Chamaco

About the 3♣ rebid. I suspect you were playing with an italian. In Italy, it is very common (and taught to all beginner), to use the 3C rebid as a relay to ask for a 5 card suit (a 5 card minor, when opener has denied a major). This is absolutely standard in italian mid-low flights (competitive players of course have their own gadgets, or at least, follow some of the tools commonly known in USA and the rest of Europe). Just another examples of the confusion caused by different bridge standards, even worse in occasional partnerships :-)

I do not like the reasoning: "Iwas too light to double for takeout at level 1, so I double for takeout at the 4 level (although in the balancing seat)" If anything, any action at high level (at least 3+ level for me) should promise MORE strength rather than less strength than any action at the 1 level. Hence, if I were discussing with my partner, I would strongly insist on the agreement that this double cannot possibly be for takeout.

I pass. This hand has great controls, but that's about it; shape is not great at all (I don't buy the advertisement of how great is to have a 5th club here :P ) and the intermediates suck. I might end up fixed, oh well.

I think with the given hand I'd bid 3C, setting a GF, as opener rather than 3NT.

I ignore whether it is "standard" 2C development, but with my usual pds we play that with 6+ clubs and 5 spades we jump to 3S over the 2D relay. That's what I would have done here

Yeah we also use a mechanism for 2-way game tries: 2S is a puppet to 2NT followed by showing a singleton; other bids bypassing 2NT by opener are long suit game tries, where 2NT = spades. So there is indeed a way to show spades, even in our methods, by simply bidding 2NT. However, the details of the gadgets every pair use is not the point of this thread. The main point is only which of the 2 features is more important here.

Hi all ! MP, all vulnerable Playing 2/1 you hold in 1st seat QJTx-AKxxx -Axx-X Opps are silent, and pard raises to 2H (constructive, 8+/10- hcp). You have agreed to play the folllowing system of raises, so pard's 2H bid excludes more or less the following hand types: - weak 3 card raise = goes via 1NT forcing - invitational 3 card raise = via 1NT forcing - invitational+ 4 card raises = via Martel 2NT - mixed raises with good sidesuit = 3-level FJS - splinters = 3S and higher bids Now, let's assume you decide to make a game try (if you don't, I'll point a gun at your head ;) ): you have available 2 game tries : - either LONG SUIT GAME TRY, basically asking for some honors fit is the suit bid - or SHORT SUIT GAME TRY showing your singleton, and asking pard to bid game with little wasted values. Here, do you prefer to make a short suit game try showing club shortness, or a long suit game try, asking pard to bid game with some honor fit in spades ? Thanks all !

As I said, we are assuming "standard american" bidding, where 3C shows 19+ hcp. It is hard for me to construct 19 hcp hands (even 55) for opener where pard does not have either solid spades (where stiff J is great) nor a good complement for one of the red queens. Of course, you might find a couple of such hands, but I believe that it is much easier to expect hands where the SJ and one red Q will be useful, in which case bidding slowly will let opener evaluate better the slam chances.

Mauro, that's all fine but you seem to be missing a point here: opener has a very good hand, and opposite such a hand it's not a matter of how many hcp you hold, but rather where and of what type they are. In this case the two queens on pard's short side suits will be of little use. I wouldn't count value them as a plain "4 hcp". What pard wants in the side suits are control cars, preferably aces. Hay I agree the hand is not great, but not minimum either: 1- the 5 card support improve greatly the hand; 2- one of the Q is probably wasted but the other red Q is likely to complement some values (after all, the jump reverse to 3C should be 19+, in standard bidding, so pard is likely to have complement values in at least one red suit) 3- the J of spades is a very good card So: the wastage on one red Q is, IMO, quite counterbalanced by other pluses. Finally: we cannot know for sure what partner needs to know, so, holding a down-the-middle hand, let's just bid 4C, leaving to pard the room to explore what he needs to know: since we cannot know what partner needs (controls?), I believe it is one-sided to take ourselves the decision. I think bidding 4C should not promise a super hand (such as the 4-controls hand you used as an example), but simply a down-the-middle hand or better, leaving to pard the control of the bidding. I'd jump to 5C only with a really crappy hand, which I do not believe this hand is :-)

I think you should be able to distinguish between a super hand like... x Axx Kxxx KTxxx from the lousy actual hand. Bidding 4♣ on both these two hand doesn't feel right. At least it doesn't to me. IMO the hand in question is pretty much down-the middle for a 1NT bid. It could be much worse to start with. Furthermore, when pd bids clubs, it has 5 (!) card support. Even the stiff J is likely to be a pretty good card opposite pard's opening suit. Take away a red queen and the J of spades (e.g. a minimum 5-6 count) and I'll jump to 5C. ======================== It remains to be defined the tendency of partner: some people like to jump reverse at the 3 level into a 3 card minor with honors concentration, in absence of better tools (Gazzilli/Riton ?) to set a GF. In this case, any bid bypassing 3NT could commit us to a bad spot. If pard can reverse into a 3 card suit, I suspect that 3D is the practical bid....

Yes, partner's pass in a forcing auction is equivalent to a negative double. My question is: did we limit our hand by passing pard's double ? We have 9 hcp (3 of which are wated, in a suit contract) What about bidding 2S ? Here's why we need to know how many hcp we promised by passing pard's X: -IF we have promised values by passing pard's X, then our hand is minimal in context, so 2S is ok. -IF instead, we might still pass a pen X by pard when we hold a semiyarborough, then 2S is an underbid, and we must choose between 3S and 3C. I do not like any immediate NT bid. All in all, given the QJ wastage in clubs I'll probably settle for 2S, considering the hand minimal.

I bid 4C 3C has set a gameforce, hence 4C must be forcing. If pard has good controls, slam is a distinct possibility, I think that an immediate 5C signoff offer is too one-sided.

I bid 4S, pard is a sound opener and has forced me to bid twice, plus, I do have extras compared to what I have promised by the bidding; so - if pard is indeed a sound opener - I think I owe him a bid, even if 3S is nonforcing (he has shown twice extras compared to his initial "sound" opening bid). However 5m is a long way to go, so I'll give a shot to a moysian fit (at least te one who plays it is my pard). So, given it's my choice, I guess 4S is the wrong spot :-)

This viewpoint is losing popularity. Why is this? What do you do with your WJS or SJS type of hands? If you you 1D-2M as some Flannery or reverse Flannery hand type, then one possibility is to use - 1D:2D as "Multi" wjs handtype in an undisclosed major, followed by developed akin to 2D Multi opener, and - give up inverted minors - in this case, 1D-2C becomes a multipurpose invitational+ hand without majors, with or without diamond support, which might (or not) be the start of a relay sequence There are tradeoffs too, in choosing such a scheme, I guess one should choose base on own taste

A couple of questions here: 1) if I happen to play with an occasional partner of reasonable skill and experience, should I assume that the 4C cuebid meaning 2 places to play is "standard" ? 2) This seems to work well when the preempt is in clubs, the lower ranked suit, which leaves more room to explore; But, if the preempt had been in a higher ranked suit, e.g. 3D or 3H or, worse, 3S, would the cue (4D/H/S) be still 2 places to play ?

You might find something useful in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=10057 Actually, it refers to Precision, limited 1D opener, but some suggestions might prove useful even in "standard-ish" methods. :-)

IMO, playing some form of Drury is a pretty much decent way to solve the 3-card limit raise "problem".

It depends what is the style of suit openings (light or heavy): if you open freely 1 of a suit based on "rule of 19 (or 20)", then passing a flat 11/12(-) in 3rd/4rd seat won't miss many partscores because anytime partner has some shape in 1st/2nd seat (opposite our flat 11-12) he will probably have opened. If he has passed instead, we *might* miss occasional partscores, but not so many, at least in my experience: bridge is a % game after all, and in my limited experience, it will be much more frequent to avoid partner take off or avoid opps play double dummy after we have opened a flat 11-12 count. However, as I already stressed before, in most of my partnerships we tend to upgrade good 12 counts (2 Aces + good intermediates) to bad 13 counts :-)

Q1. After 1NT-2D-2H-? I prefer to play - 2S = GF relay (artificial) and - 3X = natural invitational nonforcing (in some pships this shows a canapè with 4H and the longer suit bid at the 3 level) Q2. I do not think you lose much by passing 11-12 (semi)balanmced hands without a nice suit. It is true that today it is important to anticipate opps bids, by introducing our own suits first (sort of an anticipated overcall), but IMO, this is true for hands with shape and/or with good lead directing bid. Without any of the above, passing flat 11-12 often has turned out well in my experience, by: a. avoiding that pard got overboard when he had a strong hand b. when opps ended up buying the hand, the fact we did not open 11-12 bal hands often lead declrare to misguess the honors location. However, I should add that we tend to upgrade 11-12 flat hands when they contain 2 Aces: in those cases we try to find an excuse to open them (e.g. good intermediates etc etc)

LOL, I guess my next line in profile will be: "The good thing about bridge is that we have 2 opponents and only one partner" :)

Preempting with wasted side values is dangerous even if pard is a passed hand. The danger is not so much that pard will exect a different hand type, of course a passed hand pd won't expect anything. The real danger is that having wasted values means that these values would be useful for our side if we let opps buy the hand and we end defending, therefore it is likely that opps do not have a makeable game and/or that even if they do have a makeable game, they'll get richer anyways by doubling us. Basically, the fact we have wasted values increase the chances we are going for a phantom sac. ================ Having said that, every choice involves some risks, and, at favourable vulnerability, 3rd seat, I think it is fair to preempt with this hand. ================ A final note: if I had to choose, I would not be really worried of the side K, but rather of a. the stiff H Q, and b. the fact we have a side 4 bagger (this often means we have more losers we cannot ruff)

I passed too, for the reasons outlined by Mikeh and McPhee. My guess is that most times slam will be an illusion, and 3NT should be rarely off here. I would be more worried of my choice if we were playing MP.

There are zillion of ways to play Gazzilli, just as there are many Stayman variants. One of the bifurcation in Gazzilli is: HOW DOES RESPONDER DEAL WITH WEAK MISFIT HANDS (WITHOUT DOUBLETON SUPPORT FOR THE MAJOR) ? These hands are handled via 2NT and 3m. But the problem is that there are too many hand type and sometime we need to pick the lesser evil: a. 3-suiter short in opener's major. This includes 4441 and 5440 hands but also 5431 hands b. one-suiter in a minor c. minors two suiters 1. Some players use 2NT for the 3-suiter (type a), and 3m as natural 1 suiter. They give up the minors 2-suiters 2. Some players use 2NT for the minors 2-suiter (occasionally 54), and 3m as natural 1 suiter. They give up the 3-suiter hand-type 3. there must be many other schemes I am unaware of

This joke alters a bit the meaning of the words of my post (or perhaps it just witnesss how bad is my english). The persons I refer to did not say "Only club players play system on". Basically they said that there are good players who do that, but in their opinion this is not justified in terms of cost-benefit (memory strain vs efficiency). Indeed, I do not have the experience nor the skill to make such an evaluation, that's why I posted here. Thanks for the contribution

Hi all ! I'd like to know how good players play when pard overcalls 1NT (natural strong NT, say 15+/18) and RHO passes. Some players seem to play "system on" just as if pard had opened 1NT (2C stayman, xfers, etc etc). This is plausible for memory strain, but does not seem quite efficient; some others use the cuebid of opps suit as a "Staymanic" relay, even if they have a 5+ bagger. The 5 bagger CANNOT be shown via a xfer, because the 2 level bids would be natural signoff. For instance, if the bidding goes (1H)-1NT-(pass)-? 2m/2S = to play 2H = relay, asking primarily for a 4-4 fit in spades, but can be also a GF hand with 5+ spades or other shapes. I have talked with a few top level national players at my club, and they say it's VERY inefficient to use 2C as stayman in this sequence, and that, at least some sequences - such as this one - should allow one to bid clubs when you indeed have clubs (they refer to all the conventions that use a bid of 2/3 clubs as artificial). They say that the memory savings of using "plain system on" would be justified only for club players. I'd be interested in hearing the various approaches from the BBO expert panel :-) Thanks Mauro