Chamaco

Uho oh.. I am sorry... Until now I thought that the Italian Federation only would ban legitimate openings :-) However, we are currently playing xfer openings at the 2 level, that (I think), wd fit into the EBU "legality": 2D = weak 2 in H or strong 55+ or better H+ minor 2H = weak 2 in S or strong 55+ S + minor 2S = weak/strong 55+ in minors 2NT = "Michaels" = weak/strong 55+M There are variations over this : e.g. the structure might include 64 openings, and/or one can decide to switch the 2S and 2NT openings so that 2S is NF (obviously the sttrong 55M should then be opened via 2D or 2H in that case). This scheme (or its modifications) would allow to exclude the strong 2 suiter from the big club, and, at least IMO, would solve most of the problematic hands, without having to resort to wider-range 1 openings.

Exactly. Wasn't there a thread a little while ago about how to continue after 1♣:1♦,2♦ in standard Precision? It's very difficult. This, together with problems after interference over 1♣, is why we prefer to open 1♦ on such hands. It does have a small positive effect on the other hands we open 1♣ on, but that's very much a secondary issue. I do not think it's a secondary issue the effect this has on other limited openings: the question is, how often do we have a strongish diamond hand(say 16-19) and either pards responds a negative 1D or opps bounce ? And, even when opps bounce, how many times is this a real problem (if we exclude 55+ or 64+ 2 suiters from big club) ? On the other hand, how many times are we dealt a hand with REAL diamonds in the 11-15 range ? Avoiding nebulous or ill-defined openings is a HUGE advantage for responder, and in my opinion, we should try to resolve the ambiguity for the most frequent hands, which I believe are the 10-15 range, not the 16+. I'd rather have an occasional 1C:1D:2D awkward sequence than an ill-defined 1D opener which arises all the time. Alternatively 4 card major big club seems even better than systems based on 2/3-way 1 club opening.

Hehe, there sure is some truth in this :-) (although not completely :lol: ) However, my point is that, in the big club, the hands that sould be protected are the 2 suiters: - with a 1 suiter, you get to show it, maybe at a high level, but still the potential headaches are not that many :-) - with a balanced hand, often you can leave the control to partner, to choose between doubling them, or letting him choose a contract according to his power and shape - with a 3 suiter (including 5431's), often the use of t/o dbls does the job. So, even holding diamonds, I do not think that opening them 1C is too big a price. I would indeed prefer to open something else than 1C when I do have some 55 or 64 in the 16+ range. ===== Having said that, I do agree that having bid our suit has advantages: all I am saying is that I would not try to transform Precision into the Fantoni-Nunes system, I'd just play Fantunes :)

I agree with robert's and awm 's post (although I prefer to have real 1D opener: I like to be able to show immediately real diamonds even when I do have only 4/5 and a so-so suit that makes a 2D opening unappealing). Using 1D as a wider range will improve the 1C sequences, but will worsen the 1D opening sequences, and usually the limited openers are more frequent, so I prefer to protect my 1D opener, and keep the pluses of having a REAL, LIMITED 1D vs the IMO lousy standard "better minor" opening :-) Right now, having the 1D opener limited to 15, enables to jump for distributional hands. If instead we had to include hands up to 19, the system should implement some sort of "Gazzilli relay" for hands with extra real hcp power (say 16/17-19) from thos that have only extra shape (say 64 or better with 12-15 hcp or so). There are indeed similar mechanisms both in Nightmare and in the Fantunes system. And, indeed, delivering immediately the shape has some added bonuses vs. opening an undetermined 1C, but, in case I wanted to embrace fully this phylosophy, I'd take the bull by the horns and use Fantoni-Nunes system, which seems to me the best way to "unload" the big club. ================================= I think minors based hands are underrated and nebulous opening overrated. :-) Think about it, are we more comfortable when pard opens 1M, guaranteeing 5+ cards and (usually) an unbalanced hand or when pard opens a "standard" better minor opening , say 12-20, 3+ cards, balanced or unbalanced ? And, if RHO makes a wjo, are we better placed if we KNOW that pard is unbalanced and limited or if he can have a catchall ? Of course a similar reasoning applies to wjo over a big club, but the frequency is lower :-)

I do the opposite ... I jump to 3♦ with three-card spade support and rebid 2NT without 3-card spade support as this hand is more likely to have side-suit stoppers for NTs. In a non-precision context, I agree that the scheme you use seems more efficient ( e.g. there is indeed the chance of having many extra stoppers, because the power of the hand might exceed 15 hcp). However, I have thought about the 2 ways, and came to the conclusion that, in a precision context, I have the impression that most times, the limited 1D opener (max 15 hcp) worth a distributional reverse has most values concentrated in diamonds and usually, say, 1 honor and a half outside. Under such conditions, I believe that most times, NT is better played from responder's side, when it's right, not unlike the Gambling-type hands, despite the differences (suit might not be solid, extra outside stoppers, etc etc). On the other hand, when we do have a a fit in the major, it's undoubtedly better to start low, from the 2NT level, in order to be able to describe the pattern if responder has slam prospects. ============ Of course, playing the way I do, it is necessary to have a way to checkback fo stoppers when bidding (uncontested) goes 1D-1M-3D. This issue was decsribed in the following past thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=10057

Yet again, another judgment issue. Since 4333 hands have less ruffing power, there is a downgrade to apply: however, this should be applied to 95% of the hand evaluation methods (except ZAR, perhaps). In my opinion, using examples biased by evident factors (duplication of values/shape, total misfit, 4333, etc etc) is not a fair way to dismiss a method: it does say that it needs adjustment to take care of "warning signals" and/or to reevaluate hands with extra power. But these disclaimers apply to all evaluation methods, and I'd say that this is the beauty of bridge: the evaluation of an expert works better than a mechanical hand evaluation rating system. But, on many hands, using those systems with a grain of salt, and not blindly, might help in close decisions. (and, sure enough, sometimes they'll go wrong just like all the times we went down biddig game with a 28 hcp combined :lol: ). So, before saying thet LTC works badly, let's try to apply it under the correct conditions and using adjustments to handle the reevlauation downgrade of the hand as the bidding progresses. We'll often find out that this improves the performance and effectiveness of the LTC application.

I had missed this post :-) I think the point raised by david is a very important one: in my opinion, 2-suited hands should be taken out of the 1C opener, because the 2 suiters are the most vulnerable to preemption (we often "lose" one suit "on the way"). Instead, by eliminating the 2suiter from 1C, we increase the chances to handle well opps preemption, including a better opportunity to penalize them when it's right. This sounds like a commercial for "Misiry" 2 suited openings or the like :-) ===== Incidentally, I am using Real Diamond now, and I am beginning to lean more and more towards the use of 1H opening that might be a 4 card suit if 44 in the majors (including 4441's and even 4432's, so that the weak NT cannot have 44M). This fits well with the use of Kaplan Inversion over 1H opening: we do play some moysians, but thx to KI we are able to stop in 1NT (or in spades) when it's right .

I like very much Robert's suggestions. I also thought of giving up support doubles and use 1NT for the 3 card raise and DBL as penalty suggestion in case responder has a good hand ?

With normal count, when you hold doubleton Hx, if you play the small card, pard will play you for an odd number and might be screwed :-) Of course when u have tripleton HHx, std count works better, but with doubleton Hx, reverse count is better: I think the second case is much more frequent, so I'd go with reverse count :-)

For the sake of completeness, this way of splitting honors is suggested by Kantar for SECOND SEAT only. Playing 3rd/4rth seat, he suggests splitting with the lowest of touching honors, except hlding doubleton HH, when the sequence is reversed.

I pass pard's takeout double. (yes, just read the rest of the thread, and saw I mised the slam ! :) ). Nice thread, I love these threads were the bidding starts at the 4+ level, help developing the "feel" for situations that are not so well documented in literature and that did not arise quite frequently in my table experience :-)

USA1 earned their carryover, given the rules of the events, I see nothing unfair: both teams knew that their RR match would be calculated for the eventual carryover, and they played consequently. Should I pick a different formula, I'd still use some carryover, but calculated on the basis of the overall standings rather than of the single match.

This issue is, IMO, very delicate. What constitutes censorship and what constitutes freedom of speech ? In which context ? A friend of mine used to have political statements in his profile. The statements in themselves were not offensive, but they were definitely "taking a view" about specific issues. Yet he was asked to remove them or be banned. Talking with me, he complained to me that it was censorship. Was it ? If this was a republic, yes. But here we are like guests in someone else's house: somebody who hosts us for free, and legitimately sets the rules. We might disagree with some or most of the rules (personally, I do believe that BBO has nothing to fear from Swan, at least right now, given the extra lousy interface of Swan). Indeed, I definitely disagree with Uday's position on the point you raised, but the comparison to censorship seems improper to me: censorship, to me, tends to imply the banning of a legitimate right, that is, the freedom of speech in a public place. But if you are invited at dinner at my place and I ask you not to mention some specific topic, it's not censorship: you are my guest in my house, you are free to leave if you dislike the house's rule.

One might consider inferences from the opening lead: if the opening leader did not lead a suit headed by AK, more often than nor h should have good reasons not to do so. When there are no clear evidences from the bidding that would have discouraged him to lead that suit, I believe it is a fair assumption to TRY and hpe that his partner might have AK in the suit, no ? :)

I agree that - if available - double is best. However, "old-fashioned" responsive double promises at least 44 in the minors (and not 43) given opps bid and raise the major. Yet, I am coming to the conclusion that it's probably the best stretch here...

Ditto. It boils down to using common sense in applying any hand evaluation system: if we do not reevaluate/downgrade the hand throughout the bidding, any evaluation system (call it Zar, LTC, FTL, LOTT, etc etc) is bound to produce goofy results under many circumstances.

I dislike this hand type (reverse with 3 card support) and therefore have chosen, playing precision, to use the jumprebid to 2NT for a distributional reverse with 3 card support. In absence of that I'll jump to 3D

I bid 2NT, and the only alternative I can think of is 1NT. ==== I'd rather be interested in what should we bid if RHO raises opener to 2H, assuming it can show a bust up to a bad constructive raise.

I think that bringing up this example is not a good way to verify the effectiveness of LTC count. Obviously the rule of 24 should be applied only when finding a fit. When one does have a 2-suited hand, he/she will assume, for starters, that - on percentage- there should be a fit in one of the 2 suits. Sometimes this does not happen, such as in the completeley misfitting hands, but an intelligent application of LTC should mean to dowwngrade hands when it's clear there is a misfit. One should note that such competely misfitting hand will be a problem for most point count evaluation systems (Milton Work Count being one of them). LTC is sure a simplified rule, but trying to demonstrates it does not work by means of some bbrainless application is not a fair way to proceed, IMO.

if 2S shows a Raptor hand (4S and 5+ in a minor), I'll run. If instead length can be equal, I pass

I think this hand is too strong for a 3-level FJS: using R-S I'd either bid 2NT (inv+ 4 card raise, even when 2NT is nonjump) or FJS at the 4 level. I would bid a 3-level FJS holding, say, JTxx,KQTxx,xx,xx, basically a mixed raise with concentrated values: with a 10 count or equivalent (Gerben's 9 count is indeed a worth 10 count), IMO better avoid a 3-level FJS but use a stronger bid.

I see your point, which is quite sound. On the other hands, this means giving up playing 1NT many times (which is often the par spot in MP games). It seems to me that the ideal could be to use 1NT as artificial raise at IMPS and "natural-ish" at MP :rolleyes:

If your pard does not get confused, sounds ok to me. However, *I* would be confused :-) If I were opener, I would be very much confused by this sequence. However, I think the main idea is that, IMO, there is little point in making a fitshowing bid. I like to use a fitshowing bid when I want to describe my hand to pard and leave him the choice of the contract, relinquishing control. In this case, I want to be the one to place the contract, so I'll try to take control of the auction by means of a forcing raise followed by EKB.

I blame the system: I hate to play inverted raise as UNLIMITED (unless we are playing a strong club system, where at least opener has already been limited). I think the most efficient use of inverted raise is to show an invitational hand or GF hand but WITHOUT slam prospects. Otherwise in the followup, it becomes unclear whether we should focus the auction to verify the NT stoppers or to veruify whether the hands fit for slam. When I used to play 2/1 + inv min we did use the CrissCross raise (1C-2D or 1D-3c) to show a raise with slam interest and 1m-3M as splinter. This scheme did relieve the 1m-2m raise from the overload: therefore, after the 2m raise, it was quite clear that, unless OPENER were very strong, the main goal is to verify whether we can play partscore or game in NT or in a minor.

The 3NT is confusing for North: 3NT does NOT guarantee a balanced hand but it can be based on a long running club suit, and from North's perspective it is likely that South has solid clubs and a diamond stopper, in which case probing for a major suit slam is very risky. So my blame goes 95% to South and 5% to N. With South, I'd have bid 2NT which I play (15+)16-18. This is a slight underbid (this 18 count is great), but IMO more practical. The alternative would be double then 3NT, which does full justice to the hand strength but makes the auction slightly awkward..