Chamaco

We respond fairly light, even with near-yarboroughs, if the hand is unbalanced and/or we are white. In those cases, usually, it's true that 3M might be too high, but quite often opps have game on and are on a guess in the sandwhich seat and later on, so it's risky for both sides to get frisky. So far we did not have big acidents with such an approach but to be fair, this was not tested vs world class opposition... However, the style we use to JUMP to 3H is only for shapely hands: we play that opener's reverse guarantees 5-5.5 losers, and, for a hand limited to 15 hcp, this applies virtually only to 55 or 64 hands or better. In case of the 1D opener and jumpraise to 3M, it's almost sure it is a 64. So, this "safety mechanism" of bouncing only with shapely hands is already built-in.

I think 3NT was the worse, close to the 5C bid. However, had North raised immediately spades (with, say, jacoby 2NT or whatever forcing raise) despite his strong/long hearts, we would discover we are off 2 aces, hopefully making use of Exclusion RKCB or using some other voidshowing gadgets. Another textbook example of *why* the priorities in bidding are: a. finding/showing early a fit; b. limiting early the hand.

Personally, the only worry I have about a 3 card raise with xxx is that in case of Moysian, there are less chances of a dummy reversal. Sure, pard might blow a trick with the lead sometimes, but this applies to so many other situations (where we open/respond with terrible suits) that, IMO, it cannot be the main issue, provided the immediate raise eases the rest of the possible auctions. All in all, when the hand is balanced, suits texture, controls, quacks, and tenaces are the main indicators I use for my choice.

Thx all who replied :) Still, I would greatly appreciate if you could specify whether your answer would be different if playing a. all white b. all red c. white vs red Thanks again ! :)

I think playing 14-16, I would consider it a nobrainer 1NT. Even playing 15-17 I'd still open 1NT for the reasons below. Not having 4 card majors, and especially holding 5 clubs and 4D, I much prefer to risk a slight overbid of 1NT. Potential pluses: - anticipates competition in the partscore from opps - immediate description of the hand-type - honors in short suit are not necessarily wasted - in the given hand, the quacks are in the long suits and pull their weight; I like to count the Q of hearts as full value, being accompanied by the Ace; I MIGHT discount the J of spade, but still, the AJ tenace does not look all that bad if pard has a little something in spades. Potential minus: - pard may go overboard - we might lose a partscore when we could compete to 3m All in all, I like the pluses better than the minuses.

Yes I was thinking of Dealmaster, but in the Demo I downloaded, I could not try to import the files (the function is disabled) so I still don't know whether it has the capability to: a. import pbn files b. analyze many deals from a single file c. generate a statistics summary of the outcomes of the deals d. control the opening lead If it does all of the above, I do not mind spending 40$ for the full version. ========= EDIT: Oops, got confused with Deep Finesse :)

Hi all, I'd like to know which software you think it's best to analyze deals produced with hand simulators. Ideally, the task I would like to perform would be: a. generate , say, 100000 or more deals unders some specific constraints. This I can already do now, using rthe free program "Dealer". The output is in .pbn format b. The software I am looking for, should be able to import the pbn with all te hands and calculate the outcome of the deal, either assuming a specific opening lead, or using varying leads. It is fundamental that the program can analyze a LOT of deals from a single file and not having to make an anaysis for every single deal. c. finally, the program should give a statistics summary of , e.g. how many times we were able to set the contract using the lead, or how many times our preempt worked or how many times the slam could be made. etc etc. Thanks in advance for any suggestions !! :)

mauro, i'm working on putting weiss in FD, for now here's the 1D opening... mike can correct any errors: Jimmy, thx a lot !! This FD stuff is getting every day more awesome :)

Incommensurabile Re di Corinto, è possibile farlo semplicemente aprendo una chatroom su Yahoo o su Msn ed annunciandolo pubblicamente su BBO :(

Agree with Nuno. My hand is limited so pard won't play me a battleship, but now pd knows that his 3C rebid encouraged me AND that I have a spade control. My hand has become a full opener after pard's 3C rebid, I'll keep the auction alive. BTW all of the above assume that pard won't rebid 3C with an ordinary 5431 with 14/15 count. I expect a shapely hand, say 55 or 64 with at least a very good 13 count with good controls.

IMPS We are Vuln vs not Opps open a first seat preempt 3H. 3H-(p)-p-(3S) p-(4S)-5H-???? Now, is pass by the 3S bidder forcing or not ? Would it be different if we were: ......a. all white ......b. all red ......c. we are white and THEY are red

I agree that the relative length of minors is not a basic issue. My main purpose was rather to be able to show hearts in the sequence 1D:1S:?, without bypassing 2D. However, it might seem I was trying hard to solve these -admittedly minor - issues, but this would not be quite true: it's rather that, *having already chose to play 1D as natural*, we had a spere bid like 1NT and wanted to take advantage of this by using it for some hand types. :) Of course that's a price I am willing to pay, not opening bad 11-12 count. But it's not clear whether this a winner or loser in the long run, against good opps. When we do hold the balance of power, pard can bid and we'll show values, when we do not and opps buy the contract, at least declarer won't play double dummy knowing our shape/hcp. Our range is - actually - 13-15. Responder bids assuming opener has 13 at least, opener shall open most 12 counts with 2 aces. We've been playing this way for quite some time now, and did not have great problems: on rare occasions we indeed ended in thin NT games, but- as far as i can see - many strong players nowadays seem to accecpt such occasional stretches. On balance, I found the downsides of the NT range (passing bad 12, wide range of NT) being more than compensated by the fact of having REAL diamonds and an unbalanced hand: responder has a better idea of when competng for partscores and also in evaluating his hand for game/slam when the bidding is constructive. I like this suggestion :) However for the moment we are going to stick with the 1NT catchall, which has the practical advantage of leaving all the other bids as natural: my teammates prefer that, for memory issues

Oh, no special reason, except a very good practical reason: my teammates prefer to play this way because they find it morer intuitive and easier to remember :-) To me, it is only important to be able to discriminate, I'd play your method as well :-)

Buratti-Lanzarotti included a version of KI in their Nightmare system.

I indeed cnsidered some special meaning like that (some kind of raise), mostly because the other 2 meanings did not seem satisfactory to me. However, I am also concerned of frequency: I'd like to use te 1NT rebid for frequent hands. ======================================= BTW, what do you think the following sequences should mean (based on usefulness and frequency of the handtype) ? Bear in mind that: a. opener has max 15 hcp b. opener is unbalanced with 4+ diamonds c. opener could double to show 3 card support SEQUENCE 1- Opener cuebids opps suit 1D-(p)-1H-(1S) 2S SEQUENCE 2- Opener jumps to 2NT 1D-(p)-1H-(1S) 2NT SEQUENCE 3- Opener jbids a NON-Jump 2NT 1D-(p)-1H-(2x) 2NT

The usual guidelines for 3rd seat opening are: 1) lead directions 2) being able to pass any response by pard. The problem, however, ariss when we do open light, LHO overcalls at the 2 level and pard bids a negative double. So, a good 3rd rule of thumb for planning light actions in 3rd seat is: 3) have a bid ready if pard makes a negative double :) ================= Regarding Notrump bids by a passed hand: with a balanced 10-11, bidding 1NT is enough.

No, I would not jump holding KQJxxx UNLESS holding substantal extras in power or shape in the side suits compared to the original posted hand. (Basically , I would jump with a 5-5.5 losers hand, but never with a 6 losers hand such as the original posted.) Back to suit quality. KQJxxx has 1 SURE loser and potentially 2. AKJxxx or AKT9xx both have good chances to play for no losers and virtually exclude losing 2 tricks in the suit: this makes the suit much stronger (by, say, almost 1 trick), in my opinion. However, IMO, the same cannot be said for AKxxxx with bad spots.

I do not mind double, could be the best bid IMO if for the standard of the pship the 2S rebids shows a weaker hand..

Sure ! LOL :-) The pass has certainly a natural meaning ("Nothing to say, partner"), the post was concerned of the change of meaning of the artificial call 1NT.

Ok, sorry, my bad, I thought the suit had been agreed at the 4 level.

I like 2 schemes , with pros/cons: 1) Kickbac: 1st step above the agreed minor is kickback RKCB, higher steps are cue. The direct 4NT can be used as cuebid in the kickback suit; alternatively, at MP a case might be done for 4NT = to play; 2) "Turbo": just cuebid up-the line; bidding 4NT shows an even number of keycards, bypassing 4NT shows an odd number of keycards; One could play "Inverted Turbo", using the FIRST step to show an even number of keycards. Both approaches suffer of the same drawback: only one of the players can ask or show the keycards, and according to the sequences, it is not always the right player of the pair.

Sorry, for me probably it was a language misinterpretation: I meant "close" meaning that for me this is a little less than a 2.5 S rebid. So, as far as I interpereted it, "close" means in excess, but I might need to pull out my english book again ;)

I think this depends on the range of the weak 2 openers: A ) We open "sound weak 2s" if we open weak 2s in the 8-11 range, then we have 2 ranges only of 1-level opening strength below a reverse: ..A1 "minimum openings" ..A2: "sound" openings. B ) We open light weak 2s If with 10 hcp and KQJxxx and a side ace we open at the 1 level and not a weak 2, then we need to differentiate 3 ranges of strength below a reverse: ..B1: the "I wish I did not open" range; ..B2: the sound opening but minimum; ..B3: the "sound opening" but maximum but still not worth a reverse The difference between each range is about 1 trick. I think that with one less Ace (2A + a K), as Arend suggests, the hand would qualify as A1 or B2, according to the style, whereas, the posted hand with 3 aces and a K would qualify as A2 or B3. Bottomline, IMO we may have a hand stronger than a sound opening but still not worth a reverse :-)

I voted "close 2S": I want better spade spots to jump to 3S in potential misfit with p. The hand, as it is, is 6 losers, a *good* opening but not quite worth a reverse (reverse = 5.5 - 5 losers). Give me the J ot T9 of spades or 6331 shape with the same values and I am a 3S bidder. ===== EDIT: Oops, this duplicates mikeh's post, but I posted these views without having read his post ! ;)

My criteria to open very light (up to a bad 10- but I nearly always open hands with 2 Aces) in 3rd seat are that, if I do, I want to be able to: 1. pass any response by partner. 2. have a decent rebid planned if LHO overcalls and pard makes a negative double. This hand is borderline: I can pass any 1M response by p, but the 1D response leaves me awkwardly placed (according to the above agreement I should pass it). However, from the practical viewpoint, it seems unlikely the auction will die in 1D, so I might as well open, although the 1C opener is certainly not so much of an hindrance in terms of taking off bidding space from opps...