Chamaco

what would a double of 2C stayman have meant ? Some people play that a double of stayman is a sort of power double, others that it is lead directing for clubs. IMO this influences the meaning of this second round double.

From the point of view of bidding, this one gets my vote big time, together with any topic about handling 5 and 6-level decisions, both from the hand evaluation viewpoint as well as specific gadgets/agreement: how to make a slam try, how to show/deny 1st control in opp suit, how to show /deny 2nd round control in opps suit, forcing pass issues, etc.

I would invite game. We can go down in 3 if pard has much wasted, we can make 4 on many hands.

DELETE PLS, I misread the original post

Seems like a good agreement if X is made by a limited opener. I have faced some guesses of this sort playing strong club, and we have decided that 1M-(interference)-4M shall never be done with a low/medium ODR hand with 3/4 trumps, but will guarantee almost always 4+ trumps, so that potential saves might be less out-of questions. Having said that, this would not have helped here :-)

Same for me, my point was not directed towards you personally, I am sorry if it sounded so: I addressed the point, because the issue you raised (Defending HUMs takes time and energies and we are not pros) is a common complaint between many other players. Can I say I disagree with the argument of some players that say "I don't want to be forced to study as much as my opps?" If bridge is a competition, I think it's fair that (guaranteeing full disclosure and the conditions to do so) people who study more have an advantage. It might be sad but not unfair IMO. So if bridge is sen as a competition, my view is that time to devote to the game is a poor argument: in any copetiotion, if someone has more time to spend to prepare he will gain an advantage, even if less skilled (and I make no difference here in bridge in time devoted to practice card play and time needed to learn and digest a HUM system) If bridge is a GAME and not a competition, I can understand the opposite point.

IMO it is a matter of pship agreements. 1) Does a rebid by opener promise a full opening ? 2) Does 3rd seat opener with sub-opening values guarantee tolerance to pass any reply by pard ? If the answer to both 1 and 2 is yes, then it make sense t treat this hand just as if pard had opened 1st/2nd seat. What would you respond with this hand to a 1st/2nd seat opening ? If you'd bid 1S planning to jump raise, then do the same here, because if pard rebids he guarantees a full opening and thus the situation is just like a 1st/2nd seat pening, where the 1S bid serves the purpose to describe better the hand if pard has to decide whether it fits or not in the side values. BUT, if the partnership did not agree on either 1) or 2), I can understand the pluses of using Drury, ignoring spades.

I'd think the other way around. Allow everything in most tourney, and create a special venue for the "No gadgets bridge" :) I am sure you know of the Portland Club, where even the takeout double was considered artifical (non-penalty!!) and therefore banned :P Would you be happy if you were forced to play without the takeout double just becuse some simple soul thinks it's "highly unusual" and hard to defend against? :blink: Indeed, what is artificial or not depends only on how frequently we face it: if we would allow HUM= Highly Unusual Methods to be played frequently, they'd become HFM = Highly Frequent Methods , and therefore not looked at with suspicion <_<

I disagree with the argument: "HUM players force us to spend too much study to defend against them, and we are not pros" So what ? They also have to spend more time to study. Same thing happens in chess: many players choose offbeat systems which REQUIRE specific knowledge not to get busted, and even non-pro players have to do their homeworks, like it or not. I do not find it outrageous if some players who are willing to devore more time (even in bidding alone) get some good boards just for that (as long as full disclosure is guaranteed of course). If a chess player comes complaining about "my opp beat me just because he knew the opening better than me", he won't find many other players ready to accept this complaint. Of course, this makes the game tougher, with more need to prepare, but that's life. ====================== However, I understand that from the practical viewpoint, full disclosure is almost impossible in rotating pairs events, so that could be a factor to limit HUMs there; but in team matches, when there is time to discole the system without hurrying from table to table, I think they should be allowed. Moreover, in the long run, "unusual systems" become usual.

I did not say that a light 1H opener should guarantee 3 cads in spades, did I ? All I am saying is that (at least in my agrements, borrowed from Mike Lawrence's book on passed hand bidding), when 3rd seat opener rebids ANYTHING at second round, (s)he promises a full opener: that means that a NON-OPENER should be ready to pass any response by p, without exceptions (well, not really : only exception, artificial raises of course :) ), so he should have at least tolerance for spades. I agree with you that a 1H light opener might often be a good bet, even with a doubleton spades, but if/when we do it, we must be ready to pass the 1S response among others, to discriminate full openers (which would rebid) from hands worth just an overcall. ==================== Incdentally, I agree with the posters who suggested that a 1S bid will lead to a better hand description and evaluation by pard, if opener has indeed a full opening.

That's fair enough. But some people do like it, and not necessarily to trick oponents, but they might enjoy the bidding part. So I understand that one does not like it, but from disliking some tactics to outright banning it there is a huge leap. I don't like some neighbours but sometimes I have to be in the elevator with them B) Again, this is *your* legitimate perspective. The game of bridge is multifaceted, why you or I should think that one part or the other is the "right" part of the game ? Some players think that bidding is only a preliminary to card play, some others think that card play is only a justification of the bidding. There's no right or wrong. And in a way or another, destructive bidding is played by many "natural players" In a previous post you mention "having fun", not looking for a sponsor; and some players indeed have fun with HUM systems. Banning HUMs just limits the fun and enjoyment of some players. Of course the result would not be good, but let them try it: I have seen this happen in every sport, the lesser players must be free to TRY the weapons of the champs, they want to have a chance to emulate them. They lose, they learn from the mistakes, but most of all, they are enthusiastic of being able to feel for one day like Garry Kasparov or Meckwell, or whoever u want ! It'snot important that they lose or that they don't learn, what matters is they feel happy to be allowed to try it. :D

It is just too bad that some systems/conventions are restricted (sad to say, in Italy too). Who are we to decide whether bridge is only a game or a mind's sport, with the intellectual pleasure to experiment and investigate (including bidding) ? And who are we to tell whether card play is the most valuable part ? I mean, it can be for some, but not for all. Banning systems is wrong IMO, and coming from the world of chess it sounds strange: in Chess, too, you can try to trick your opps by adopting weird openings if opps do not know them, and sometimes it works: but if the openings are not sound, sooner or later you get busted. All the opps have to do is do their homeworks to counter these unusual weapons: and I cannot see why the should not, if they don't they lose, that's natural selection. And inded, I have to say, the growth and decline of many offbeat systems in chess (e.g. the "Hypermodern systems" from the 30s and so forth) have enriched the game, not the contrary, provided one wants to put the effort to learn from them. I cannot imagine what modern chess would look like, if at the time, people would have been barred from opening a fianchetto LOL =========================== Having said that, I would like to emphasize one thing that always stroke me since the beginning: it makes no sense to me to allow a system at pro level and ban it in club events. Why ? Sports and competitions are based on the "spirit of emulation": e.g. I watch a World Champion use his favourite weapon, and I wanna try it too, even if i am the worst patzer. I want to be allowed to TRY the same things as World Class players. Show a kid what the champions do, and he will want to try it: that the trick to gain enthusiasm and audience. It is so frustrating to read books and chronicles featuring fancy methods and know that if you try them you'll be punished. And, I am not talking of efficiency in learning: I know learning goes through card play, card combos, deduction and counting. yet, you should allow lesser players to dream, trying fancy methods even if that makes no good. That happens all the time in chess: newcomers wanna try right away the wildest defences that need close preparation, and sooner or later they get busted, but guess what ? They have fun, and their love for the game grows in the meantime. ========== Bottomline: if you wanna ban a system, ban it for JUST ABOUT EVERYONE, newcomers or at least intermediates should be allowed to play the same stuff pros do.

Could be, although the 3C bid may want to keep the bidding open if I have a balanced 8-9 (or a bad 10) with doubleton support or equivalent (e.g. 4333), which could be consistent with the bidding. What I mean is that opener does not necessarily guarantee a battleship with 3C, but might hold simply a (really) good hand that wants to give a shot to game if I am maximum. BTW, offering a Moysian in hearts seems to take quite a position, as all the ruffing values will be in the hand with 4 trumps, with the high likelihood of losing trump control. While this is not so dramatic in a partscore, where it often happens hat declarer scrambles home with 8-9 tricks, it seem much more dangerous in game contracts.

I have 6 working hcp and flat shape, and no extras from what I promised (no ruffing values, so 3rd trump is not a feature) already, unless the partnership has agreed to play VERY light 1NT bids, this is a bare minimum. Because shape is bad, from my side of the table I shall bid game only on power (maximum hcp content), and that would mean to be in the 8-9 hcp range (or even a good 7 such a suit with AK or AQJ) excluding the values in diamonds. I bid 3S offering a signoff.If game is on shape, pard will have shape, and can still go on. If pard has the hand Winston has suggested, he'll bid 4S himself (my 1NT bid already showed I am not broke, and my 2S preference has shown spade tolerance). I'd expect a 5=4=1=3 shape rather than a 6=3=1=3 shape

EDIT: remove this please :(

I'd handle this situation just as if pard had opened 1st/2nd seat. If pard opened light, he should be ready to pass any response: if he did open light but had no tolerance for spades, he made a bad choice, I should not plan my bidding catering for that. Hence, if pard passes 1S, that should not be a tragedy. Otherwise, if he rebids, he will guarantee a full pener, and I can invite just as if pard had opened 1st /2nd seat (whatever the methods used to show a 3 card limit raise)

IMP None vuln Pard opens a "standard" better minor 1D and RHO overcalls 3H preemptive. You hold AQTxxx-xxx-Qx-Ax 1D-(3H)-3S-(pass) 4H - (pass)- ? No fancy agreements. What would you bid in a Team Match assuming a reliable pard but no gadgets available (except fairly normal stuff such as cuebidding, RKCB, and Grand Slam force) ? 1. no state of the match issue, assume this is the first deal 2. assume "normal" opponents, not too weak, not too strong, about the same level as your team. 3. assume more or less a "normal" minimum strength for the 1♦ opener, say from a shapely 11 upwards In short, what would you bid under "normal" conditions ? ;)

Under the given conditions, no. I would NEVER open such a hand in 1st/2nd seat, no matter the vulnerability, unless the partnership style had agreed to open most normal 9-10 count. In my opinion this hand is simply NOT an 11 count. I think this hand qualifies closer to a 9-10 than to an 11 count (semiflat shape, lots of quacks etc etc).

Over Polish-like club, some italian pairs play a straight forward agreement that 1D shows a takeout for majors, usually unbalanced, and DBL is a sort of power double, typically weak NT or better. Other bids are moe or less standard but every pship allows for gadgets for 2 suiters (Mich+U2NT or Ghestem or whatever)

As I consider myself within the "lower level player" definition, I'll respond why I feel more comfortable opening lighter: the reason is that with that kind of hands (say a minimum of a shapely 10/11 count with nothing wasted) I feel I need to deliver my strength/shape sooner or later in the auction but if I wait the next round the bidding might be already at a dangerous level to stick in. Especially for a lower level player it takes a great deal of discipline to let the bidding die passing throughout when you do "feel the urge" to show your features. Under such conditions, if I cannot restrain myself, I rather prefer to open those hands right away and then pull the brake later.

You can construct some 5530 hands and not open them with MisIry, usually with both minors or a minor and a weak five card major. But on this hand if you open 1S and partner bids 1NT, then a jump to 3H is an "underbid". Why is that? 1S-1N-3H (if you play MisIry and Riton) shows 5-5 or 6-5 and 5 losers (or 4 losers but very control poor). I play, in a Precision-like context, much the same way as Ben: - 3-level "reverse" after a limited opening are 55 or better, about 5 losers - 2NT rebids after a limited opening are 64 hands or better, about 5 losers - 4.5 - losers 55 or better are handled via higher level openings - strong club denies 2 suiters

For specific sequences, I have used some Constrained deal generators (I use "Dealer"), to create hands suitable for some specific bidding sequences. Then I split the set of hands for North and South, in separate documents (I use excel spreadsheets, but anything will do), and then send one doc to my partner via email. We then email back and forth the bidding for a set of about 10 hands. It's slower than the partnership bidding practice room on BBO, but it does not require both people logged in at the same time. Also, using a custom Deal generator allows to control the opps bidding hands for contested auction better than the current Partnership bidding room in BBO (even using GIB Bots for contested auctions).

I wonder why noone has ever suggested the following (or did they?): write bidding sequences on a piece of paper and stick them on the wall in front of the toilet. The rest is obvious I guess :mellow: I think the BB posters will agree almost unanimously that the toilet is the elected place for thinking sessions :-)

Credo che questa mano illustri l'inconveniente del ritorno in conto (2) da una colore senza onori. Con i miei p giochiamo che il ritorno in conto di piccola garantisce almeno un Jxxx oppure Txxxx. Con xxx(xx) ritorniamo di carta piu' alta o di seconda carta piu' alta. Naturalmente è facilissimo costruire mani in cui anche questo accordo genera confusione ahimè :( Non arrivo agli estremi di alcuni con cui ho giocato ("Un 2 deve promettere assolutamente un onore maggiore o comunque un buon colore !!!" frase di solito enunciata con concitazione e rimprovero), ma credo comunque che una cartina debba promettere almeno almeno un 10 nel colore.

You need to figure out how to ask the Q of trumps. Indeed many players using 3NT turbo for major use 4NT to show/deny the trump queen. In some cases Turbo works pretty well, in other cases, it leaves one player "endplayed" in the bidding, e.g sometimes, I want to know how many keycards MY PARD HAS, but I am forced to show MY OWN KEYCARDS: e.g. when pard's last cue was spades, I am forced to bid 4NT to SHOW even no of KC, or bypass 4NT, to SHOW an odd no. of KC; and there are cases where the better option would be if I could grab control of the bidding and start asking rather than continuing the cuebid interactive dialog. I like 4NT Turbo for MINOR SUIT SLAMS, with 4-level agreement/non agreement (e.g. 4NT shoes an even no of keycards, the bypass shows an odd no of keycards)