Chamaco

Ditto. Why should I take unilateral decision ? I already bid my hand, and it seems to me that against decent opps, 4D means simply giving opps the fielder's choice: both my hand (10-14) and pard's hand (comp. raise) has been limited by the earlier bidding. Indeed, I am surprised that the poll results are so balanced for now :-)

How necessary are ratings in ftf bridge ? :)

Hey, I am reading this too late... :-( I can understand Helene's comments about Riccione: it is an artificial town, grown in the last century (unlike Rimini, my hometown - which has a Roman downtown ... yes you guessed right, there is a rivalry between Rimini and Riccione, eheheh), and basically right now is a sort of Vegas without Casinos... Nightlife, dance clubs and discobars are the main points of the touristic offer, besides the beach... But renting a car and moving in the inland one can discover other things, another world from Riccione's downtown... Or, alternatively, having a local person accompany you for a tour, of course ! :-)

One way to distinguish one suited minors with weak(ish) and invitational strength is to use a Puppet bid by responder's 2-level rebid in the forcing notrump sequences. E.g. 1S:1NT* 2X:? .....-next step(Puppet) followed by 3C = weak .....- direct 3C = invitational Fred Gitelman has mentioned playing a (much) more elaborated version of the same principle (with some exceptions of course) Kokish has written a chapter about a scheme similar to Fred's in Granovetter's "For experts only" (I hope I am not confusing it with another book; please correct if I am wrong, the title was "Rediscovering the forcing NoTrump" ). However, simply using the next free step (except a preference to opener's major) as Lebensohl-ish Puppet bid should be enough to solve most of these problems. Whether the cure is worse than the evil, that's another matter, and who am I to say it ? :-)

Ty a lot Mike ! Yes, I think your suggestion sounds quite appealing to me (effective without messing up the largest part of the system), I'll talk about that with my buddies. :-) And thx also to Nuno for sharing his experience :-)

But what would you do with a weak misfit (0-2 spades) hand ? If pass would mean "Nothing to say", then one could pass; but, instead, if pass means "go for blood", then passing with such hand type would not be available ? I am confused about this issue...

Hi all ! :P With my current team we play a version of Precision with control responses (uncontested; if opps stick in, we revert to more or less natural methods). Here is the outline of the structure : 1♣ .....1♦ = 0-7 OR positive unbalaced with 6+ controls .....1♥ = positive unbalaced with 0-2 controls .....1♠ = positive unbalaced with 3 controls .....1NT = positive unbalaced with 4 controls .....2♣ = positive unbalaced with 5 controls, WITH at least a 4+ card major .....2♦ = "Multi" = weak 2 in a major (say 3-6+/7- hcp or so) positive unbalaced with 5 controls, NO MAJOR .....2♥,♠,NT = positive balanced, 8-10/11-13/14+ .....3X = various shapes and ranges for positive 4441's Other important features of the system are: - 1♣:1♦:1♥ is a strong relay (usually 19+) - 4-losers 2 suiters (say 16-18 55xx) are opened directly at the 2S and higher level, so these hands won't be opened 1C - 3- losers 2 suiters (e.g. 19+ 55xx) shall open 1C and over a negative response shall jump rebid 2S or higher. - 1NT opening is (12+)13-15, and 1♣:1♦:1NT is 16-18 - we play "real" 1D opening, usually unbalanced, might be (14)=3=5 with bad clubs - we open 2D "Multi" = weak 2 or (16+) 17-20 three suiter 4441's - 2H opening is for minimum openings with short diamonds I might have missed some points but more or less you get the idea of what the system looks like ================================ Now that I have described the premises, HERE IS THE QUESTION Opener's 2nd round rebid after a 1D response: 1♣:1♦: .......1♠ .......1NT .......2♣♦♥ Are all non forcing, showing a minimum 1C opener. Now, in traditional precision, responder has already limited his hand to 0-7. In this case, instead, responder might still hold a positive unbalanced hand 6+ controls, with good slam prospects. I would like, ideally to be able as responder to do both of the following: - bid my suit, encouraging, nonforcing - have a GF bid available, to tell pard, "Hey, I am not negative, i have indeed a 6+ controls hand, and slam is still in the picture". This is not a big deal in the sequence 1♣:1♦:1NT, because by using common tools as transfers, and staymanic relays, it is still possible to stay in familiar ground. But, I am lost especially in the sequences 1♣:1♦:2♣♦♥, where I'd like to be able to bid a suit nonforcing at the 2 level, but also to be able to probe for slam. Any suggestions without introducing major changes to the system ? (I know some shall argue this is badly flawed, but at this point in time i cannot get my teammates to change it, so if you mean to respond, please do it under the above premises :( )

Hi all ! :P With my current team we play a version of Precision with control responses (uncontested; if opps stick in, we revert to more or less natural methods). Here is the outline of the structure : 1♣ .....1♦ = 0-7 OR positive unbalaced with 6+ controls .....1♥ = positive unbalaced with 0-2 controls .....1♠ = positive unbalaced with 3 controls .....1NT = positive unbalaced with 4 controls .....2♣ = positive unbalaced with 5 controls, WITH at least a 4+ card major .....2♦ = "Multi" = weak 2 in a major (say 3-6+/7- hcp or so) OR positive unbalaced with 5 controls, NO MAJOR .....2♥,♠,NT = positive balanced, 8-10/11-13/14+ .....3X = various shapes and ranges for positive 4441's Other important features of the system are: - 1♣:1♦:1♥ is a strong relay (usually 19+) - 4-losers 2 suiters (say 16-18 55xx) are opened directly at the 2S and higher level, so these hands won't be opened 1C - 3- losers 2 suiters (e.g. 19+ 55xx) shall open 1C and over a negative response shall jump rebid 2S or higher. - 1NT opening is (12+)13-15, and 1♣:1♦:1NT is 16-18 - we play "real" 1D opening, usually unbalanced, might be (14)=3=5 with bad clubs - we open 2D "Multi" = weak 2 or (16+) 17-20 three suiter 4441's - 2H opening is for minimum openings with short diamonds I might have missed some points but more or less you get the idea of what the system looks like ================================ Now that I have described the premises, HERE IS THE QUESTION Opener's 2nd round rebid after a 1D response: 1♣:1♦: .......1♠ .......1NT .......2♣♦♥ Are all non forcing, showing a minimum 1C opener. Now, in traditional precision, responder has already limited his hand to 0-7. In this case, instead, responder might still hold a positive unbalanced hand 6+ controls, with good slam prospects. I would like, ideally to be able as responder to do both of the following: - bid my suit, encouraging, nonforcing - have a GF bid available, to tell pard, "Hey, I am not negative, i have indeed a 6+ controls hand, and slam is still in the picture". This is not a big deal in the sequence 1♣:1♦:1NT, because by using common tools as transfers, and staymanic relays, it is still possible to stay in familiar ground. But, I am lost especially in the sequences 1♣:1♦:2♣♦♥, where I'd like to be able to bid a suit nonforcing at the 2 level, but also to be able to probe for slam. Any suggestions without introducing major changes to the system ? (I know some shall argue this is badly flawed, but at this point in time i cannot get my teammates to change it, so if you mean to respond, please do it under the above premises :( )

Happy Birthday ! :-)

AJ10/9832/AJ10/J32 is not a 10 loser hand simply because a AJT suit cannot be treated the same as Axx A suit like AJT is closer to be a 1+ loser hand (1.25 if you wish). Hence, this hand is about a 8.5 loser hand, basically slight less than a limit raise: more or less what we'd come up to by simply using common sense :-)

Yes but I meant to keep 2NT for 4+ card raises, not including the 3 card raise. Q1: Do you think it's wortwhile to include 3 card raise into 2NT ? Q2: Instead, I had toyed with the following, switching the meanings of direct and xfer raises. - direct raise: constructive 3 card raise - xfer raise: EITHER a preemptive OR a limit raise - 2NT = limit+ 4 card raise. Do you think that the slight loss of preemption when we do have a preemptive raise is worth the added advantage in discriminating the hand types ? Thanks a lot for your suggestions B)

My concerns are not related to the chances to "go for blood", but mostly because even after a takeout double, I want to maintain ALL of the following options, with 3 card support: - showing a preemptive (bad) 3 card raise - showing a constructive 3/4 card raise (9-losers) - showing a limit+ 3 card raise. The way I am doing this is the following: - bad raise = raise directly - constructive 3 card raise (or featureless 4 card raise unsuitable for 2NT nor for a FJS): transfer raise - limit+ 3 card raise: start with a XX. - limit+ 4 card raise = 2NT - other raises = FJS a la Robson Segal This 3-card raise approach means that the xfer advances are on only starting from 1NT. ================ I have been toying with the idea of starting the transfer at the XX level, but it is not clear to me whether (and how) this maintains the option (that I absolutely don't want to give up) to separate: a. preemptive ; b.constructive ; c. limit+ 3 card raises ?

1- Weak misfit hands are occasionally a problem with Gazzilli. As Elianna ha pointed out, the problem is less acute if the partnership does NOT play 1NT forcing, because opener can pass 1NT, and because most responder's weak hands with the minors are removed. I do not really have stats about how bad Gazzilli scores in these misfit partscore sequences. All I can say is that, in my limited eperience, Gazzilli is geared towards gaining in hands where: ......a. opener has slam prospects (especially in the 1H-1S unlimited sequence), or ......b. opener is in the 15-17 range without a decent rebid (either underbid at level 2 and risk a pass, or overbid a bad suit at the 3 level). 2- when responder has 12 hcp, italian style is to just bash into games (even if opener is light), rather than inviting. So the 2NT invite sequence basically reduces to 11 hcp hands without support for the major 3- In the example given by cnszsun, some players would try to rebid 2H with a 3 card suit rather than risking a 2S or 3D call. Responder's 2H rebid used to guarantee a 5+ card suit in the earliest versions of Gazzilli, but lately more and more people require only a 4+ card suit, catering exactly for misfit hands. Not that this avoids disasters altogether, but at least stopping at the 2 level is less likely to get doubled. In the specific hand, the 2H bid on a 3 card suit allows opener to rebid 2S with a minimum 5-x-x-4 hand. Of course, I know that on many hands this will backfire (please spare me all the worst case scenarios :rolleyes: ), so is life !

Usually 2NT is used for weak (0-7 hcp) misfit hands (no tolerance for major), seeking a preference in a minor. If you have a balanced invite, just go via 2D.

In my experience, what you say here usually applies when you have a long suit (6+ cards) that - thanks to the top controls -can be expected to run for no losers, hence a NT contract is quite good. But when your longest suit is 4 cards (sometimes even 5), then having good controls (AK) and no quacks tends to increase the chances that a suit contract plays better (because the 3rd round loser can often be ruffed in a suit contract, so the suit will have no losers). That's why I am arguing that when we do have 2 flat hands facing each other, AKs are generally a suit contract indicator. But I guess none of us is a Meckwell nor a Bocchi Duboin ;)

Why is it that a suit contract will play better? I fail to see why. Lack of intermediate and great controls/quick tricks are generally referred to as good indicators that the hand is suit-oriented. In this case, of course, there is also a reverse indicator, e.g. 4333 shape is generally referred to as a good indicator that the hand is NT oriented. So here we have 2 conflicting indicators, one pointing towards suit cotract (or at least towards its investigation via Stayman), and another pointing towards a 3NT signoff bid. Personally - for what is worth - in light of the above reasons, with AK32 875 A73 982 I would strongly recommend using stayman, whereas with KT92 JT9 A73 KTx I would signoff in 3NT. I hope I was clearer now ;)

I don't agree here. 1. You don't have a ruff anywhere before the fourth round. Why do you think you could make more tricks in 4S with 4:4 than in 3NT? 2. All your points are in the majors. If it goes 1NT - 3NT, opps are much more likely to try a lead in the majors. But if it goes 1NT - 2C - 2H - 3NT, opps could well clear with the lead the only stopper that the declarer has in clubs. I agree with Ochinko

JB for President ! ;)

IMO after opps interference, there is no real need for Drury. In fact when responder has the value for a limit raise, : - he can bid 2NT (4+ fit), without fear of being too high in a 9 card fit, even if opener is light - with a limit 3 card raise, he can XX, or occasionally, with a really good sidesuit, make a fitshowing jump. - for the rest of the structure, I agree with the 1NT+ transfer bids mentioned by Ron, including a direct 2M to show a bad raise, and a 1-under raise to show constructive raise.

The problem is not the constructive raise, which is a real need IMHO. The main problem is the inclusion of hands with 3 card support in the forcing Notrump. There are plenty of possible solutions for removing hands with support from the forcing notrump (mostly based on transfer raises). But, of course, this will just transform the system in something different from the common definition of 2/1 (and this would just make the thread deviate from the main point). My personal opinion is that the forcing notrump, *in its most common usage* is plausible at IMPS (sometimes we lose a partscore, oh well, but has some other payoffs); but I am not very comfortable with it at Matchpoints, where: a- the fit should be delivered ASAP; b- it would be nice to play 1NT sometimes. Just my 2 cents ;)

Say that your 11 count is the following: AK32 875 A73 982 Then despite the 4333 shape, there is the likelihood that a suit contract will play better (sometimes even in a Moysian fit, although I am not suggesting we should look for one with this hand). So, I agree with the rest of the forum buddies who suggest that the type of values is one crucial factor to determine whether enquiring for a major.

Well done to Justin and all the USA1 youngsters !

#1 and #2 : Forcing #3 Pass at any vulnerability and form of scoring. Suit not good/long enough for an overcall, shape not good for a takeout double. Many quacks, defensive values. I'd treat this as a weak notrump hand, with shape unsuitable for a takeout double. Sometimes we'll be fixed at MP, oh well.

Lot has been said about this. One of the issue of opening 1C is having a suitable rebid without worrying of responder passing when there are chances to bid game. I think this depends from the system/agreements we are playing, and especially the policy of the 1m openers. Some systems approaches are based on very solid 1m openers: in such systems, a 1m/2m rebid guarantees more or less the playing strength in the example hand. Some others like to open 1m on the light side, and in such cases, the 2m rebid is more likely to be problematic (unless they have the agreement - quite reasonable IMO - that such a handtype is allowed to jump rebid 3m). The second issue is: Should the 1NT opening be descriptive (e.g. help responder to figure out what we have, usually scattered values, empty suits, tenaces, etc etc) OR should it be a trash can to clean the rest of the system ? Quite frankly, I don't know what works best about this second issue :-)

Pass and pass. In hand 1, I believe that - if there was any moment to stretch to bid - it was on the first round if bidding (in quick - out quick), where bidding slightly offshape would at least allow to get out at the 2 level, clearly better than waiting "to see how things develop" and then feel under pressure and consequently force the bidding to the 3 level.