Chamaco

I am no expert, but I'll try to give a first shot to this q. The logic behind undeleading honors at trump contract is that often, the struggle between declarer and defenders is a race of knocking out early the respective stoppers in the suit to develop the trick to fulfil or beat the contract. Leading passively usually does not waste but does not develop tricks, hence declarer is left undisturbed to try to find the missing tricks. Leading actively does risk blowing tricks, but basically is aimed to try opening a suit where we need the less for for partner to develop tricks. ======== Hence, it seems to me that the "always lead aggressively to develop tricks (even risking to blow a trick)" o "always lead passively to avoid blowing tricks (although sacrificing a tempo)" are both a partial view: the real difficulty is try to understand whether the auction calls for an active lead or a passive lead (such as when opps have stretched and won't find the 10th trick if we do not blow it on lead).

I don't think so. Here is the Butler ranking (final only): 1. 0.22 Fulvio FANTONI - Claudio NUNES 2. 0.16 Norberto BOCCHI - Giorgio DUBOIN 3. 0.06 Lorenzo LAURIA - Alfredo VERSACE 4. -0.09 Paul SOLOWAY - Bob HAMMAN 5. -0.14 Jeff MECKSTROTH - Eric RODWELL 6. -0.23 Nick NICKELL - Dick FREEMAN Roland Oh, I did not watch the ente tourney. Would the ranking be different if considering only the final ?

Didn't anyone have the impression that if Nickell-Freeman had played a couple of rounds more to substitute and give a break to rest to Hamman-Soloway, the match would have been closer ? I think Nickell-Freeman performed quite reliably.

It's hard to be sure, but there are reasonable expectations that 1 club can be ruffed and that with the entry in dummy at least one finesse can be taken. I am a believer that yarboroughs tend to play better in a 43 moysian fit rather than in NT, when very often declarer is constantly endplayed.

The choice is between a heart or a diamond (a trump might trap pard's Hxxx holding, and a club from xxx rarely is appealing) , according to whether we want to lead aggressively or passively. They had a limit auction, and trumps might break badly. I'll chicken out and avoid underleading my ♦KT tenace. All in all, it is entirely possible my J will be of help to pard in developing the tricks we need. And as Garozzo always preached, "Passive leads vs game contracts, active leads vs slams". I do not follow always the Garozzo motto (I indeed like to lead active) , but when in doubt, I am becoming more sensitive to some dangerous leads vs game contracts :-) Between diamonds and hearts it's close. I hate any black suit lead here.

No, but it's a matter of requirements. I also play LIMITED splintersbut my own HCP requirements are a minimum opener in terms of REAL hcp (say 12-14 or so; a GOOD 11 would do, but never a 9/10 count). This hand is short 1 trick, and pard may get overexcited. Hmm, without agreements, I would be puzzled and I'd just cue. If you ask me what I think 4S should mean , I'd say Kickback. The hand is cumbersome, using Jac 2NT and splinters: using J2NT does not pictue the hand well like a splinter in terms of distribution, but at the same time, splintering should show at least one extra honor, and pard may misjudge the slam potential, and we are already at the 4 level. I'd use a forcing raise (2NT) and signoff in game even if pard is minimum. All in all I'll use Jacoby 2NT. If pard has AK of Clubs and a diamond honor, the slam is on a trump finesse, and, with the extra spade length, it's a worthwhile try. However, since we are not going to find out anyways if p has the K of trumps, I won't use Blackwood, but I'll cue. Ill bid 5H: that should show to pard my worry in the minors. This question has no answer, except the fact that we should anticipate this problem: bidding 4NT is of little use unless pard could deliver the info on the trump K. It can work, after all, even other more scientific methods do end up in a guess.

I join the crowd of the 4D bidders. Simply bidding 3D could be a squeeze rebid, leaving room for a better 3NT or 4M game exploration. 4D is a picture bid, and rates to deliver the message to partner. If I am going to bypass later a possible 3NT bid by pard and rebid 4D, I think it's much better to do it right away to inform partner of the extreme shape: that should enable him to make a more intelligent decision than if we go slowly with 3D and then 4D..

This is an important point if anyone is ever going to use LTC. We should use our brain and reevaluate the hand. To me, AKJxxx is 0.5 losers, not 1 Similarly,AJTxxx would be 1+ (or 1.25 if you like) losers, not 2, in view of the double finesse, but if pard is short, then it'll be downgraded to 2- losers (we might not be able to double finesse) And, Qx, is 2- losers (or, say 1.75, but fractional cunt is not practical, so I usually jst count for + and - at the table), unless they bid the suit (then 2 losers, and some extra downgrade for having a wasted value); if pard bids the suit, Qx becomes 1+ loser (or 1.25 if you like). ==== Ok, this post is not for you justin, of course you upgrade/downgrade better than any hand rating method, but for those who use LTC like robots and later complain that LTC overbid or underbid the hand. :-)

Accidenti l'infido ardf mi ha fregato anche stavolta... :))

Rovesciando il morto, il dichiarante puo' fare 2 atout, 1 taglio in mano con scarto a fiori (su attacco), asso di fiori, 6 prese a quadri e un'altro taglio in mano a fiori (dopo aver scartato le fiori sulle quadri)

Sembrano esserci gli elementi per ritornare in taglio e scarto. Infatti sappiamo che le quadri sono disposte male, e che se lasciamo che il dichiarante finisca di battere atout impassandoci, poi scarterà le eventuali perdenti a fiori sulle quadri franche. Tuttavia c'è una linea che non riesco a risolvere. Se ritorniamo a cuori entrambe le volte che entriamo in mano, il dichiarante deve decidere dove tagliare: di sicuro non puo' tagliare 2 volte in mano, affrancherebbe la nostra 3a atout; e se taglia 2 volte al morto, rimane bloccato al morto rischiando di perdere una presa in un minore di taglio oppure di non riuscire a sviluppare le quadri (perchè tagliare al morto implica scartare una presa in un minore, che servirà per la comunicazione col morto). La linea complessa, che non riesco a risolvere è se il dichiarante taglia la prima volta in mano e la seconda volta al morto. Dopo il 1o taglio va al morto effettuando un impasse a quadri all'onore che gli manca, e muove atout. Se prendiamo e rigiochiamo cuori il dichiarante taglia al morto e risce a effettuare l'impasse e incassa comunque le rimanenti prese...

If I am very weak and little entries, I'll lead a top card, it may well force a useful card from dummy in a finessable position. If I do have something, I'll lead a middle one. If I am very strong, and pard is bound to be broke, leading from xxx does not have a bright future, and usually I'll try to set up one of my suits. However, leading from xxx might avoid blowing trick, especialy at MP, and especially if I have no 5+ card suit. I any case, when pard is broke, you can often lead whichever you want from xxx since pard is unlikely to benefit from the signal if he never gets in (indeed when one defender holds all the hcp, then it's the time to try deceptive leads/signals to set some traps to declarer).

Luis, what is the advantage of the structure you posted vs: New suit = natural 1NT = Raptor shape (46/64, sac-oriented) 2x = bad 55 in unbid 2NT = good 55 in unbid 2y = natural ("antipsyche") X = takeout with values

Per cercare una difesa intelligente è importante sapere cosa aspettarsi dal compagno, che tipo di mano puo' avere per il suo barrage. Qui l'importante è che la risposta non sia basata sul fatto che il compagno abbia una Q laterale: nelle mie pship, se uno dei due ha AKQxxxx è vietato fare barrage a compagno non passato se abbiamo almeno una Q laterale (si apre a livello 1 :) ) ;)

Bourke relay is a treatment quite similar to "fourth suit forcing" but is indeed a "third suit forcing" when opener rebids his suit. The cheapest third suit is artificial and game force So, in auctions like: 1♣:1♦:2♣:2♥ 1♣:1♥♠:2♣:2♦ 1♦:1♥♠:2♦:2 oM the 3rd suit is always artificial and forcing game. This has quite a few benefits: 1- strong responder can investigate game from a lower level 2- weak and invitational hands can be teated very efficiently Usually Bourke Relay is used for sequences after 1m opening, but a similar approach can be adopted in many situations. There is however 1 awkward auction: 1♦:1♠:2♦:2♥ In this case, if opener had 5+ diamonds and 4+ hearts but could not show hearts without reversing, he does not know whether responder might have a heart fit (and responder, as well, if he is GF with 5S and 4H, ignores whether responder has a heart fit). This shortcoming can be solved in systems where 1D opening is NEVER balanced (e.g. like Real diamond precision with weak NT or in 5 card major systems where weak NT goes via a short club and 1D is always unbalanced): in those cases, opener shall open 1D and rebid 1NT artificial (1D opener can't be balanced) when he has hearts, so, when he indeed bids 1♦:1♠:2♦, he denies 4 hearts and the 2♥ can be afely used as Bourke Relay without any confusion. ===================== Also, it is important to choose a compatible meaning of the direct jumpshifts by responder to 1m opener. After some posts by Gerben, I have adopted (using Real Damond precision): - 1D:2M = constructive jumpshift (weaker than invitational, but game still in the picture if fit is there) - 1D:1M:2D:2M = invitational, nonforicng - 1D:1M:2D:3M= slammish with selfsufficient major - when opener rebids 1NT, use xyz Checkback or whatever

You might consider the use of Kaplan Inversion: 1H:1S = equivalent to 1NT forcing. Denies game values, tends to deny 5 spades unless weak 3 card raise in hearts Opener will rebid 1NT (Nonforcing) only with 4 spades (to find the possible 44 spades fit), if not, he rebids a 3+ card minor or rebids the 6+ heart bagger 1H:1NT shows 5+ spades, unlimited. I ignore whether this is currently allowed or banned by ACBL.

Could be, although there is no certainty. Also, let's keep in mind that modern style is to rebid 1NT by opener even with a singleton in pard's suit, so that 2-level rebids tend to show more suit-oriented shape in terms of strength/texture. In this style, the 2S rebid would be awkward But make it Jxxx, Kx, x, Axxxxx and the rebid is troublesome regadless of the above issue. Such hand type over a 1H opener does not want to pass, but cannot introduce the long minor, nor rebid spades, and I would guess that the play in 1NT is likely to be more awkward than in 2H. Rebidding 2C here (if natural) would show 5+ spades, so it does not feel right. I would use it as a weak preference, typically doubleton support, with a 2-suited hand and shortness in a minor, such as the hand I mentioned above (Jxxx, Kx, x, Axxxxx).

Indeed, I agree with this point. But this discussion could go on forever :lol: , because "standard practice" seems to be to pass with Qxx, Jxxxx, Jxx, xx, at least if the definition of "Standard" is based on the Encyclopaedya (as you use in the next hand) Hence, if the 1 over 1 response promises something, then it is again more logical and not so risky to adopt the style of using 1S as forcing. Your analyis is not considering hands with DOUBLETON support: there are MANY weak/constructive hands with doubleton support (unsuitable for a direct constructive raise because the direct raise promises 3 trumps) that do not want absolutely to play 1NT , so it must be possible to preference back to 2M without this bid is seen as a limit raise. Of course this is all academic in "expert standard", where limit+ responder hands will rebid an artificial Checkback. .

I was surprised that strong players bid red vs whit vs a 18-20 balanced hand at IMPS. We know pard is odds on to be broke, and that if we bid, most likely we have no dummy entry to finesse in trumps (provided dummy has any trumps at all)... We *might* make 3C or even 4C, but we are unlikely to make game. So in terms of risk reward, perhaps I understand bidding at MP, but at IMPS ? Risking -500 or worse to collect (when it's right) 110-150 ? There *might* be a few times where we indeed find game, but I'd rate it to be less likely than the other cases (we are doubled for -200 or worse, and this is is often a phantom). I really can't understand this, it seems to me that at IMPS, at these colors, the risk/reward ratio (some partscore vs going for a digit) is just too high, but I am not claiming to be right, I am just asking to stronger players than myself where is the flaw in my reasoning.

Ugh, I thought we were vuln and opps not... If the vuln is reversed, I'll try 4C

The idea is that using 1S forcing SOMETIMES you lose a safe spots but MOST other times, the strong opener can clarify better. Even when the 1S would be best, often it is possible to find a safe spot. This of course implies that responder to 1m responds with 6+ hcp and does not routinely respond 1M with 5 cards and 2-3 hcp. I do not have any strong feelings for or against the use of 1S as forcing here. I just think it's a matter of agreement, although indeed, "original SAYC" defines it as NF ( but that means nothing: most experts just couldn't care less of SAYC definitons LOL). Of course this is a non-issue playing strong club as we do, Jimmy :-)

Ugh.... At this vulnrability I pass and pray. Even in the balancing seat pard is supposed to have substantial values and not just an 11/12 hcp with the right shape. When they do make 3S X NV, it's likely they set us 2/3 tricks in 4C doubled Vuln. At a different vuln, my choice would be even tougher though... I just hpe they do not redouble. Either heart or a trump. If 3S is invitational only, I lead a trump (they might be stretching, a passive lead is likely to work- any stiff/dblton trump honor held by pard is likely to be picked anyways), if they play 3S as GF, I lead a heart.

These high level (4/5+) bidding problems are really instructive, keep them coming ! :rolleyes: When I have time I'll try to put all the links to thee high level biding decisions into a single post/thread. :P

I like this auction. BTW, this auction seems like a good plug for Bourke Relay.

Good idea Arend !! I'll join the crowd :P But... wait ! We cannot have a drink without Ron ! :rolleyes: