Chamaco

I lead a heart and wasted a trick, when dummy came down with KJxx-AT-Axxxx-Jx The T held the trick and declarer proceeded to set his club suit, making 1NT+1 when the rest of the field scored 1NT with no overtricks. The point of this poll was to verify whether other players would consider more sensible to look for help from pard to develop our heart length (despite declarer bid it) or go with a safe lead (diamonds) which might indeed waste an entry for our hearts length (pard will be short in diamonds, if declarer ducks, he wil kill one of our entries for hearts, if we develop it).

Happy birthday, have a good one ;)

Justin, I definitely agree with you for the analysis of 5431 shapes, but when Raptor becomes indeed great is when you get dealt a 64 shape. What's more, with Raptor you can compete, at favourable, with those 9-10 hcp hands that do not provide the defensive strength needed for a takeout double. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs :-)

Honestly, playing Raptor 1NT, there are indeed hands where I regret giving up the natural 1NT overcall. There are quite a few things that can go wrong: - if you pass or double offshape opps may bounce high, and pard may not read your shape/values - if you pass pard may play you for a weaker hand - if you pass, pard in the balancing seat is under a greater pressure (needs to balance lighter, with, say, 9 hcp - if you double pard may preemptively (or constructively) jumpraise your "promised" major (where you have a doubleton) All I am saying is that I think the frequency of such losses is lower than the frequency of the gains. we will gain: - on the vast majority of the 4M+long minor hands - in some cases where the natural 1NT overcall is slaughtered by opps Finally, there will be some hands where by simply doubling for "takeout", "a la power double" we shall reach the same spot as if we had opened 1NT, so these hands should be discounted. =========== From this "quick'n'dirty" frequency-magnitude analysis I would think that at Matchpoints the Raptor 1NT seems to be a winner (despite the antifield position). It seems possible to me that at IMPS, the risk of being stolen (not finding game) makes the amount of the losses heavier (even if less frequent), so that they matter more.

Hi all ! MP pairs, nobody vuln. you are west and your LHO deals and opens 1♦. The auction proceeds, unconstested: LHO.....RHO 1♦....1♥ 1♠....1NT all pass (assume pretty standard auction, with no fancy gadgets by opps) You hold: ♠Ax♥J9652♦KQJT♣Qx What card do you lead and why ?

Buon Compleanno, ma che fai collegato su BBO ?, Vai a divertirti, e tienimi da parte un pezzo di torta !! :P (PS- ammazza se sei giovane! :) )

I have to disagree with Han's evaluation here :-) 1. 10-15 hcp 4M+5m hands have a frequency slightly higher than natural strong NT overcalls (I used to have a reference about this, but it was documented somewhere, not my own evaluation); 2. everytime the 4M 5m comes up, being able to use Raptor is best e.g. ..... -no offshape t/o dbl, ......-no 4 card opercall in the major, ......- no 2m overcall with side major, ......- no equal level conversion, which would e a pain if opps bounce high This is no surprise I thinkm,, since that's what the convention was designed for :-) 3. agree that SOME problems MIGHT arise when you do have the strong NT hand. In these case, however: .... a. it is not ALWAYS advantageous to stick in with natural 1NT overcall; sometimes opps catch you for a phone number; even if the frequency for this is not that high, the amount of loss is bad enough to make it important at IMPS; Matchpoints is another ballgame, I'll admit; .... b. quite a few times you can manage things with a double followed by a NT bid. True, sometimes it does not work well, but this happens just a few times. .... c. Moreover, if there are strong players who play power doubles with 15+, whiy not double with good 15/16+ and a strong NT hand ? To summarize: when the right hand for Raptor arises, the use of Raptor is a no-loss choice; when the strong NT arise, the inability of overcalling naturally, sometimes is a loss, but sometimes avoids a loss. So in the long term we get a sure plus on the 5m4M hands, and an unclear outcome in the strong NT hands.

I would indeed open 4C opposite a passed hand pard. Doing so vs an unpassed hand is quite a risk, IMO, for many reasons, and one of the biggest is that we bypass 3NT when it's our hand. For these kind of doubts, I like simulating constrained deals. I actually did for this one, but I won't bug anyone on the forum with that. If you are interested, I can send :-)

The bid I liked least was west's 2S rebid. This shows onlyextra length and a decent hand , whereas the hand is stronger, Xing would deliver the general message: max overcall, tolerance for penalty pass, there is still room to show the 6th spade if pard bids hearts.

Endless discussion... Some players (many in Italy) bid 4441 hands treating them as balanced.... Then another bunch of players immediately object "what if pard xfers in your singleton playing you for a doubleton?"...

Totally agree. My view is: use instinct (yes, do it !!) for close/difficult decisions, but not for gross deviation from a standard play/bid. Abnormal play/bids based on solely "instinct" tend to rely on our own ego and might lose partership harmony for such one-sided acting.

Thx a lot Justin ! these sequences are not well documented, it's nice to have some suggestions about them.

One thing in common with Hamman and others great players on time, such as the Blue Team members (Forquet, Garozzo, Belladonna) was the fact that they experienced having some "real" team captains. The Blue Team had Perroux, a "real" captain, managing people's highs and lows, helping the players during difficultis, and being hard and tough when discipline was called for. The Dallas Aces, of which Hanmman was part, had a similar experience (Ira Corn hired a n ex military officer for that, if I recall well), from what I could read. When you get to the top of the World (and stay there) after such experiences, you become tough. You have learned discipline and stamina, and the "sense of the team". As an outsider, I think this does make a difference. ------------------------------------------------------------- One interesting article on "what it takes to be a winner " in sports, can be found here: http://www.usta.com/communitytennis/fullst...s?iNewsID=29302

No , flaw 1 and 2 are different flaw types: 1) having a side 4 bagger is bad for any "preempt", even 54, 64 or 74, even if we do not have game. This has 2 efects: a- potentially not finding a 44 fit b- even if we do not have a fit, it increasing the chances we have sidesuit losers. 2) I chose the wrong words for "flaw 2", I should not have referred to the 74 shape but rather to the overall strength of the hand, which in this case is not ONLY the effect of the 74 shape but also of the suits texture. The same could be said if the hand held, say, KTx in hearts (1-3-2-7 shape)instead of QTxx, so this flaw is not the duplication of the fact of having a side 4 bagger. The hand is potentially VERY strong (5.5 losers, in offence, the equivalent of a reverse, if we find a fit) , too strong for a preempt,which makes more likely we miss either 3NT or game/slam. Of course this depends on the level of your 4m preempts. Do you preempt, at favourable, to 4m with one of the following hands ? x-x-xxx-QJT8xxxx or xx-x-xxx-QJT8xxx If you do, you cannot bid the same with the hand posted, because pard will play you for a weaker hand and will be unable to cooperate intelligently when he has a good hand. ------- Furthermore, there is one more flaw i did not mention explicitly, but that should be mentioned (it is indeed considered a flaw both by Woolsey in "Matchpoints" and by Anderson/Zenkel in "Preempts from A to Z"): the fact that pard is unpassed hand. This should be added to the list of flaws when considering offshape preempts.

Yes, just as over a 2NT opener. 2NT (20-21) - 4NT is quant invite. 20-21 and 22-23 is a 2 hcp range, so the system is the same. (Or, if we think it does not make sense, then the system should change , for sake of consistency, also over the 2NT opener) Of course when the range is so small,, the criteria for accepting is not so much point count but the overcall quality of the hand and specifically: - shape (4333 is a minus, a 5 bagger is a plus) - honors clustering is a lus, and AK clustering is a HUGE plus, worth close to 1 full extra hcp for each AK cluster - presence/lack of intermediates (T9s), not accounted for in the point count

You might like to read Krogius excellent book on "Psychology in chess". Also recently quite a bunch of books on psychology in chess were published.

The issue of "instinct" is a tricky one. Instinct does exist, but the vast majority of low level players (I am not referring to real experts; I include myself in the low level group including, say, intermediate/advanced) seem to invoke "instinct" to explain choices that are not technical. I mean, many times, it is not instinct, but rather "guesswork" because they did not actually try to (or were capable to) work out a better solution. To make a concrete example, many of the exercise hands in Killing Defense by Kelsey, would be solved by "instinct" attempt, rather than try to work out in depth the solution. In most cases, as we know, instinct would not be enough- whereas working out the situation could work. Of course, such players usually brag about theitr "instinct" , saying it usually works, but often enough this is just a biased record: they just remember the times that it works and forget when it does not. So, let's say, that, WAY TOO OFTEN, it's rather a "wannabe instinct", but you cannot tell it to those who are so proud about it ! ;) ==== My idea is that I like a partner that dares to "take a view", but I feel more comfortable if he "uses his instict" in cases where he indeed knows the "normal" technical solution: in other words, he knows *when and why* he is going against the field. Instead, quite often, I listen to "instict explanations" that clearly reveal the fact that this hides instead some lack of knowledge in technical area. And, with the same frequency, this "instict" is used as an excuse not to study bridge (card combinations or practicing bidding or whatever) because "at the table I get it right by instinct" :blink: Of course, this does not refer to expert players, my level is such that I would not be in a position to evaluate their choices.

Nobody passes this hand in 1st/2nd seat ? I would not prempt (but pass instead) if pard is unpassed hand because of Kit Woolsey's 2 flaw principle ("When in doubt for a marginal call/distorting bid, do not do it if the hand has 2+ flaws compared to the 'ideal' hand you promise") : Flaw 1= a side 4 card major; i would not consider it too big of a flaw if the 4 bagger were 9532, but the actual 4 bagger is instead far from worthless Flaw 2= 74 shape (even if the side 4 bagger was not a major) is VERY strong, especially with this texture. Preempting will cool down pard's expectations if he holds a normal hand Flaw 3 = the level of the preempt. I am unsatisfied with neither the 3 or 4 level: 3C is little obstructive, 4C is too high and potentially preempts pard too much, I like to preempt to 4C only with long suits but very weak. This of course depends on the standards of strength the partnership has agreed for a 4-level minor preempt. ===== However I indeed would preempt in 3rd seat.

At IMPS, just make your contract, and do not worry about overtricks. Usually try to make, even by risking a line where you would go down more. There are some exceptions of course (e.g. they doubled you, in which case going down by a lot more will be too costly), but in "normal situations" (undoubled contracts, especially game contracts), do not fear going 2-3 down if in doing so you give youself a chance to make a difficult contract.

I would not use a splinter in pard's suit, especially if he has a 5+ suit, as is likely here. Is it plausible to agree here a jumprebid 4C to show a good 6+ club suit and good fit in spades (having denied hearts before) ? In this instance it seems to me a much better description of the hand, showing the concentration values in 2 suits, wheras splinters usually tend to show more a 3-suited pattern.

That shoud show a ♠ fit, imho Agree (and I was not suggesting to use it for this hand), but what implications about hearts ? 1st round control, 2nd round control, EKB ?

Justin, what would 1S-(4H)-5H be in your scheme ?

Advancer's bids are not actually structured the way you suggest. After: 1NT-X-Pass The most frequent bid is 2♣. This asks for a five card suit, so doubler will normally bid 2♥ (for example) holding five hearts, even if also holding four or more clubs. Adam, what does advancer bid when he is short in clubs ? (this is related to the rebid scheme for overcaller: shall he pass a 2C advance if holding 5+ clubs?) E.g. xxxx-Kxxxx-QJx-x a. Here, if advancer is short in clubs should he bid 2C asking for a 5 card suit ? And if overcaller has 5+clubs, should he pass the 2C advance ? b.(related to a): should 2D be pass/correct with C shortness ?

Might I suggest MisIry even playing Strong club? :-) Sure Ben :) As a matter of fact I think that 4-losers 2-suiters should be opened with something else than a strong club, even when they guarantee, say, some 16-18 hcp. I tried to experiment Misiry and propose to my pards but that was not so well accepted. So now we open 4-loser TOUCHING 2 suiters with 2S, and 4-losers NONTOUCHING 2 suiters with 2NT. We lose some preemption: - no Unusual 2NT opener (but often this does backfire, so we are not desperate about this) - no natural weak 2 in spades, nor Muiderberg 2's: that's worse, we play 2D Multi and 2H as Precision 3suiter short in diamonds. We gain: - the opportunity to anticipate opponent's preemption, or to be able to better explain opener's hand if opps stick in. - in contructive bidding: the big club opener has more rarely a 55+, and when he does, it's a battleship (3-losers or less). - we protect our big club from preemption: most of the times the hand is either one suiter or (semi)balanced or featureless (5332,5422, 5431, etc). The 64 or 74 hands are still problematic, but at least we have removed some of the problem hads (55+, where after preemption it becomes hard to show the 2nd suit).

As with all evaluation systems, common sense should prevail. I wouldn't open this hand on the 1-level either if you remove either Ace even though Zar would say so. LOL Gerben, I totally agree with you, but that means that neither me nor you are using ZAR points: the peculiarity of ZAR is that it totally ignore the defensive power required by traditional openings. :-) If we are introducing common sense we are turning the metrics into Gerben or Chamaco points LOL (the latter wd be a nightmare ehehe). It is interesting to note, BTW, that ZAR points tend to estimate the strength range of hands in offence with results very similar to the Losing Trick Count (not an original comment, I know: it was already made earlier by Misho :) ).