Chamaco

Le monocolori invitanti le potresti descrivere con lo stile in cui il 2/1 ripetuto è solo invitante. Questo ti permette di fermarti in un parziale a livello 3 in caso di misfit con 22-23 p.o. e non incide troppo sui meccanismi del 2/1. Anche io uso lo stile Bergen e la cosa non mi provoca particolari problemi. Nel caso di bel colore laterale 5o e appoggio nobile 3o, il SA forzante non ha troppe controindicazioni, ti permette di sentire la distribuzione del compagno, e vedere se sei in misfit oppure no, prima di decidere se dare l'appoggio a salto a livello 3 (invitante) o chiudere a manche a livello 4. E' vero che talvolta il compagno potrebbe essere interessato a sapere del tuo palo laterale per essere lui a decidere invece che il rispondente, ma questo è un problema piu' significativo nei sistemi naturali, mentre nel Precision, l'apertore che ha max 15 p.o. spesso lascia decidere al rispondente il contratto. In alternativa al SA forzante, ci sono sistemi a relay. Un sistema molto preciso di sviluppo delle aperture 1 nobile (sempre basato su fiori forte, quindi 1♥/♠ = 11-15) è il "Viking Club", se leggi l'inglese puoi trovare gli sviluppi a: http://www.vikingclub.net/ Sostanzialmente hanno rovesciato il SA forante (mani invitanti) e il 2♣ relay forcing manche scambiandone i significati, e adottando una struttura di risposta ai relay da parte dell'apertore per descrivere la mano ed il punteggio.

-------------Ciao Misho !!!------------ :) I am a little concerned ;) of using scrambling sequences by doubler, such as the one you describe (also referred to as "Equal Level Conversion"- ELC). The one thing that attracted me of Raptor 1NT was exactly the fact that it allowed to avoid offshape doubles, therefore Dbl + new suit was always a good reverse hand. :) Having a balanced hand, I will rather pass any pard's bid , e.g. a 2♣ bid by responder even holding a doubleton.

How much lighter ? E.g. are these the suggested ranges ? Dbl+1NT = 17+/19 Dbl+2Nt = 19+/22 Do you differentiate between -Dbl+ 2NT up the line (e.g. advancer responds at the 2 level and the doubler bids 2NT) - Dbl + *jump* to 2NT (advancer responds 1 of a suit and doubler jumps to 2NT) Do you agree with Mikestar suggestion to balance more frequently with length in opps suit ? If so, how light do you go? Any example hand ? Sorry, maybe many questions, but trying to get the idea of the entire overcalling/balancing framework that revolves around the use of Raptor :( Thanks !! :(

How much is sufficient values ? Any example hand for a minimum balancing hand ? I hate to balance with less than 11 with length in opps suit. :( I think length in opps suit is a great indicator of trouble in the decision of marginal balancing, and a framework that requires me to do so may be somewhat discouraging to me... :(

Hi all !! The new BBO software is great ! :) I just wonder I I can sort tables by empty seats as I used to do before, there must be a way, I just could not figure it how !! :)

Hi all, I have been proposed to start playing the "Raptor" 1NT overcall, showing one only 4 card major + a longer minor. With std methods, when u are dealt such a hand, one is usually torn between an offshape takeout double (pard will certainly bid your singleton/doubleton major) double, a minor suit overcall (may lose a major 4-4 fit), a 4 card major overcall (only with a strong 4 bagger), or a reluctant pass (often your values will be hard to describe fully with a "pass-then-bid" sequence). This sounds good. Yet, I am a little suspicious about what you lose by giving up the natural 1NT overcall. So below are a few questions to people that tried for real the Raptor 1NT, and liked it or rejected on the basis of real experience. Thanks ! 1) LOSING the natural 1NT In the sources I found, it seems that the best policy is to pass a natural 1NT hand which does not hold 3 card support for the unbid suits. Raptor 1NT fans suggest that a natural 1NT overcall is dangerous anyway when pard is broke, and when he isn't, he will bid something even if you have to pass holding a 1NT hand. Do you agree with this? I have not enough experience to tell whether it happens more often to miss a 17+ 8 HCP 3NT, or if it is more frequent to be doubled in 1NT without a decent runout to 2-of-a-suit. 2) SHOWING BIG BALANCED HANDS Which is the better balanced hand you may pass ? Do you pass an 18 balanced count ? a 19 ? This affects the range shown by the takeout double followed by a NoTrump rebid. Playing natural, I generally use 16-bad 19 for a natural 1NT overcall, and a good 19+ for Dbl/NT. So the range for Dbl/NT is relatively high, but I can afford this since my 18 count hands are made almost justice by a natural 1NT overcall. But, if I adopt the Raptor 1NT overcall, what should I do holding an 18 count ? - pass: risks to miss a good game everytime pard has 7/8 HCP unsuited for blancing or overcalling - dbl/NT: a clear overbid, much riskier than the natural 1NT overcall defined "dangerous" by Rptor fans. 3) RESPONDING TO A TAKEOUT DOUBLE I suppose that thi is the real plus side of the Raptor: since pard has excluded offshape T/o dbl, the normal responses are more effective. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks !!! :) Mauro

Per una breve descrizione delle differenze fra SAYC e 5a nobile italiana, leggi il seguente thread. http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=1578 Non è una trattazione completa, ma copre gli aspetti principali.

You can try this: the most freakish distribution of a single suit is when N+S hold 0 or 13 cards in a suit. Therefore, the less freakish hand would be when they hold a combined length of 6.5 (pick 6 or 7 if you like). So, the more a suit length deviates from 6.5, the more it adds to the "hand freakness". Using "CL" to indicate the Combined Length of NS in a suit, and "abs" to indicate the absolute value of a number (= always itspositive value) then try the follwing index (COMBINED FREAKNESS INDEX): CFI= abs(CL♣ - 6.5) + abs(CL♦ - 6.5) +abs(CL♥ - 6.5) +abs(CL♠ - 6.5) The index varies from 1 (e.g. 4333 vs 3433 or 1651 vs 6115) to 26 (eg 13-0-0-0 vs 0-13-0-0) CFI = 1-4 -----> flat hands CFI = 5-8 -----> semibalanced to shapely hands CFI = 9-12 -----> distributional hands CFI = 13-16 -----> very distributional hands CFI = 17-20 -----> freaks CFI = 21+ -----> superfreaks (your friends made you a joke :D ) You may prefer to adjust these ranges if you want to make the computations easier by using 6 or 7 rather than 6.5. However, this simple index will not be able to describe the crossruff power. In fact, say you hold a 5521 vs 5125; CFI = (5+5-6.5) + (6.5- 5-1) + (5+2-6.5) + (6.5-6) = 3.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 = 5 The same value arises from 5323 vs 5323, since the combined length oif the suits are the same. So, the CFI is somewhat "conservative", in that it underestimates the freakness of misfit hands, which is often wise, but not really when you have long trumps in both hands and a crossruff is likely, or a long and strong side suit can be developed with ruffs. Perhaps it is fair to say that this CFI is more a measure of *FIT* rather than of *freakness*.

You can add your own notes on a specific player if you right-click on his name. This way you can enter any technicval detail (system/convention he plays), or personal comments. This is already implemented and works just fine for most cases :D

BBO started in April 2001 and I started to learn bridge on my own by studying the "Learn to play bridge" tutorial in may/june 2001. Someone on the rec.bridge.games had suggested me to get started playng vs humans rather than software, and he pointed be to BBO. I got there in July (after some more study :D ), and there were regularly logged between 8-20 persons. I started playing, very badly but I was playing bridge!! B) There were some good players, (maybe not expert, maybe yes, I could not tell then) who were very nice to give suggestions, also sometimes frustration transpired from their words when playing with clearly beginners. A few of them were also nice enough to offer short session of bidding practice oin specific topics (eg. 2C auctions or 1NT sequences) in the Partnership bidding room. After a few months, Shep's mentoring classes started and that was extremely useful to players like me. Now I won't make the chronicle of the rest of the 3 years that followed but the point is that many players, like me, started actually to play and learn bridge on BBO, not at a real club. At first, ignoring the atmosphere of many bridge clubs, I did not realize how lucky I was: I found bridge partners from any country, and stronger than me, ready to be friendly but as well giving suggestions for my improvement ! At a real bridge club, even an intermediate player often encounters problems in finding partners who are both patient and at a level that may contribute to your bridge improvement: this is probably natural, since a good player is more inclined to play single hands online with an unknown partner, because he can leave whenever he wants if he is not on the same wavelength; the same cannot be done at a real club, in MP tourneys or rubbers. The bottomline is that Fred's initiative worked - with me, and several other players - in the goal of helping the development of new advocates to the game of bridge. His site helped developing a friendly atmosphere and gave me opportunities to play more often and with any kind of players. And his software products (I got Bridgemaster, Counting, Defense, Private lessons 1-2 by Lawrence) were also great. So, THANKS FRED ! :P

North AJTxx- void -Txxx- KQ9x South xx- KQ9xx-AKJxx-A MP Pairs (I forgot vulnerability) After an uncontested auction, South is declarer in 6♦. West leads the ♣7. What is the best play at Matchpoints ? I did the following: 1- AK of trumps (2-2 break) 2- Now I have to decide how to play spades. If they break 3-3, I can discard one spade on dummy ♣K, ruff one spade, back to dummy with a ♥ruff, another ♠ ruff, and the last dummy trump is the vital entry to the good spades. However, if spades break 4-2, entries to dummy will not be enough, and I may lose 2♥ tricks. Therefore I decided to play safe: I conceded a spade trick (low to dummy's ♠J), in order to ensure this line even vs a 4-2 break, more likely than 3-3 break. Actually, as I write now, I see that this line would be vulnerable to a ♥ return, removing anyway an entry to dummy, so I should probably have played spade to the Ace and a spade, as a safety play ? So here are the questions: Q1- is the safety play I devised correct ? Q2- if so, is it advisable to adopt it in MP pairs play ?

Hi all, I'd like to know how to play the following slam N ♠K9 ♥AQ6 ♦A432 ♣10865 Sud ♠A432 ♥K1042 ♦J ♣AKQ9 Swiss teams, N-S vuln vs not. N-S reach 6♣, W overcalled 1♠. Opening lead: ♠Q Q1- What is the correct plan playing 6♣ ? Q2 - What would be the correct plan if playing 7♣ ? Thanks !!

Ok, thanks Fred, I think you are right, it should not be too difficult to do that by myself :D

Hi all, I do not know whether this question fits here or elsewhere, apologies if it sounds OT :P Anyway, here is the question: I am planning to order a BBO Tshirt. Is it possible- with the due fee supplement - to have one's "nick" printed, say, on the back of the Tshirt, so that for instance I would have "Chamaco" printed on it ? It would be so cool to attend to a BBO reunion with such a tshirt!!! :lol:

Hi Ben, just my thoughts: it is nice to have experts correct my hand evaluation, that would not happen often at my local club ! :D What do you think of the following considerations ? The K may be onside and that probably make this simply a bad 7 count (actually 6.7 according to the Kaplan Rubens hand evaluator, or 6+ Kleinman points - http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi). Yet I think that if pard does not have extras, it is better to defend because: 1) the hand is aceless 2) most values are Q, J and 9s. These values usually take more tricks in defense. 3) The only major honor is Kxx in the opps suit: even if it takes a trick, it won't help developing other tricks. 4) Playing Precision, I want my pard toi show 8+ hcp or at least a *very good* 7, not a *bad* seven count. I do not like the policy to bid with submininmal values in direct seat just for the fear of losing a major suit partscore. It is not the same to make a negative double with a 6/7 count or with a 8/9 count, especially when opener is limited to 15. I believe it is healthier to wait for pard to reopen. If the same hand were a 7 count but with one Ace, then I would have doubled happily :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Caren Do not worry, I do not consider this thread as a "who's to blame" thing :) , only a way to improve my hand evaluation, exactly as you ! :)

Hi all :D I think this hand arose when I was playing with Caren (42) on BBO. 1♦ was a Precision opener. My own requirements for neg X are based on the suggestions by Bergen: a good 6/7+hcp if I force p to bid at level 1 8+ hcp if I force p to bid at level 2 a good 9/10+ hcp if I force p to bid at level 3 a good 11/12+ at higher level. This hand not only has only 7 hcp and not 8 (admittely with a few 9's). It has Kxx in opps suit, which cannot be viewed, IMO, as 3 hcp. So I'd reevaluate the hand to 4/5 hcp at most after the 1♥ overcall. With that hand I'd much prefer 1NT: the risk is missing a major fit, but describes more accurately the hcp content. ---------------------------------------------------- Anyway we ended up playing 4♠ because of my fault, not Caren's ! :lol:

Ty WGF for your opinion, that's what I was looking for ! :lol: Maybe I shd have posted this thread as a poll, which is what it may end up being ! :rolleyes:

Thanks all ! WGF, I know there is a price to everything, I'd like to hear from you folks which price you are willing to pay! :rolleyes: The question to the experts was, more explicitly: do you prefer 1) to play that price to leave opps in the dark, but also leaving opener in the dark so he does not know whether to double if opps bid OR 2) to have a clear differentiation between a "pure" preemptive raise and some other bid to show a high card raise ? (for example after 1M opening: 4M = pure preemptive; balanced high card raise, in a Precision with 2/1 GF context = either 2NT, à la Lawrence/Gitelman 2/1, or - if using 2NT for conventional bids - 2 of new suit followed by 4M) ---------- Let me quote from Robson/Segal's online book on Partnerdship bidding " SUBSECTION TITLE: Making partner ‘boss’ of the auction You may be fearful of putting your opponents in a better position to judge the hand. This is (generally) a very misguided approach to your first bid in a competitive auction. It is a strategy associated with players who don’t respect their partners and who always blame them when things go wrong later in the auction. The point is, by making a very descriptive support bid you are only making your partner ‘boss’ of the auction. He alone knows the full extent of the fit/misfit, and (if you have any faith in him) that will be an excellent thing for your side. If LHO thinks that, ......... , he will soon discover otherwise - the hard way." It seems to me that according to this argument it is more logical to differentiate preemptive raises from good one, *even if opener's hand is limited* (since we know his HCP range but not his shape).

Complimenti ai ragazzi :rolleyes:

Hi all, one more chaotic post on my unclear ideas on bidding !!! :P Reading Berkowicz's "Precision today", I recognized that, discussing one of the merits of <16 limited openings, he suggests that a raise 1M:4M can be left as undetermined: either a "pure" preemptive raise = 4-5 cards support and very few HCP, or a good raise that excludes slam, say some balanced 3 cards support and 13 HCP. The advantage of such approach would be to leave opps in the dark, e.g. they do not know whether to double, bid or pass, since they ignore responder's strength. This makes sense, but it also affects the use of forcing pass and doubling issues. An example: IMPS, none vuln, you deal and open 1♥ 11-15 with Qxx-KQTxx-AJx-Qx 1♥-pass-4♥-4♠ Now I guess I would like to double if pard held a balanced good raise, but not if pard has raised to 4♥ with something like: void-Jxxx-Qxxxx-xxxx Similarly, I guess that holding something like x-KQTxx-AJxx-Qxx I'd like to make a forcing pass. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Forgive me if I brought bad examples, in that case I will encourage corrections to the type of hands I chose for forcing pass/double sequences and suggestions for better examples) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I would like to hear opinion on the tactics of concealing the strength of a raise (preemptive vs good): on one hand you lose the forcing pass options, on the other hand you leave opps in the dark. BBO Gurus, enlighten me !!! :rolleyes: B) (note sunglasses) :lol:

What is the meaning of LHO's 3♣ ? (i.e. constructive in a Lebensohl-ish scheme ?)

1♥-p-2♣- 2♠ is a clever psyche, but if bidding proceeds 3♦-p-6♥-? what would you bid ? If you bid 7♣ your pard is 100% sure to correct to 7♠ (in his view opponents did not bid them and you did :rolleyes: ) :D Then I don't think bidding 7NT would be a good rescue since opponents will be unable to lead clubs :)

Hi all, I tried to go thorugh the "help" section of the forum, but could not find the solution to this q :) Near my name, in each posts, there are now 2 percentage bars: 1) intermediate poster, with related message percentage 2) another percentage bar, referred to as "warn", 0%. Since I cannot see that bar for any other member, I wonder what that is. :rolleyes: Thanks to anyone will reply !! :D

I'd like to be so sure :rolleyes: Meckwell seem to think otherwise :P

With my p we have agreed to open extra-light (8+) in 3rd seat, with an eye to vulnerability and lead-direction (guidelines being the same adopted for overcalls: actually we treat 3rd hand light openings as anticipated overcalls) :rolleyes: I would open all the 3 given hands NV, or all vuln. At unfav vuln, I'd open only the better of the 3 (AQxxx in spades). We have another rule which must be respected strictly: if you open below opening value, you must be prepared to pass ANY reply by pard (not a splinter of course :P ). It turns that we frequently open light in spades, less frequently in ♥, and even less frequently in a minor (e.g. if we cannot tolerate a ♠ bid by pard bcos we have shortness there).