening hand) with an almost sure fit in a minor, and that makes it a candidate for slam. 3NT balancing cannot come from 14 balanced, it needs (if balanced) at least a good 1NT opening hand. With 14 balanced, N should sell out. I think that this hand does not need the "perfect hand" by balancer, 2 Aces and diamond K (11 hcp) plus just a little more already put the slam in good shape. The fact that I have an idea of my own does not exclude the fact that I am really not comfortable :unsure: with any of the choice I have to do here ;) This is why I like to get to know how more experienced player think, and collect a number of cases like that to discuss with my regular partners, that's how I think partnerships are built (but maybe I have to learn more on that, too! ... :P ) In any case, I was the 3NT balancer, and held the following hand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- N hand was: [hv=s=sa53haq63dk76caj2]133|100|[/hv] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The curious fact is that pard passed and RHO balanced to 4 spades. 3S-p-p-3NT p-p-4S- ? Here, should I double or make a forcing pass leaving to pard choice ? I doubled, and pard converted to 5D diamonds, making 6. I am not sure whether I should have corrected to 6 diamonds (if pard bids 5 D on his own without info on my support, I may as well bid 6). However, that was IMPS and not matchpoints (at matchpoints I do not like playing 5 minor if 3Nt was playable at all, and I often gamble to 6m), so did not want to lose game (besides, pard's pulling of the double suggested me he was much weaker than the actual hand). A final note: this happened in a pickup partnership on BBO, with the obvious effects on the level of uncertainty in borderline auctions like this one.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=stht7dat9854ckq54]133|100|Scoring: IMP East deals and opens 3♠. 3♠-p-p-3NT p-?[/hv] 3NT by pard is natural, to play, assuming you have a "normal" hand with about 7 hcp (Lawrence's "rule of 7"). What do you bid ? (Additional question: would new suit at 4 level be a "rescue bid" = "Pard I have a yarborough, let's get outta this crazy 3NT" ?)

This is also my position, but I would like to understand specifically which info from the bidding I should analyze to decide whether leading low or a honor.

Hi all, I'd like to have comments on which card to lead from QJxx and JTxx at a suit contract. Beginner's books teach us to lead the top honor at suit contract and lead low in a NT contract (unless we hold at least 8 or 9 as the 3rd card). Lawrence in "Opening leads" gives a small preference to the Q vs suit contract rather than leading small (based on some computer simulated deals). Blackwood in "The complete book of opening leads", also gives a slight preference to leading Q vs suit. Yet I have met quite a few experts who prefer to lead low from QJxx, and when I asked them why they said: "I have to find anywaythe 10 in pard's hand, oytherwise even leading Q wastes a trick. Furthermore leading low is harder to read from opponents, and it sometimes happens that, even when it should waste a trick, declarer does not make the right play at trick 1. OIt is true that it is harder to read also from pard , but in any case it is an attitude lead so pard will return the suit anyways, and defenders benefit more than declarer of the concealed location of honors. ". I have started experimenting leading low from QJxx vs sit, with good and bad results, and it seems to me that one should lead a honor or a low card *according to the circumstances*. *according to the circumstances* is a very clever expression, but says nothing :) , so I'd like hints from the experts as to which hints from the bidding I shd use in order to make my choice... For example: what inference I shd draw according to the fact that LHO or RHO has length or shortness in the suit ? etc etc.. Thanks !!! :D

Italian Master Enzo Riolo (former european champion) said: "If one sits at the table to demonstrate to be smart, then he'd better give up any hopes in bridge; if he sits trying to make less mistakes than the others, maybe he has some hopes"

It depends on whether or not the field plays weak NT. If they open strong NT, the field is likely to settle in a 2 of major partscore.

The point is that I just think that 10-12 3rd seat does not pay off regardless of the vulnerability. Mini NT is great when LHO does not know the strength of your pard (e.g. he has not passed); in that case, he risks a big penalty to overcall with shaded values. Instead, if pard has passed and you open a miniNT, 4th seat knows a lot: 1- ur pard did not open a miniNT: if he is balanced, he has at most a bad 10 2- ur pard did not preempt 3- the "premptive " nature of 1NT does not even offers the advantage of lead direction. Therefore: a ) Risk of overcalling is greatly reduced b ) At matchpoints they can try to trap you in a doubled partscore (rare enough, but quite a serious optionn when pard has passed and they do not see game) c ) if/when they buy the hand, they can play almost double dummy I would say that, all in all, commonsense screams prudence if you are balanced in 3rd seat

I think what Helene refers to is about JS by responder. In the example of this post, however, JS is made by OPENER, so it is another matter. However, just a point here on responder's JS according to Lawrence. As far as I can tell from Lawrence's books, the main point of jumps in his phylosophy is not so much to show strength in hcp (this can be done in a number of way even in Lawrence's system), but to show suit quality and honors concentration. This is actually very useful, because it is much harder to show honors concentration and describe well your hand by some normal game forcing sequence: you may have scattered GF values, so pard will not visualize your hand as well as you do after a jump Strong jumpshift in majors have the advantage of setting the trump suit, even if pard is not happy with it, so from now on one effectively saves one or 2 bidding level (those that usually is consumed to convince pard that your major should be trump even if he is void) to start cuebidding and /or describing hand further. I think strong jumpshifts at the 2 level are useful even if u play 2/1 as absolute GF. Jumpshift by responder in minors at the 3 level are another beast: first, you want to play in a minor much less often, second, they are so useful for conventional raises (especially of majors, whichever u play) that their frequency and usefulness outscore that of the strong JS.

Thanks Ron. I still try to recall my thought process for sacrificing and it was more or less something like the following: 1) it is true I described my shape (6-5), but my pard does not know *within the boundary of these shape* the ODR of my hand. My hand is worthless in defense, *after opps showed a double fit*. It is not unrealisitic to expect that my hand can bring *at most* one defensive trick, with heart likely to run. 2) I tried to figure out a hand by pard that could defeat 5 hearts but I could not. Maybe the key of the hands are the clubs and pard maty have a trick there, yet in figuring out the possible hands I evaluated that in most cases, if pard had a trick for me, either 5!s was a good sac or it made... But again, that's why I am not an expert ... (I wish ZAR points could fix this for me but I doubt... hehe) :blink:

Thanks Mike, I was suspecting that the final 5S bid was greedy. This is a confirmation, and I liked your arguments :blink:

Claus, as you raise this point, I feel compelled to answer. I like your enthusiasm in posting and sharing your knowledge. But I have to be sincere on your posts, since you raise this point. When I post on any forums, I am looking for advices. Advices are better given when they are practical, on specific points. Specifically, when I have doubt on a convention or a sequence, I'd like to know whether what I think can lead to problems and specifically which problems. Answers like "Just play relays" are ok, *the first time*. But when I explain *why* relays are not an option, there is no point in keeping on telling that the way is the wrong one without giving a constructive alternative that is not relay. Then if you think that relay isd the only way to go, no need to post again, you already told it. This is not constructive, but only destructive. My own personal system ? I do not want to invent anything, my skill is so low that all I can do is to try to keep simple the system, so my pards won't go crazy. And to try to do it using the conventions used my good players which are the best compromise between effectiveness and resources required. But after my posts, you know that very well and nevertheless you continue to beat on, generating only frustration rather than being constructive. My own personal system ? I try to base the system on original precision, and avoid relays, that's it. I do not think to be the only one who have thought of using 1M:2NT even in Precision (since it is mentioned also in Rosenkranz article on maxi raises). I know you are better, you know more stuff on bidding etc etc, but once you know that I try to simplify the system in order to have limited openings (which I believe is an achievement anyway), but avoiding relays because I want to grow together with my friends otherwise qwe have too much stuff to study, PLEASE STOP REPEATING I want to play a proicvate system and that I go against the phylosophy of relays and strong club system. You wrote this a number of times, now it is clear and I will do it nevertheless because I value my partners more than the phylosophy of accurate relays. Other people besides you on the Forum (e.g. inquiry, misho, Flame, kfgauss, Free, hrothgar, the hog, luis, mikestar, Trpltrbl, and many more- sorry if I forget people here) mentioned the fact that relays work better on most uncontested sequences, but then they understood my level and my needs and when I post a specific question, they are very helpful, because they give specific advices on this and that sequence. This is constructive and very appreciated, really.

Sorry, but needs more explanation for me. I am not experienced as you all folks :( , but I thought that playing Precision, the hand is limited anyway in HCP. 1) So (still thinking aloud... B) ) my evaluation should not be based on HCP but on playing strength. As I posted elsewhere, I think that my ODR is as high as it could be, and I will bid 4S on any opps bid. 2) (Still thinking aloud... :ph34r: ) My only fear is that bidding 1D and ONLY then showing spades is not preemptive enough and will make it easier to opps to compete at the 5 level. 3) (Still thinking aloud... :blink: ) With a 6-5 bagger and worse ODR ratio, say ♠ATxxx+♦Axxxxx+Ax♣, I'd open 1 spade, this hand has a much worse playing trick potential, and has more defensive tricks. ----- FROM ANOTHER POST -- 4) most people would open the hand 1S, fearing a jammed auction... --- cut --- My personal consideration I still believe that this hand can bid (spades) at the 4 level on his own after opening 1D and opps jamming the bidding: Using ZAR: 34 zar points + whatever adjustment if there is a fit Using LTC: 4.5 losers If pard has nothing to contribute, they have at least game or slam on. But then again, this is probably one of the many reason why I am not an expert ! 5) Sacrificing at the 5 level I am still struggling with eveluating my decision whether to bid on or not at 5 spades. I chose to bid for the following: I have no defense at all, and opps have shown a double fit fot hearts and clubs, there must be more trciks than trumps around. Also, a long suit like my diams gives additional potential for squeeze plays. If one of my Kings were an Ace, I'll think twice before bidding 5S, but as it is, I bid. Also, note that as it is, 5 hearts for opps is laydown unless diams are 2-2 AND we find a defense including diamond lead and a club ruff in return, and cashing the other diamonds. With any other layout or play, E-W will lose 1 or 2 diamonds, draw trumps, and discard spade losers (3-2 split) on clubs. Could some expert comment on my reasoning that led me to bid 1D first and then to bid 5S as a sort of semi-sacrifice ? I'd like to know if and what was wrong in my thought processes, thanks ! :P

Partner will not be in on the joke when you retreat..... and if he is, and he has ♥, he will be have deemed to catch your psyche. This is a risky kind of psyche when you now have three opponents at the table. Ben Ty, now I get the risk of 2 hearts better. What do you think of the 1NT psyche instead ?

Browsing the various Forum subsections, the icons for each topic thread has an envelope of a different color. An orange envelope is a "hot topic", but the "temperature" ;) of the topic as I see is unrelated to the cumulative number of posts or views. Is it related to its *daily* posting rate ? Or What ? Thanks !!

What about psyching 2♥ or a 1NT overcall (if u play this as "natural") and then planning to retreat to clubs ?

Sorry, but needs more explanation for me. I am not experienced as you all folks :( , but I thought that playing Precision, the hand is limited anyway in HCP. So (still thinking aloud... ;) ) my evaluation should not be based on HCP but on playing strength. As I posted elsewhere, I thgink that my ODR is as high as it could be, and I will bid 4S on any opps bid. (Still thinking aloud... :P ) My only fear is that bidding 1D and ONLY then showing spades is not preemptive enough and will make it easier to opps to compete at the 5 level. (Still thinking aloud... :blink: ) With a 6-5 bagger and worse ODR ratio, say ♠ATxxx+♦Axxxxx+Ax♣, I'd open 1 spade, this hand has a much worse playing trick potential, and has more defensive tricks. -------------- I'll appreciate comments by all you experts on such issues, these are the sort of decisions that an intermediate/beginner often misses, so it is nice to see you folks think aloud :)

Thanks to all those who replied. I'll try to summarize in my own words the results of this poll: 1) most people would open the hand 1S, fearing a jammed auction that cannot show a spade 5 bagger if open 1D. But there are players who believe that this specific hand has so much offense that would not be scared to open 1D and bid spades later, whatever the bidding level. My personal consideration I still believe that this hand can bid at the 4 level on his own after opening 1D and opps jamming the bidding: Using ZAR: 34 zar points + whatever adjustment if there is a fit Using LTC: 4.5 losers If pard has nothing to contribute, they have at least game or slam on. But then again, this is probably one of the many reason why I am not an expert ! ;) 2) Sacrificing at the 5 level I am still struggling with eveluating my decision whether to bid on or not at 5 spades. I chose to bid for the following: I have no defense at all, and opps have shown a double fit fot hearts and clubs, there must be more trciks than trumps around. Also, a long suit like my diams gives additional potential for squeeze plays. If one of my Kings were an Ace, I'll think twice before bidding, but as it is, I bid. Also, note that as it is, 5 hearts for opps is laydown unless diams are 2-2 AND we find a defense including diamond lead and a club ruff in return, and cashing the other diamonds. With any other layout or play, E-W will lose 1 or 2 diamonds, draw trumps, and discard spade losers (3-2 split) on clubs. 3) Best way to play trumps for one loser I liked the clear explanation by flame: I have 1 trump loser for sure, I have to play for Hx on one side and Hxx on the other. Leading twice to KQ wins only with Ax on the RIGHT side, whereas cashing KQ wins with Jx on either side. Final question on this layout: would you play the same holding the 9 ? E.g. same bidding, same hand but trumps are: North T9x South KQ873 Thanks ! Mauro

Hi all, here's a hand I played tonight at my club, I'll appreciate all comments !! Thanks a lot !!! :( Mauro -------- [hv=d=s&v=b&s=skq873hxxdkqjt9xc]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] You play precision with 1D including 13-15 balanced, and all unbalanced hands with diamonds, including 6D-5M. Question 1: do you open a systemic 1D ? or a "tactical" 1S ? (e.g. Boss suit first, harder for opps to compete, if 5c major was heart, it would different) ------------------------------------------------------------ Question 2 I opened 1D. Bidding proceeded 1♦-(2♣)-pass-(2♥) 3♠-(4♥)-4♠-(5♣) ? Do u bid 5 spades or pass or (ouch!)double ? And why ? ------------------------------------------------------------- Question 3 I ended up playing 5 spades and received a club lead. Actually here, being at IMPS, the trump play did not really matter because I had 2 hearts losers with the A♥ offside. But assume I was playing 4 spades with club lead. Which would be the best way to play trumps for one loser ? Leading twice towards KQ of spades ? Maybe percentage play "a priori" but likely to fail since most high cards rates to be with LHO (who overcalled a vulnerable 2C) ? [hv=d=s&v=b&n=stxxhkxdaxxc98732&s=skq873hxxdkqjt9xc]133|200|Scoring: XIMP 1♦-2♣-p-2♥ 3♠-4♥-4♠[/hv]

From my (dummy) viewpoint, in 15 ;) words, it boils down to the following: "Hand evaluation based on improved Losing Trick Count with adjustments for controls and fit honors." As Ben has suggested several times, I did look at some past hands I played and reviewed them with ZAR and the conclusion is that ZAR points would have helped a non-expert oplayer like me, who has not fully developed the judgment skill of a master. I do not expect ZAR system to substitute judgment (just like any evaluation method such as the Losing Trick Count or the Law of Total Tricks), nor I will change my bidding system to cater for Zar points; however I do think that in borderline, unclear situations I will make use of what ZAR evaluation suggests.

Thanks all for your help. There is consensus that 2♠ should be TAb on the way for slam investigation. Now suppose pard shows the following after my inquiries: 1) 5 cards and 2 of the top 3 honors in trumps 2) no control in hearts. Is the slam worth bidding ? Yes, I understand this is more a "slam bidding judgment" question rather than a systemic one, but I need to improve much also in slam bidding !!! ;) :D ----------------- PS- OOpss !! Right after posting I realized Flame has already responded to this question :)

I won't sing the song, the BB Forum could suddenly crash!!! :D B)

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sjxxhkxxdakcakqtx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♣-p-1♠*-1NT** ? *1♠ = 8 + hcp, 5+ card, GF **1NT = ♥+ ♦ [/hv] Some notes. 1) In "normal" limited auction (e.g. 1D-p-1M-2y-?), we play support double. Should I double for support or should double show something else ? 2) Without overcall, 2♠ would be Trump Asking Bid. Should it be so also after overcall ? 3) Do you you look for slam ? If yes, what is the plan for the next rounds of bidding ?

Using NT bids as artifiial is something I like in cases where you do not want to play a NT contract. This is because if there is the slight possibility to play NT, I want it to be played from the right side, and not the unbalanced hand receiving the lead. So I like NT transfers for weak hands. Or I like NT conventional bids to show a fit for a major. In both cases we won't be playing NT. But with good hands where a major fit is not found, using conventional NT is very dangerous. You want to be playing NT and you want the right side to play it.

Hi all, :D laste week the following deal happened at the table with my pard. We play Precision with 10-12 NT and 2C as 6+ clubs or 5C+4M. [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sa952hq86daj2ca95&s=sk3hj974dkckqj876]133|200|Scoring: MP PASS-1♦-Dbl ?[/hv] What should South bid ? - In standard methods beginners are taught to Redouble with good hands to show "points" (usually 10+) - then, after a while, we study more advanced bok that explain that "redouble is good for hands suited for penalizing opps; with good unbalanced hands, better show them with conventional bids/raises, otherwise they may jam the auction preempting in the suit where you are short". - This hand is unbalanced, more offense than defense, according to the last point, such hand should not redouble, so I need to find a bid that describes both shape AND hcp. -without agreements, new suit at the two level shows a 6-9 hand, non forcing, so I must either change the agreements, e.g. 2/1 is forcing one round, or find other conventional bids for unbalanced hands without majors. - in the last version of SAYC I was using the following agreements after 1M doubled and 1m doubled a) 1M-X- ? - Redouble = good hand (10+) with potential for penalizing opps - new suit at level 1 = 1 round forcing -1NT->2D = Cappelletti transfers -2M-> preemptive raise with 4 trumps -2NT/3C/3D = Jacoby/Inverted Bergen raises - all other jumps not defined above = preemptive b)1m-X-? - Redouble = good hand (10+) with potential for penalizing opps - new suit at level 1 = 1 round forcing - 1NT = natural - 2/1 (non jump)= 6-9 hcp natural 5+ - 2m = weak raise - 2NT = preemptive raise to 3 of a minor (flip flop) - 3m = invitational raise to 3 of a minor (flip flop) - jumpshift in other minor (1C:2D or 1D:3C) = unbalanced GF raise ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This has generally worked well so far, however I suppose that with Precision 1D (with balanced 13-15 hands) , things are different. In particular with the above hand, pard is stuck. According to this scheme, she should redouble, no other option. Do you suggest to use 2/1 as a 1-round force ? Or is there a better treatment to deal with this sequence ? Thanks !!

Need to add if responder didn't ask by 3♦, he show singleton/void with hand stronger than splinter. 1M-2NT, 3♣-? 3♦: ask for shortness 3OM/4♣/4♦: splinter Other bids depend of 2NT range. We play with Ben 2NT as inv+. In this case they are natural and NF. Misho Ciao Misho from the Tiger of Mompracem !! :) May I ask if you or Ben could post the full development of your 2NT invitational + response ? I am planning in the near future to move to fitshowing jumps after 1M opening (following Robson/Segal), and 2NT would become inv+, so a good scheme as the on eyou mentioned u play with Ben, would be very interesting to me ! :)