Chamaco

Agree. Strong Club is supposed to guarantee some defensive power. AKxxxx-AJxxxx-x-void Should not be a strong club opener, but would be evaluated so, using zar.

1) I a 2/1 context I lke 14-16 NT better than 15-17, provided we are playing the Mexican 2D opener for 17-18/19 hands, as Mike has mentioned 2) in a strong club + 5c Major context I prefer to use a (12)13-15 NT, in order to absolutely guarantee 4+ cards in diamonds and an unbalanced hand. In my view, the advantage of knowing fo sure that 1D is 4+ and unbalanced is invaluable (e.g. much superior than any subtlety invlved in "nudging" the range of NT) for both constructive and competitive bidding. Of course Canape strong club players won't have such a problem :)

Hehe, not so "super" weak NT, some players do play (at the right vulnerability) 1NT = 9+/12- :)

The use of 2NT or 3NT to discriminate trumps quality is a good tool, but redundant if you play 4NT RKCB. As a matter of fact, this 2NT/3NT/4NT bid was widely used by the Blue Team, introduced by Chiaradia in the neapolitan Club and described in the later Belladonna writeups. However, they did use 4NT as Keycard ask only if it was a jump. If 4NT was bid up the line, it was the so called "declarative-Interrogative" bid, which was multi-meaning, with concepts very similar to the "Turbo 3NT" and "Turbo 4NT" used nowdays by many italian players (shows an odd or even no. of keycards during a cuebidding scan), or to the "serious 3NT"/LTTC meaning used by others. This 4NT bid up the line makes it hard to check for the trump queen without bypassing 5M, hence, they needed a tool to guarantee/deny the trump quality before getting there. ---- Bottomline: the scheme is sound, but it needs adjustment to avoid redundancy (e.g. 1. RKCB 4NT is often useless and best substituted with "Turbo" 4NT, and 2. we need tools to guarantee/deny good trumps early on in the bidding).

Just a quick tip: the reason why it is important to describe as best as possible the SHAPE befor starting the cues, is the fact that it's important to know: - if your pard is cuebidding shortness or honors; - if your pard has a long suit to develop, in which you might hold a key honor that will make the suit solid. For this reasons, many good players try to use sequences that allow to find a fit, but also to describe whether they have specific shortness or specific good suits. This way, when they reach the cuebidding stage, they have a much better idea about whether the small/grand slam is a good proposition, or whether the 2 hands are not fitting well despite extra values. Now, without entering the details of which conventions or schemes to use to allow for a better shape description, it is easy enough to start with the general principle outlined e.g. by Beto (and by Fred in his 2/1 article) that, *when a major fit is found and the 2 level, the bidding up to 3M describes shape, not controls*, and higher bids will instead be geared towards showing controls .

Quite frankly, I think that such thing as an "invitational" 7D-4M is quite a rare bird :) In theory, perhaps, but in practice, I think I'll always force to game: so, treating it as GF, it makes sense to start off with 1D response. For 64 shapes things are a bit less clear, but the main point IMO, is deciding right away whether we are going to treat the hand as a "bad" GF, starting with 1D response, or as a "good" invitational hand, starting with a 1M response.

Hmm. On the upside, I have 3 aces, two kings supported by an ace, and two queens supported by an ace. I don't think the hand is as bad as you make it. Arend I tend to agree with Arend here: the fact opener has all prime values, means that they cluster well with any quacks provided by responder. I think that, even in balanced hands, AK in the same suits are worth at least 7.5 hcp, and even downgrading by say, 0.75 hcp the hand for 4333 shape, I'll reevaluate it for all the prime values held.

Is this not a quantitative invite ? At the table I would have taken so, and therefore accepted the iinvite bidding 6NT (23, prime values, despite 4333).

I think that the system on in the balancing seat should be the same regardless of the NT range: after 1NT-p-p- ? The risks of passing (being stolen) and of bidding (being busted) are more or less the same regardless of whether 1NT is, say, 15-17 or 12-14 or 10-12. So, even pairs who play Defense A vs strong NT and Defense B vs weak NT, should IMO revert to B even vs strong NT, in the balancing seat.

Phil, I can see the merits of Meckwell defense, but I'd like to know the reasons why Woolsey's defence works better than DONT vs strong NT. The problem with DONT is the suit lengths get garbled. Take (1N) - 2♦ (♦'s and a major). Do we have 5♦'s and 4 of the major? 5-5? What do we do with 5M and 4♦'s? The Woolsey double (minor + major) and direct 2 of a major clarify the lengths nicely. Of course with DONT, you get to show the minor single suiter at the 2 level. However, as I'm sure you've noticed in this day and age, a 2♣ overcall provides zero preemption to practiced opponents (they ignore it) and a 2♦ overcall doesn't get you much more. If you have a decent 6 bagger, and the vulnerability isn't red / white, try 3♣ or 3♦ playing Woolsey. This call is wide-range and is much more effective. Ok, so what do you think of the scheme below, quite popular at the club I am playing ? X = generic minor 1 suiter 2C = Landy 2D/H = xfer to H/S, can be M+m 2-suiter, can be strong 2S = raptor hand with spades 2NT = minors 3C/D = natural Raptor with 4 hearts 3H/S = preemptive

Phil, I can see the merits of Meckwell defense, but I'd like to know the reasons why Woolsey's defence works better than DONT vs strong NT.

This is a good one. I must say I have not learned to follow this tip yet though ;) I wish I could. There is a bi deal of suggestions that can be found in the literature about chess and how to handle competitive stress. Actually it seems (as it should) that it varies very much from player to player. Botvinnik used to stay all the time at the table, never losing focus. Smyslov instead liked to wander around when it was not his turn to play, while loosely analzing blindfold but taking basically a break. Najdorf was famous instead to relax by bugging everyone around him with funny jokes or bragging about what a great move he found. and so forth... Perhaps Justin you might want to follow the footsteps of Capablanca who instead preferred to flirt with pretty women :lol:

LOL ! Sure, that applies to every upgrade/downgrade/offshape bid :-) Let's say that *if my pard did it* I would not have anything to object (for us, hands with stifff honors are treated as balanced routinely), ;) but I am asking the opinions of the BBF friends here, later I'll discuss it with pard ! :lol:

This hand had a optical illusion to me. At first I felt the big urge to bid 3NT, but then I thought it was quite a gamble, that would need probably to expect to pick up BOTH minors for no losers, an eventuality against odds, by listening to the bidding. The second urge was "What the heck, if I cannot bid 3NT I'll double!"; but yet again, it is not clear we are going to defeat the contract by much if opps can score 8-9 tricks in the major and ruff the second round of our minors. My third, and final consideration was the following: "After all, this is a minimum opener, despite 15 hcp; if I did not hold the J of hearts, I'd pass. Better pass and leave to pard the choice"

6D runs the risk of losing on opening Ace of spades and spades ruff. If I had to bid a slam here I'd overbid 6NT hoping to pick up the needed tricks in the minors making use of the distributional info available. If not 6NT I'd just double

A further question on the evaluation of such hand types. I agree it's a marginal 15 count: downgradeable for the stiff Ace, and slightly upgradeable for the 5 card suit and the Q98 cluster in the 5 card suit (that's why I reevaluated it as a 15 count). The question is related to my habit of "systematically upgrading" bad 15 hcp (and often very good 14 count) to a 1NT opening whenever I do not have a 4 card major: I do this in order to make it harder for opps to compete if they have the majors. Any thoughts about this habit ? (Please be nice ;) )

I would have assumed here that: - pass is forcing and shows 4 hearts, (e.g. in a GF forcing auction, pass is equivalent to a neg double, and double is business) - double and 3NT other hand types without 4 hearts ? Does the above make any sense ?

Wow, many factors here ! ;) I am sure many things can be done, but, at least from my chess playing experience, one thing that worked was to: - go to play after physical exercice (my best results in chess tourney were when I went to play right after swimming, still wearing my swimming clothes LOL!) - eat something (a cookie or whatever) every, say 45-60 min. When you are under stress for time longer than 60 mins, you need something to eat (and drink), to have maximum concentration from your brain. When you are weak, and consumed much energies, it's easier to fall into bad mood, negative thinking, get upset, etc etc.

I try the spade Ace. This could work very well or very bad, but I am not fond of leading clubs here, and diamonds or hearts can be very risky too. From the bidding, I infer that if someone has 4 spades, it will be dummy, and I would lead through dummy. ----------------- EDIT: Sorry, did not see the quantitative raise to 4NT, I was assuming a lead vs 3NT. That makes the A of ♠ lead much more dangerous IMO. I'll settle for a club lead too, dspite the fact I do not like it, but the alternatives seem quite unappealing....

I know this is no place for system discussion, however, since you address such an issue, I am fond of responding to pard's 2C overcall using the same scheme over pard's Precision 2C opening. That usually allows to rest in 3C when needed. This of course is not possible if the 2m overcall is in diamonds.

Bridgeboy, could you post the full hand ? I know one hand proves nothing, but it might be interesting to view it. Thanks ! :)

What do you think of a structure that replicates strong club opening with some modifications ? -------------------------------------------- X = 16(17?) +, any shape except 2 suiters. Advancer bids as if responding to a strong 1C opening. 1D = takeout limited (max hcp = 15) , guarantees 43 or better in major, can be void in diamonds. Basically it's a nebulous 1D, but includes the 3-suiter short in Diamond. 1H/1S = natural, NF 1NT = Raptor (or some specific 2 suiter ? ) 2C = natural, same as Precision 2C 2D/H/S = weak 2, natural 2NT = 55+, diamonds + major 3C = 55+, both majors

Increasing the number of auctions that go via Stayman is no great damage to the constructive auction, but it delivers quile a lot more info to the defense for the opening lead and later decisions. This is one of the main disadvantage of "phony Stayman", and I evaluate such a disadvantage as a quite significant one. The "normal Stayman" is already bad enough because of the info it gives to the defense, but at least it serves the purpose to find the 44M fit. If I have to choose a compromise, I rather give up the superaccept of clubs transfer, using the 2S = either xfer to clubs or quantitative raise (as described by Ben). Losing the possibility of superaccepting specifically in clubs loses sometimes, but the frequency of the quantitative invite to 3NT is quite higher and I do not want to use stayman there :-)

I don't know if it makes sense or not, but here is the way I cope with the hands Flame is referring to (invitational, 5+D & 4M). Using Walsh, after 1C-1M-1NT-? I use one of the many versions of xyz. So now responder bids 2C, puppet to 2D, and after the forced puppet, I rebid 3D. That is usually 64 or a very good 5 card diamond suit. With 5431 and a modest suit and/or Notrump oriented values, I rebid 2NT invitational. There might be, admittedly, cases where the hand will play better in a minor, but if pard has a weak NT hand and we have a featureless invitational hand, it seems to me this should occurr not so often. The alternative potential game contract (a Moysian in major) should be ruled out by the fact that opener denied a 3 card raise.

I think Free was basically replicating the structure of Moscito Openings, using X as a substitute fotr "strong-ish" 1C. He already has a built-in framework for bidding constructively over that, so I am not shocked by his proposal :-)