Chamaco

In my top list there are some bidding topics that are rarely covered systematically in literature: 1) HAND EVALUATION Decisions at the 5 and 6 level, immediately at the first or second bidding round, usually when strong preemption occurs. Example hands should also include "bad preempts" (e.g. preempts that do occur in real life bridge and we should learn to evaluate whether to double them or bid game/slam) 2) HAND EVALUATION + GADGETS How to handle 4M and higher-level openings by opps and 4S and higher level overcalls when pard opens at the 1 level. Especially, - detailed examples of how to decide to try for slam or not when opps preempt so high - detailed examples of how to continue the bidding when pard (our ourselves) have shown a 2-suiter with 4NT when opps preempted. =================================== As far as CARD PLAY is concerned, I'd like anything about timing in low level partscores. =================================== One more question/suggestion: perhaps, some of these topics could be preceded by sme bidding polls quizzes here on BB Forum ?

5 clubs, pass or correct in 5 of a minor

3S. Give a chance to p to bid 3NT.

Gazzilli Spell like: Gadzilli (a little like Godzilla :P ) It is the name of a player from Milan from the 60s/70s.

One might as well consider ♠ Q10 ♥ A853 ♦ Q72 ♣ 9632 too light for an invitation, opposite a minimum 2H rebid: flat hand, only 6 hcp that are useful for sure. Indeed, I know I sound like a broken record, but the "std" system shows his flaw, as there is no "in between" bid for opener to show a hand stronger than 2H but weaker than a 3H game force. I agree that either a strong club or a Roth-Stone requirement for 1 level opening or a Gazzilli-like scheme would work better.

10 di fiori. Se il dichiarante ha la Q di fiori, scarteraà una perdente , ma quello lo puo fare anche dopo : voglio obbliarlo a fargli scegliere quale perdente (cuori o quadri) scartare PRIMA che abbia avuto modo di verificare quale impasse gli va bene.

La premessa è discutibile, in quanto il salto a 2P è giocato: 1) da molti ancora forte, in monocolore a picche o bicolore picche+fit nel minore apertore 2) da moltissimi come bicolore 5picche e 4+ cuori con forza varia (dipende da accordi) 3) Altri ancora lo giocano come bicolore minore forte/debole (anche se è una minoranza) 4) anche chi lo gioca "debole" naturale, lo gioca con diverso significato in termini di forza: ....a ) per alcuni è un salto debole, ma semi costruttivo (es KQxxxx-Qxx-xxx-x), ....b ) per altri (per es. il 2/1 di Max Hardy) è debolissimo e nega qualunque potenziale di manche, praticamente mano (semi)bianca, ovvero di solito ha al massimo un K i termini di onori maggiori (es. tipico JTxxxx-xxx-xxx-x). Nel caso 4a, il rispondente deve decidere csa fare su apertura 1quadri se ha una mano tipo QTxxxx-xx-vuoto-Jxxxx, perchè con questa mano , i requisiti non sono sufficienti a saltare "debole ma costruttivo" a 2 picche. Quindi con questa mano bisogna passare (se la sequenza 1Q-1P-2C-2P non è passabile) Nel caso 4b, è giustificato invece lo schema proposto (1Q-1P-2C-2P forzante), ma si scombinano altri meccanismi in altre sequenze. Infatti il salto debole ma costruttivo serve per avere a disposizione la ripetizione del nobile a livello 2 come mano INVITANTE passabile, usando la ripetizione a salto come FM cvolore autonomo, ed il primo gradino come "3o colore forzante manche" (Bourke relay). nella sequenza 1m-1M-2m-?

Last Train should be used in conjunction with Serious 3NT. Here, with slam potential on, the bid is 3NT (although it is odd to try for slam when both hands have been limited, one by a nonforcing 2H, the other by 1NT and the single raise of H; the auction wd have been more logical after a jump to 3H by opener, another plug yadadada B) ). So, I would not blame the insuccess to the adoption of LTTC, but rather on a misapplication.

Yes, count me in this style. I'd jumpshift 3H with S's hand,so I am a passer with N It depends also how light we open at the 1 level: I frequently open shapely 10s with nothing wasted, so the minimum for my 2H rebid is ATxxx-AQxx-x-xxx. I guess this counts :rolleyes:

In this situation i sure see that pass has a lot of appeal. However, when I do have a fit, I like to anticipate opps and deliver it to pard ASAP. And of course, we all know that too huge a fit diminishes our defensive potential. I might consider pass if I could hope 1S X would be the final contract, but I doubt it, so I prefer to communicate the fit. There is a huge number of potential auctions where if I bid diamonds later after an initial pass, it will be unclear to pard that I was trying to trap pass. So, I am a simple soul, I support immediately with 4 card support, I have seen too many trap-pass tries that ended up only confusing pard.

utilizzare in questa sequenza 2P forcing ha vantaggi e svantaggi. Il vantaggio è quello di guadagnare spazio licitativo, specie per mani da slam. Lo svantaggio è perdere un signoff (e potersi fermare a livello di 2, spece in misfit, è spesso fondamentale, ancora di piu' se si è in misfit, perchè a livello 3 un buon avversario ci contra molto piu' spesso). Detto questo, se si usa 2P forcing, è fondamentale che la risposta 1/1 garantisca i canonici 6 p.o. (o anche 5 po. MLTO belli, con 1 asso) Quindi, se si gioca questo stile, se il compagno apre 1 quadri e abbiamo: Qxxxxx-xx-vuoto-Jxxxx Dovremo passare anche con vuoto nel colore del p. Se invece con questo tipo di mano la nostra partnership ammette la risposta 1 picche, allora sul rever 2C, 2 picche deve poter essere passabile. Come dicevo nel post preceente, il significato di questa sequenza va visto nel contesto del resto del sistema e requisiti per le risposte.

Indeed, and the best for us to learn is to listen to experts debates when they discuss the reasons of their likings. Hearing the different reasons/theories clamed by experts A,B,C,D helps us mortals seeing both sides of the coin, and develop our own way to decide for one solution or the other :)

I suppose that who uses the 2S rebid as forcing here, will guarantee something decent for a 1/1 bid. E.g. Holding the following hand, it should not be possible to respond 1S, but should pass in misfit, to avoid the problem posted in this thread Qxxxxx-xxx-void-Jxxx For such hands, those who use very weak JS might be ok, but then again, would you weakjumpshift to 2S with this hand when red vs white ?

Dopo gli ululati di Big, do' il mio contributo, cosi' imparerà che bisogna essere mlto cauti nell'esprimere desideri, il rischio è che vengano esauditi ! :-) :P Io credo che il significato delle sequenze di rever dipenda dal resto della struttura del sistema che uno gioca: per esempio, se si usano le aperture di 2 forte, il rovescio dopo apertura di 1 è automaticamente limitato (è meno forte di un'apertura di 2 forte). Analogamente, se si usano aperture convenzionali per dare bicolori forti da rovescio, la sequenza di rever è pure limitata. Detto questo, è chiaro che è dificile rispondere date le premesse ("senza accordi"). Devo sapere come minimo se sto giocando con uno straniero (in cui si assume, volenti o nolenti, lo stile SAYC, ovvero senza aperture di 2 forte), o con un italiano. Ad ogni modo. nel SAYC: 1) il rovescio (1Q:1P:2C) è assolutamente forcing 1 giro, il rispondente non puo'passare assolutamente, perchè l'apertore puo' ancora avre una ventina di punti o giu' di li' 2) la ridichiarazione 2P è passabile (almeno secondo i "testi principali"; ma vedo che la discussione nel forum straniero da' un quadro assai piu' controverso) 3) tutte le dichiarazioni dirette a liv 3 (anche ripetizione colore o "riporto" nel minore) sono FM 4) tutte le mani deboli passano da 2NT "Ingberman" (o "Lebensohl su rovescio" o "2SA moderateur"), che obbliga l'apertore a dichiarare 3fiori con tutte le mani da rovescio minomo (16-18), su cui il rispondente passa o corregge in un parziale Nello standard Italia non credo che sia descritto il 2SA Ingberman, ma credo che sia comunque sensato trattare la ripetizione 2P come straminimo passabile, specialmente dal momento che nello Std Ita il rovescio è ancora piu' limitato che nel SAYC.

While I agree with this it doesn't mean you cannot learn from asking experts questions. You can cultivate your own style/beliefs/opinions based on what these (experienced) experts tell you and hearing their thought process. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you'll disagree but if you keep an open mind you'll always learn something. Ditto, at least this works for me. Whenever I have a doubt, question, idea, I post it here on BB Forum, and most times the ensuing discussion is rather fruitful for me. Thanks all for this ! :P

After some thinking, I have come to some conclusion. In the real hand, I went up with the Ace, and made the cointract just right, but LHO had started with Kxx in spades, so many tables had made 4S+1 by finessing. The conclusion is the following: it is true that if I finesse in trumps and lose, RHO might give a second ruff to West, but that will happen only if west has a third trump. So we can rule out all the 2-2 breaks , in which the finesse cannot lose and can only win if K is onside. So that means that I will lose only if West holds the stiff trump K, a low percentage (something like 6-7 %). In all other case, the finesse is either irrelevant (K is offside so I'll lose a trump anyways, but West is out of trumps), or wins outright (K is onside and all is well). So, I guess, my bad :) , but at least I learned something from this bad play ;) Maybe this hand belongs better in the Beginning/Intermediate Forum section :)

I am sorry, I mis-wrote declarer's hand, the diamond holding was AJx (e.g. no discard of the heart was possible). I corrected the hand also in the main header, sorry for that.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saqjtxxhtxxdxcqtx&s=s9xxhkq97xdajxcax]133|200|Scoring: MP 2♦:2NT 3♦:4♠ W leads ♥J to East's Ace and a heart ruff. W returns a diamond.[/hv] Pard opens 1st seat a 2D Multi, and after the 2NT inquiry, he shows a max with spades and S signs off in game. W leads the ♥J to East's Ace and a heart ruff (with the 4 of spades). W returns a diamond. HOW DO YOU PLAY TRUMPS ? FINESSE TO TRY 11 tricks BUT RISKING DOWN 1 (if East takes the king and returns another heart ruff) OR GO UP WITH THE ACE, POSSIBLY GIVING UP THE OVERTRICK ?

How do you proceed if bidding goes: 1H:2C 3H:4C (or 3S for that matter) 4H:?

24 boards match are closer; and yet, many non-professional weekend swiss teams do not have the time available for 24 boards events (I am not talking of big regionals/nationals). If every match lasts 24 boards, in a 2-days event there is little room for many matches, unless you have the players play 10 hours a day (e.g. in Italy, it is sacrilege to play in the morning... :P ). Yet, I much prefer 24 boards MP (given the above cpnditions, e.g. all players are of comparable skills) than 24 boards team match, in terms of reflecting the actual skill reducing the pure "luck" term: the reason is, in a MP event EVERY single board counts, in a 24 boards team match, many of them are not relevant (e.g. even major slips or fantastic plays do not cause big wins/losses). I don't care about the bidding system involved. ======================== I do believe that the main reason why team matches often show a better technical challenge is that there is an "a priori" selection: in fact when you go to a team event, because of its lenght and the stamina and time involved, one is pretty ure that many of the lesser players that we can meet at a normal club game will not want to play there. So, in team event, there is an indirect a priori filtering in terms of players skill level.

I think that on average, the "luck" term is not so much based on the form of scoring but rather on: 1- the field or table(s) we are playing against. 2- the number of deals To minimize luck, I'd much prefer to play in a MP event where all the tables tend to bid/play at a reasonable level, than play a short (8-16 deals) Team match vs comparable teams. The reason is that in a 8-16 boards team match, I can play better for 14 deals, gaining a handful of IMPS in partscore (or overtricks in game contracts), but lose a match on 2 slams. Instead, in a 24 deal MP event vs comparable pairs, even 2 disasters can be recovered on virtually any hand. The problem in this is that- unfortunately - most MP events nare quite unbalanced in force, and quite often a MP events sees a great variability of results. So, the good/bad luck that we cannot control often depends by the fact that at other table people will bid or play or defend oddly, and there is nothing we can do about it. Of course the strategy at MP will be different, but the IMPs players cannot complain they are unlucky if they adopt the same strategy at MP pairs: they should be able to adjust to the different form of scoring, and the bad results coming from the failure to do this is not "bad luck" or "anti-bridge at other tables", but just lack of flexibility. I do believe that a MP event with selected participation will have a result quite close to the technical skill performed by the pairs. Indeed, it is more difficult and tiresome to play MP, as every single bid-play can be crucial, so there are more occasion to use the technical skills, without playing instead several dull hands and a few crucial as in IMPS.

hehe, I'd much prefer to see Homer Simpson play bridge (he indeed is closer to the image of a lot of fellow bridge players I met in real bridge life). Oh yeah, also the Muppets, featuring pairs: Kermit + Piggy Waldorf+ Statler Animal +...... (changing partner each event, noone can stand more than that....) :)

Hi Free, this is what I know in general terms about their previous system versions. 1) 4441 hands not worth a 1-level opening tend to be passed unless a very good 12 or 13. Also, it is acceptable to open them 1NT. I cannot answer the questions you refer to (BTW, I'll be interested in any contributions) 2) over a 2 level opening, there are 3 kind of hands that responder will keep the auction open: ....a. 14+ hands that will drive to game ....b. (11)12-13 hands that will invite game opposite the advertised 10-13 by opener ....c weaker hands (say 8/9-11 or worse) inmisfit, with a long rebiddable own suit (or tolerance to pass any opener's rebid), that will seek to improve the partscore ....d. weak misfit hands (say 8/9-11 or worse) but with no rebiddable suit (nor tolerance to pass pard's rebid) at the 3 level are forced to pass, possibly landing in a poor partscore. Basically, over a weak 2 opening you'll keep the auction open only with a hand with game potential, or with a good own rebiddable suit (of course direct raises are always semipreemptive) 3) The main criterion is that you can open at the 1 level everytime you think it's ok to be i game if responder has a 10 count, even in misfit. So a good 13 or a great 12 can be ok.

You can't perform in-detail lessons and reconcile them with large audience. The task you are trying to realize is great , but I suspect it can work in a feasible manner for smaller groups only...

One way of being rude is as follow: I was playing with my live pard, and he got booted. The table setting was: kibs free to join/chat, players ask for permission before sitting. I had not reserved the seat, so the seat was left open. One player immediately clicked to seat, and I rejected permission: I was trying to go into the table setting to reserve the seat for my friend. The guy went mad, even if I TRIED to explain that I was playing with my regular pard, he entered the table as kibitzer, and started to repeatedly, EVERY SECOND, to ask permission. I could not even succed to explain to him the reasons why I rejected him as pard, because he continually clicked to request the seat. I was unable to perform any task, let alone the task of reserving the seat for my friend, because the "Reject/accept" Dialog box freezes any other task until you click the reject/accept button, and every time I clicked the button, this guy was immediately asking again. This went on for approximately 6-7 minutes, after which opps at the table left because they could not play. In my opinion there must be a way to boot these persons, even when they are already at the table as kibitzers. Also, David's idea of allowing a flexible way to filter the table access (friends/enemies, etc etc) makes sense, in cases where some people are really obnoxious. And believe me , I am a friendly person and player, but I would be glad to be able to avoid persons who take away the fun from a bridge session.