Chamaco

I think that the main point of "intermediate weak 2" (say 10 to a bad 12) is to be a descriptive opening bid. I do not view it in terms of high cards but rather in terms of OFFENSE to DEFENSE ratio In traditional methods, a "regular openings" (used to?) guarantee 2-2.5 defensive tricks. This is especially important in contested auctions: if opponents overcall, preempt, and/or sacrifice, responder can expect from opener at least 2-2.5 defensive tricks, and make an "educated guess" (which of course might occasionally fail, noone expect to succeed all the times) on whether passing, doubling or bidding can be a good idea in various situations. But then, there are some hands that are WORTH AN OPENING BID ON OFFENSE, but not so on defense. AKQJTx-xx-Qx-xxx For example does NOT guarantee 2+ quick tricks in defense (very likely that the 2nd round of spades can be ruffed) With this kind of hand one would be torn between: a. distorting the defensive potential (so pard could be wrong if he doubles opps contract), by opening at level 1 and promising 2+ QT (quick tricks). Opening this kind of hand is usually alright when opps shut up, but if they do stick in, troubles may be awaiting us if our oard indeed expects 2 defensive tricks from our hand One solution is "lower the defensive requirements" for opener, e.g. 1.5 QT is enough. But then, we'll lose all the times we fail to double opponents because responder cannot count on 2+ quick tricks from opener b. underbidding the OFFENSIVE potential by passing Then, the intermediate 2-level opening des the job of parking those hand types there. The result is that the 1-level opening bid, genuinely promise 2-2.5 quick tricks. And this is genuinely beneficial, especially in a world when people overcall and bounce on nothing, because we vcan have a fair idea of whether we can punish them using the red card :-) Is this approach worthwhile ? I guess that it depends from the form of scoring. At MP, you want to open as frequently as you can, and lower the requirements of the weak 2 bids. At IMPS; frequency matters less, and instead it is the MAGNITUDE of the cost benefits that matters. So my guess is that the intermediate 2 bids are more effective at IMPS

Hi all, I would like to know whether some folks have some suggestions on where to start to study Canapè and "potential canapè" systems in a strong club context. (I already have some material on the Blue Team Club approach BTW) I am not looking for a documentation describing the sequences: sure, they are important, but I'd rather llok for a description of the phylosophy and a lot of commented examples. When shifting from one system phylosophy, I am much more interested in learning how these difference change the inferences, as well as how to "re-tune" the hand evaluation. And this (in my experience) happens only when there are many concrete hands to discuss. Maybe are there books/sources that address these things ? A list of points that I suspect need to be dealt with for canapè systems is the following, but any further keypoints will be greatly appreciated ! :-) : 1) is it better to use 2/1 GF or 1-round force ? What and when do we lose (e.g. slam bidding) ? What and when do we gain ? If using 2/1 1RF only, how do you handle slamgoing hands for responder that need to keep bidding low ? If using 2/1 GF, how do you resolve opener's shape (e.g. is there a viable alternative to relays or not) ? 2) what NT range is best suited (in a big club system)? 3) if you open canapè with a 4531 hand, how do u bid more distributional 55 hands ? And how do you bid 65 hands (5 bagger first?) 4) is it best "MAFIA" canapè or absolute canapè ? what changes in the system, in responder's inferences, in the bidding of real 2-suiters (55 or better), in the partscore battle and competitive bidding ? 5) how is the partscore battle affected ? 6) how is competitive bidding affected (raises, doubles, etc) besides the obvious starting point that 1M opening can be 4 cards ? And, for instance, how oes the canapè structure influence the decisions of opener and responder in the balancing seat if overcaller's side is buying a 2/3 level partscore ?

Hi, I do play KI and 2/1. In the sequence 1M-2C, I play that opener's raise to 3C shows a non-minimum hand, usually a good opening bid. When the opening is not good, then the club support is not shown. Basically a crappy opning bid will never rebid at level 3 (unless opps stick in). The idea is that we do not want to encourage slam in a minor (one of the main benefits of the 3C raise) when opener is subminimum. So a realistic sequence could be: 1H-2C-2H-2S-3C- followed by a keycard ask by responder with clubs agreed (whichever way u play it). Being at IMPS, stopping in 5C should be quite acceptable

If you play light limited openings (say 9-15), you can gain and steal much more by preempting 1M:3M more often using a wide-range preempt (say 0-7/8-) rather than resort to the mixed raise. In the limited opening context, the need to differentiate the NON GF raises into 3 ranges (preemptive, mixed, and limit) is much less crucial than in "standard" systems. Most times, the mixed raise in a "regular" 2/1 context is needed to allow opener with a reverse (or equivalent playing strength) to bid game, but in the light opening system you mention, this is seldom an issue. With a mixed raise, one can choose between a constructive single raise and a wide-range preemptive double raise according to the quality of the hand and the state of vulnerability (as well as tactical consideration) This makes you preempt much more often 1M:3M although it is debatable whether this is really an advantage (one might argue that the wide-range of 1M:3M will avoid more oftem the doubling of the partscore, but I am not so sure about this)

What I really hate of Bergen raises is the mixed raise. Pard raise ur 1M opening with 4 trumps and 6+/9- hcp but there is no room left for asking pard WHERE he has those points. When this happens and u have a decent opening hand, with, say, a singleton, u have no choice but flipping a coin to guess whether game is right (because dummy's points are working) or whether it is an overbid. If he had raised only to 2M, we might have tried some sort of game try (short suit, long suit, help suit game try, whatever u like). But when the raise occurs at the three level, we have no room for it.... What I REALLY love of Bergen raise is the prremptive 1M-3M. But this can be played regardless of the rest of the Bergen structure. Finally, playing GF Jacoby 2NT, the frequency of 1M:2NT is VERY low. So, I much prefer to: 1- give up 1M:3m as artificial raises (in competition FJS are fine). I prefer to use it as natural invitational bids, "cleaning up" the 1NT forcing bid 2- use 1M:2NT not as strictly GF but limit+ 4 card raise. This increases the frequency of the bid; it loses sometimes because it is less clear whether we are heading towards game or slam, but there are many tricks one can use to minimize these losses 3- 1M:2M is constructive but can be 4 card raise (either 8-10- with 3 card raise or 6+/9- 4 card raise) This structure has the added advantage of "cleaning up" the 1NT foring bid, which is a sort of "trash can" of the standard 2/1 system

While, in general, I agree that use of 4SF in an auction already committed to game is redundant, there is one case in which the use of the 4th suit as a 'noise' (not as a 'force', since the force is already established) makes sense. 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ ... Responder may be something like Kx xxx Qxx AKJxx and is really stuck for a bid that is descriptive and avoids wrong-siding the final contract. Use of 2♥ in this sequence, as artificial, is beautiful in the sense that it uses no space and preserves flexibility with little cost to constructive bidding. On the rare hands where opener is 5=4=4=0 and bid 2♦, he can always raise to 3♥.... and could also raise on a chunky 3 bagger on 5=3=4=1, which still allows us to get to 4♥ when the 4=4 fit exists or we have a playable moysian (methods that prevent us from finding and playing in 4-3 fits are not for me.... I don't go out of my way to find or play in them, but we need to preserve the option). This kludge allows us to preserve the 2♠ preference over 2♦ as genuine support: with fewer than 3 cards, responder will always have another call available: rebid of a 6 card club suit, raise with 4♦s, bid 2N with ♥s stopped, and 2♥ as the default noise. Sure, of course in this sequence the "4sf" is useful, but perhaps I'd label it as "cheapest responder's bid" rather than 4sf ? ;)

Well, a catchall rebid is not necessarily the start a full relay sequence, although it might bear quite a few similarities .-)

This is not the first nor the last (moronic ?!? :D ) discussion on "shape first" vs "strength first" phylosophy. Of course both approaches are the end-members of the requirements of bidding: 1) the search for a fit; 2) limiting the hand. Both requirements are needed of course, but in some instances one is a higher priority. For instances, in a contested auction, shape first tends to payoff more often; the same applies in a POTENTIALLY contested auction. However, when opener has a shot to a rebid with silent opponents, then the urgency of delivering "colors-first" is much less (E.G. IF OPPS WERE TO BID, THAY'D ALREADY HAVE DONE SO, PROBABLY AT LEVEL 1) In my opinion, in a forcing auction with silent opps, it is much more important to keep the bidding low with "normal" hands. We can sacrifice an idle bid such as the 2M rebid by 1M opener, in order to define better (in terms of overall hand strength and/or suit quality of more shapely hands) the others that bypass it (I'd go as far to say that THE FIRST STEP of opener's rebid should be an artificial idle bid - but this would start yet another moronic thread ! :lol: ) The price to pay for it seems to be (both in terms of frequency and magnitude of the losses) quite low, on percentage. A side note about the use of 4th suit forcing in a 2/1 GF framework: I do think this is really an unsound treatment to rely on 4sf as a further asking bid: it does eat tons of bidding space (when setting a GF is not really needed anymore) , so much that I think it is really unplayable. :-) Just my 2 cents of moronic wisdom :-)

One point that needs to be addressed is which vesrion of 2/1 one is playing: 1) many experts play that after 1M, a 2/1 promises a (usually good) 5+ card suit, which represent a realistic source of tricks 2) others play that it promises only a 4 card suit which can be mediocre Approach 1) has been dealt with in many Mike Lawrences books, and more recently Fred Gitelman has written great articles on his own way to develop further this philosophy. Approach 2), however (Hardy's 2/1), is also played by many. So, with 44 in the blacks, my bet is that Lawrence-Gitelman followers (approach 1) would bid spades, whereas it is unclear how many of the Hardy-style supporters would start with 2 clubs rather than 1 spade. All in all, since we are discussing "standard", I'd rate that - at least with equal length, a substantial majority of decent players would bid up the line, even if this leaves the hand unlimited. If instead one would like to restrict the poll to "experts only", I suspect that most experts do not play "standard 2/1" anyways but they will rather have their own toys, as awm has pointed out (e.g. Flannery, Kaplan Inversion, some form of Gazzilli, etc etc)

SoTired, first and foremost, I know very well that having Fred Gitelman contribution is a great honor for me. English is not my native language, so some nuances might escape from my comments: e.g. it might have sound from my answer to him that I just wanted to defend at any cost the scheme I came up with, but this was not my intention. My reply to Fred was genuinely intended to capture the essence of specific situations where my ideas might backfire. Indeed, the reason why I post here is exactly what you recommend: investigating thoroughly the holes of a system, and evaluating the pros and cons. And I start with the openings, and then wil investigate every system branch: I am a chess Master, so I know how to study opening theory, and I try my best to apply similar principles to bridge. But BEFORE EMBARKING in depth, it is more useful to stop early and check whether the fist step has been done in a plausible direction. Embarking in depth right away quite often leads to useless efforts if we were on a bad start. The fact that I submit a scheme here to the BBF friends is a way for me to find easier and faster the points that I have overlooked. In your comments you seem to imply some superficiality on my behalf, but I assure you that if it was so, I would have just started playing the "1-page system notes" without posting it here :-) By the way do you have any significant and constructive contribution on the opening scheme (and possible troubles that might ensue) to provide for this post besides what has been written so far by Fred and the other friends ?

Thanks a lot to everybody has contributed so far !! :) (and I hope there might be more comments to come ? :) ) One quick question to Fred (and whoever would like to comment), who has been so kind to comment. Why is it so bad to incorporate the clubs GF in the 1NT bid ? Because of potential interference and/or preempts ? My understanding is that the lack of fit almost guaranteed by the 1NT bid makes it less attractive for opps to come into a likely misfit auction, so the risk of opps overcalls is (on percentage) more reduced ? Or is there something I am missing ? Again, thanks to all the friends who will help me :-)

Hi all, I would like to hear the comments from the BBF friends about the following structure over 1M opening that I came up with. The idea stems from my dislike vs the common forcing 1NT structure. Indeed, it includes too many hand types and strength ranges: - weak balanced hands - invitational bal hands - weak 3 card support hands - invitational 3 card support hands - weak 1 suiters - invitational 1 suiters In many cases, not being able to show immediately the 3 card support is a minus; and, in many sequences, it is hard to differentiate between weak 1 suiter vs invitational 1suiter. So my idea is to: 1- remove from 1NT forcing all hands with 3 card support, using transfer bids 2- use the jump to 3m as natural invitational, so to remove good 1 suiter from 1NT 3- play transfer bids Four more points: - we use this in a Precision context (1M = 10+/ 15 hcp) - we do play 1M:2NT Martel (4+ support, invitational or better) - we play Kaplan inversion over 1H opening (1S = like 1NT forcing, with at most 4 spades; 1NT = 5+ spades, unlimited) - before this transfer structure I submit to you we played 1M:2C as 2-way = GF with either 5+ clubs or balanced; and all other 2/1 bids are 5+ card suits; Below is the structure I would like to submit you, thanks a lot ! PS - for the "relay-maniac" friends :-) I know that in a strong club context, relays work well, but please spare me the usual relay-propaganda, as in any case I cannot get my teammates to accept it :-) 1S: .....1NT= denies 3 card support, can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds as to 1NT forcing .....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 1-4-4-4) .....2D = GF with 5+ hearts .....2H = 3 card support, either weak or invitational .....2S = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers) .....2NT = 4 card support, inv+ .....3CDH = 6+ bagger invitational .....3S = preempt .....3NT and higher (splinters bla bla bla) 1H: .....1S= art. 1R force, denies 5 spades, tends to deny 3cd support. can be a balanced hand, invitational at most, a weak single suiter, or a GF with clubs; opener responds 1NT if holding 4 spades otherwise he rebids as after 1NT forcing .....1NT= 5+ spades, unlimited, .....2C = GF = either 5+ diamonds or balanced (or 4-1-4-4) .....2D = 3 card support, either weak or invitational .....2H = constructive, 8-9hcp (or 9 losers) .....2S = constructive JS = 9 losers, 6+ bagger .....2NT = 4 card support, inv+ .....3CD = 6+ bagger invitational .....3H = preempt .....3S and higher (splinters bla bla bla)

A trump. With so many hcp, it is unlikely to find pard with substantial help, so active leads do not seem attractive. If diamonds are unstopped by pard, I find hard to believe that contract can be doomed.

I do not like 3S as preemptive: the objective of preempts is *stealing space*, so in my opinion 3S, even by a passed hand, should not be preemptive (it does not really steal space after East has bid 3D) but provide at least *some* defense. Moreover, coming in with a preemptive-type hand when one opponent has limited the hand (and the other has opened) is like handing an axe to opps "Do what you want of me" :-) In this view, the double of 3NT by south is acceptable in my view: and, one rule of doubles is "Don't double if they can run to a contract you cannot double": so the double of 5D is at least consistent: once you double a game, you aare committed to double any game of theirs (or to bid yours)

Ditto Helene. Also, the way I like to play 2H here is not necessarily support, it can be a waiting bid saving space. But if it came up undiscussed with an occasional pard I'd take it as support

I did not mean, this, sorry if my post delivered this message, english is not my native language. All I meant is that there are nuances that are closely related to the system one is playing. In old Neapolitan/Roman/Blue club methods, an immediate raise of partner's suit guaranteed a honor; you would not raise on, say Txx in trumps. Another issue was that in italian canapè systems, over 1-of-aminor opening, responder would generally introduce a major suit only if the quality was relatively good, and a responder would not bid, say, 1S on a Jxxx suit. This could go on and on, but it shows that there are quite a few nuances that are incorporated in a cuebidding system: deciding to bid a suit on *quality* rather than *lenght* has a lot of effects on the inferences one makes in slam bidding. After all, slam bidding is all about trying to construct hands that partner has bid: these inferences are strongly connected to the details of honors concentration and shape of partner. Anyway, as I said, just about every book on slam bidding with several case histories is food for thought and therefore bound to improve our judgment :-)

Arc, I am glad you liked the document by Belladonna. However, in my opinion, all these "pearls of wisdom" are closely linked to the system one is playing. Indeed, why is there a reasion to show poor trumps if one could later use, for instance, RKCB and the Grand Slam try ? The reason why the Blue Team used conventions to show early the quality of trumps is that *in most auctions they did not use 4NT as an Ace-Asking method*. Missing the keycard ask, they need to know at an early stage whether or not the trumps were good enough to investigate slam at a higher level. =========== Switching from a 2/1 system vs a strong club system introduces some nuances that unusual for the standard 5 card major systems; the same occurs if you consider a canapè system. Playing canapè means introducing even more nuances (which I won't start discussing here). And the Big Club systems played by the Blue Team were mostly canapè systems, so it is logical that you might find in their writings some bidding sequences where the information that needs to be exchanged is different from a "Natural 5cM" system. To get more nuances on the slam investigation approach of the Blue Team, the best book was Chiaradia's "Il Fiori Napoletano" (reedited later as "Il Nuovo Fiori Napoletano"). I don't know if it was translated. Instead, you can find at Dan Neill's site some writeup with commented slam sequences of the Blue Team Club: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2001...2000_gmeier.doc or, better, at Marco Pancotti's Blue Team Home page http://www.mclink.it/personal/MC6246/BlueT...ub/index_en.htm You will find that the logic of slam investigation sequences is different from the usual mechanics most 5cM are playing today. You might even find that you'll rarely apply this, but, in my opinion, it makes you think, and improve the slam judgment. =========== Regarding Ken's book, I did not read it but it seems to me that discussing in-depth all these cuebidding methods is impossible in an ordinary book, because it would mean to discuss also the foundation of each and every systems. Indeed, given the limited space available for a book, most texts on cuebidding enter the details for one family of systems (usually "standard" 5cM, or - in some cases, some variants of Precision or the like), and cannot help but just scratching the surface for other methods. I will try to get a copy of Ken's book, especially after reading his reply, from which I suspect he really did a job more comprehensive than the average book on slam investigation :-) Ciao Mauro

Arc, I am glad you liked the document by Belladonna. However, in my opinion, all these "pearls of wisdom" are closely linked to the system one is playing. Indeed, why is there a reasion to show poor trumps if one could later use, for instance, RKCB and the Grand Slam try ? The reason why the Blue Team used conventions to show early the quality of trumps is that *in most auctions they did not use 4NT as an Ace-Asking method*. Missing the keycard ask, they need to know at an early stage whether or not the trumps were good enough to investigate slam at a higher level. =========== Switching from a 2/1 system vs a strong club system introduces some nuances that unusual for the standard 5 card major systems; the same occurs if you consider a canapè system. Playing canapè means introducing even more nuances (which I won't start discussing here). And the Big Club systems played by the Blue Team were mostly canapè systems, so it is logical that you might find in their writings some bidding sequences where the information that needs to be exchanged is different from a "Natural 5cM" system. =========== To make a long story short, I did not read Ken's book, but it seems to me that discussing in-depth all these cuebidding methods is impossible in an ordinary book, because it would mean to discuss also the foundation of each and every systems. Indeed, given the limited space available for a book, most texts on cuebidding enter the details for one family of systems (usually "standard" 5cM, or - in some cases, some variants of Precision or the like), and cannot help but just scratching the surface for other methods. I will try to get a copy of Ken's book, especially after reading his reply, from which I suspect he really did a job more comprehensive than the average book on slam investigation :-) Ciao Mauro

Check out this (access from Dan Neill's site): http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ddingToSlam.zip It does not cover "Turbo" though, but still it is a pretty comprehensive coverage In most cases they did not need it, because they played a strong club system, where usually one of the 2 partners had a limited hand. Serious 3NT *can* be useful also in *some* sequences of a strong club system, but where it really becomes really important is in a 2/1 scheme where opener can still have a very wide-range of strength. However, even in a 2/1 context, the "Turbo" scheme is worth exploring.

Da scacchista, posso portare la mia esperienza nel mondo degli scacchi: fra il 1996 e il 2000-2001 si è assistito ad u progressivo depauperamento dei soci dei circoli scacchistici, in corrispondenza alla crescita del gioco online . Perchè ? Semplice: 1- giocare da casa è piu' comodo (giochi quando ti pare) 2- ma soprattutto, per un principiante o comunque un giocatore scarso, all'inizio il circolo non è un ambiente ospitale: quando arriva, fa fatica a trovare buoni giocatori che vogliono giocare con lui. I giocatori discreti e buoni fanno clan fra loro e prima che dedchino un po' di tempo ad altri ne passa di tempo. Per questo molti giocatori che potenzialmente si appassionerebbero, se ne vanno dopo un po'. Invece il goco online è rivoluzionario per certi versi, proprio perchè - considerato l'elevato numero di persone connesse - c'è SEMPRE il modo di giocare con qualcuno. A mio avviso la responsabilità non è di internet: la colpa è dell'inospitalità dei circoli. Sono poche le persone che sono disponibili a giocare con persone scarse. Solo che - PRIMA DELL'AVVENTO DI INTERNET - il povero malcapitato principiante non aveva alternative. E ora, con i siti online, invece, l'alternativa c'è, e la conseguenza diretta è che i circoli cominciano ad avere meno iscritti principianti. La conseguenza è lo spopolamento del circoo ed anche i buoni giocatori si stufano di frequentare un circolo semivuoto ed anche loro si connettono online. Secondo me nel bridge sta capitando lo stesso. ============================= Tuttavia, NON TUTTI I MALI VENGONO PER NUOCERE. Infatti, sempre nel mondo degli scacchi, dal 202 in poi si è assistito ad un fenomeno nuovo: frequentando i tornei, sono spuntate tantissime facce nuove (e molti bambini) , perone mai viste nei circoli, che giocano bene ! Sono tutte le persone che si sono formate giocando online, senza aver frequentato i circoli: è come se la RETE RESTITUISSE AGLI SCACCHI I GIOCATORI CHE GLI HA SOTTRATTO. In poche parole io credo comunque che per far venire piu' gente ai circoli, sia importante esere gentili con i nuovi arrivati, e permettergli di giocare insieme a gente forte anzichè segregati i coppie di soli principianti. Fare la guerra al gioco online mi sembra solo un boomerang.

Hi Justin, I play on the FICS chess server (find info at http://www.freechess.org/). To play there you need a decent Chess Client Interface, I use and recommend "Babaschess". On FICS I am not logged often (my nick is Chamaco), but if you want to arrange some session of play/study/tutoring, I am happy to learn. In this case, if you want, I can give you my Skype address so we can arrange something. I do not have plenty of time right now but I'll be more than happy to help as much as my current possibilities allow :-) Mauro

No one plays picture jumps anymore ? :-)

Hi all, I am looking for some online material that describes in detail Slawinski leads (a few practical examples too would be great). The old link: http://www.new-bridge.net/Combine.htm does not work anymore .... :blink: Any suggestions ? Thank all :P Mauro

I think this hand is too strong for an intermediate 10-14 2-level opening (even if the raw point count is 13)

Most of the times yes, but it seems to me that competing for a partscore at level 3 and at level 4 is RADICALLY differerent for the following reasons: 1- at level 3 opps shall double much much less often; the chances of playing undoubled are dramatically higher at level 3 2- if we push opps into a makeable contract in a major, it is substantially different at level 3 and 4. If we push them into a makeable 3M contract, we have not lost anything (compared to a 2M contract). If instead we push them into a marginal makeable 4M contract (biddable only because we have revealed extra length in diamonds, so they know they'll be playing with a 30 hcp deck), then we have lost indeed something ================== One last point: I believe our heart singleton is no surprise to pard. In fact, when we open an intermediate 2m we more or less promise an unbalanced hand, and opps have bid and raised, so it is reasonable from pard's viewpoint to expect heart shortness. Hence, the only "untold" feature to pard is the extra length in diamonds, but my opinion is that bidding "automatically" to the LOTT level is not always the best policy, because in some cases the advertised extra shape might me more useful to opps to diagnose the fact that the hands are ery pure and they can bid marginal games. It seems to me this is one of such cases.