Chamaco

No, my question was referred to the defense vs 3-suited opening with absolutely unknown shortness

MSS is useful for either slam try in minors or minor-based GF hands very unbalanced that find 3NT unappealing. How much MSS is useful depends from other agreements in the system. E.g.: - if one can start a full relay scheme using 2C or 2D stayman, then MSS is less useful (when you do have a minors 2-suiter you just relay to ask shaoe rather than showing your own shape) - holding a minor 2suiter one could use xfer to clubs then bid diamonds with invitational values NF and use MSS for GF hands or btter - finally, responding to 2NT openers, using 3S as MSS can be a good path to look for slam in minor(s), unless using it for smolen hands. I am sure there are many other factors here, other posters will elaborate, I think (hope :lol: ).

This would become something very similar (and likely better) to Alan Truscott's "Bidding dictionary"

In the auction Nikos gave, it was possible for west to come in with a 2nd round double. I would like comments on whether such a double would be too dangerous. EDIT: Sorry forget it, did not notice opener had reversed.

What shall I do with strong balanced hands (say 18+ or 20+) with short clubs ? Just pass ?

Ty Frederick ! :) Using this scheme, what would be the bid having: ♠xx♥Axx♦AKQxx♣xxx

Frederic, is it possible you have misunderstood my question ? I was asking a defense scheme AGAINST the 3-suiter, not a scheme for responding if pard opens a 3-suiter. Did I miss something ? ;)

Ty Gerben. ;) What about the strength requirements vs PC ? Which of these bid is "nuisance" (does not guarantee constructive values) and which is geared to a constructive auction ?

Hi all, I know there have been a few past threads on defense vs Polish Club by other fellow posters, but I still have some doubts. Case 1- Polish Club a. do you use double as natural takeout assuming opener has clubs or can it be a generic double shwing opening values ? I have seen some strong italian players playing: ...Dbl = opening values, mildly takeout WITH 4+ clubs; ...1D = takeout without clubs ...Higher bids= natural (jumps = natural wjo) b. do you play the same 2-suited overcalls ? e.g. is 1C-(2C) Michaels (if you use it) ? c. what's 1C-(3C) overcall ? d. what's you strategy ? ...- frisky overcalls like vs the strong club ...- disciplined overcalls (after all most times opener has clubs or a weak NT hand, just as in more natural-ish systems) Case 2- "Short club" in a 2/1 context Pretty much the same questions: a. use of the dbl or other takeout b. 2-suited overcalls c. 1C-(3C) overcall d. general strategy

Hi all, some people play the 2C opening (or other openings) as minimum opening values (11-15) 3-suiter, unspecified shortness. Does anyone have a DEFENSE (edited by Mauro after Free's post) scheme he is happy with and that he has applied successfully in practice (not only in theory LOL). Also, any suggestion from your experience in playing vs these kind of openers is extremely appreciated: I have played against it just a few times and had a hard time evaluating my hands and the best strategy (pass, bid, double, etc), especially at MP, when the partscore fight (or partscore protecting) was needed. Thanks all ! :rolleyes:

Justin, the ability to analyze one's own mistake is the mark of great bridge players and of good men too. I think being able to say "I was wrong" (while still standing the legitimate different opinions) is a great quality, I really like this of you. I make mistakes much more often than you so I have more practice in saying that !! :unsure: From my part, I can only be happy to hear that some of the impressions I had were not founded :) As far as being sincere and open, I agree with your position, but keep in mind that the written medium is often tricky: the same thing, said with a smile and having a drink with friends, will not sound the same in the cold internet words. The latins used to say "Verba volant, scripta manent", meaning "Spoken words are volatile, but written text remains", so written words are much heavier and better handled with some caution. It is wise to remember this in any field of life ;) (I wish I would remember to apply myself this advice whenever I am challenged :D )

Where did Zar go personal ? When he said "if there were two of you it would be perfect?" If this is the crucial point, I think it is no offense: it is just a normal statement that good judgment is a personal thing and that it works optimally with pards with which we have a complete "bridge feeling". The same works for me or you: if only we could play with a copy of ourselves, all we be well. In any case, this remark was quite decent (and even if it was hironical - I am sorry to say - would not justify anyone to call ZAR a**hole). IMO Zar was trying to communicate that "good judgment" is harder to quantify than a given metrics, therefore - I myself would argue - harder to teach to weaker players. And in my opinion it's not useless to teach mechanical metrics to advancing players: just a well as we learned Milton Works point count and learned thereafter to appreciate its limits, we did the same with LOTT, with LTC and so forth. They are tools, and as a whole they just shed a new light on the possibility to develop a full-rounded "good-judgment", which of course is the overrall goal but not so easy to get to. --- Incidentally, I am pretty sure that Justin's judgment works much better than Milton Work count, LTC, LOTT, ZAR,Tysen and "Chamaco" ;) points. I do not think ZAR points are useful for players of Justin's caliber, but rather as a crutch for more mundane players.

1NT, IMO the least-of-evils shape distortion, and right on values.

I also play that a jump in 4th suit is GF 2suiter, natural. However, in this specific sequence, I think 3C should be signoff: otherwise, how can responder signoff in clubs when he has 4 hearts and 6 clubs ? So, if 3C is signoff, it seems to me that 2C (4sf) followed by 3C shows clubs.

I do not like the 3C bid after 4sf. It seems to me this shows indeed clubs. This of course depends on the agreements in 1-over-1 auctions. 4=1=5=3 or 4=0=5=4 I expect something like AJxx-void-KTxxx-KJxx I am probably settling for a Moysian fit in spades, bid 4S

While Justin is more than capable of standing up for himself, I should say that _I_ know him in person, and he is basically a nice guy. I think that he may seem arrogant in some of his posts elsewhere, because he makes statements, and doesn't explain the reasoning, and how dare a young person contradict others without being apologetic! (;)) I agree that he's not always the most agreeable person on the forum, but calling him the most arrogant, when there are others that go around purposely insulting others is a bit off the mark. As I said: 1. I do not know him personally, so I can draw impressioins only from written words; these impressions are not always fair, for no matter which person, I am perfectly aware of this. However, some posts did make some bad impression to me. 2. Elianna, I did not call Justin *the most arrogant person*. I just stated that he indeed seemed arrogant to me in quite a few instances, and seeing someone - who ( in my opinion of course) has responded with such a tone in the past- calling Zar arrogant and other things, was just too much for me. Indeed , he seemed to me more arrogant than Zar, not the most arrogant person on BBF or BBO. 3. still to Elianna: you are free to believe me or not (after all you do not know me personally :) ), but I assure you that, in my evaluation, I am not being harsher than usual because of the age of Justin, believe me. If anything, from my perspective, the fact that he is young tends to be a reason to justify some occasional unpleasant tones, not to be harsher. 4. As for me, just to respond to Justin's post, I always try to consider the hypothesis I was wrong. I do think that Justin, like all people on the Forum here is a nice guy. But some people, even nice guys, have sometimes the tendency to become arrogant or to feel "ONNIPOTENTI" (sorry, this is an italian word, I do not know the translation). There are many ways I could be wrong: - I could have had the wrong perception, perhaps I was reading Justin's posts in "one of those days"; - perhaps Justin wanted to be nice but in a few instances just used the wrong words (or that was just my peception), this happens quite often when writing in forums. Anyways, I think it's right that he knows that he may give this impression to at least some of the posters, at least before he himself attacks someone esle calling him arrogant. Then of course he is free not to give a damn about it, but at least he knows.

I prefer to keep my preemptive 3m raise available. Who are you preempting? Both opponents have already passed. If it goes p-(p)-1m-(p) i think it's important to jumpraise, at least for the partscore, with a weak hand. I think it does not really matter who I am preempting, I am bidding right away to the level at which I am willing to play. It's the same principle used in uncontested auctuions by LOTT-based schemes. All in all, I think I am not losing much by using the criss-cross raise to show an invitational hand, or do you suggest that the crisscross bid should be used for something else by a passed hand ? When I say who are you preempting, I mean you are preempting partner. If you have a weak hand, and both opps have passed, where do you think the high cards are? Usually, playing 2/1 or SAYC, I raise preemptively with aceless 0-5, and bid differently with 6-9 or with an Ace, to cater for a possibly strong opener. However I must admit I usually play Precision, so my answer is biased by the fact my pard is usually limited.

you know, you really are a pompous [deleted]. maybe if you bothered to not take my comment out of context of the quote that i was replying to which was: " even though they have the same shape and extra trump. Weak hands gain more from distribution than strong hands do. No current evaluation scheme takes this into consideration. " Measured in, human judgement knows that weak hands gain from shape more than strong hands. My human partner will also know this. Your ZAR point controlled robot will not. Now maybe instead of being a stubborn [deleted], you will actually read what people say instead of trying to beat into peoples heads that ZAR points are great. I'll play you any time for any amount of money and you can have any partner you want and you guys can play ZAR points and we'll see how you do. Stop being so condescending, ok? You have no reason to be. [a couple words and one sentence edited.... - inquiry] Look, Justin, I have been reading and posting quite a lot on the BB Forum. I do not know you and neither do I know Zar. But if I had to judge from the BB Forum posts, my own impression is that of the 2you are by far the most arrogant: very nice and kind to the player you consider strong, and arrogant and sometimes verbally violent with posters that disagree with youi without having any recognized achievements. And the fact that the achievements you have are much higher than Zar's is not- in my view - a good reason for this. Of course I might be wrong, as I do not know you, and also because the written words can be misleading. Also, probably other strong players older than you have developed some less disturbing ways to deal with these arguments. I just suggest you to sometimes stop and consider your attitude (without having any expectations you will follow my advice, though).

I prefer to keep my preemptive 3m raise available. Who are you preempting? Both opponents have already passed. If it goes p-(p)-1m-(p) i think it's important to jumpraise, at least for the partscore, with a weak hand. I think it does not really matter who I am preempting, I am bidding right away to the level at which I am willing to play. It's the same principle used in uncontested auctuions by LOTT-based schemes. All in all, I think I am not losing much by using the criss-cross raise to show an invitational hand, or do you suggest that the crisscross bid should be used for something else by a passed hand ?

The main test to decide what to do over this "unagreed " double is not the kind of hand posted in this thread. The main test is when opener holds a 5332 hand with 3 spades. In that case opener would not have any inferences on whether the double shows length or shortness in opps suit. When pard doubles in the balancig seat we have to be sure whether to balancing X is conmpetitive or going for blood :-)

I prefer to keep my preemptive 3m raise available. I think that passed hand with fit and limita values can just use criss-cross raises (jumpshift in om = limit raise)

agree with Han, Flame and Micky. Easy to infer from or hand that X is penalty*here*, but I do think that is useful to uise it as takeout with a weeakish hand that wd not takeout at first round. As opener I'd have doubled right away, to relieve the pressure on balancer.

Small spade too. A case might be done for a trump lead too.

A question about Full Disclosure. I think the part on uncontested bidding is great. :P My question is, now, rather oriented to contested bidding. I apologize if the issue has already been raised in the past (I did not browse through all the posts). E.g. Let's assume I am filling the scheme of our overcalls on opps 1 club opening and I go to play a BBO tourney with the FD CC uploaded. This scheme was written assuming a "better minor scheme" in a SAYC or 2/1 context. But then I meet one pair who is playing Precision and opens 1 club: the software will visualize the meaning and explanation of our bids over 1 club ASSUMING 1C is a SAYC opener, not a Precision opener. Instead, over a big club we do have different agreements. So opps will visualize the incorrect information. The same thing happens when we open and opps overcall artificially: our followups are different than if the overcall has another meaning. Is there a way to solve this ?

Book review REQUEST ! :-)) Did anyone read Miles' "Bridge from the top", which he quotes in "Modern constructive bidding "? From the quotes it seems that in that book there should be quite a few of Miles' ideas about A Strong Club system built around the Blue Team Club framework. I'd be happy if anyone could post a review about it.