Chamaco

It does not matter how many tricks are needed or form of scoring. None of the above affect the solution: there is only one way only to play this suit (in isolation from the rest of the hand)

The 2 suiters are currently the main problem in handling strong 2C sequences, in many many methods. This is the main reason why you'll often hear many experts say that with a GF 2-suiter they prefer to open at the 1 level, risking a pass by pard, rather than opening 2C. Strong balanced AND single suiters are usually handled reasonably without many weird gadgets. So, if had to come up with a non-standard method, that would be to solve what does not work in the other methods, e.g. it would be to be able to bid well the 2suiters without losing accuracy in the other more ordinary handtypes. 4441 hand are indeed rare ,and it is conceivable to ignore them altogether (e.g. the 3-level bids I suggested could be easuily eliminated, and used for something more useful), as the loss will occur very rarely.

2-suiters are defined too high in the bidding, IMO. I prefer something like: 2C:2D(forced) ....- 2H = either any single suiter ORstrong bal; 2S relay ..........- 2NT = 22-24 bal ..........- 3X = nat single suiter ..........- 3NT = 25+ bal ....- 2S = any touching 2 suiter, 2NT is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct) ..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3C = D+H, 3D= H+S, 3H= S+C, 3S = C+D ....- 2NT = any nontouching 2 suiter, 3C is relay with slam interest (higher bids are pass/correct) ..........- opener bids the suit BELOW its cheapest suit, so responder can set trumps: e.g. 3D= H+C, 3H= S+D .... 3C = 4441, sing diam (3D relay for controls etc etc) .... 3D = 4441, sing heart (3H relay for controls etc etc) .... 3H = 4441, sing spades(3S relay for controls etc etc) .... 3S = 4441, sing clubs (4C relay for controls etc etc)

A question: how to deal with different sequences for responder, based on whether he is a passed hand ? E.g. what is the combination of menu-options/checkboxes to select, e.g. when 1M:1NT is forcing or not (in 2/1), OR when 1M:2C isa Drury or not ?

Great tool ! What about the name "Bidding Tree Browser" or similar ? Yeah I know, nothing really original LOL, but it avoids emphasizing too much the use in the disclosure of the bids (which is ONLY ONE USE, although quite important), and acknowledges a wider range of potential uses for the software.

Nice ! I am glad it is becoming recognized the need, even in a strong Club sysrtem, to use specific openings for a 2-suiter. Basically, I think that the principle that it would be redundant to use different bids for strong handtypes is somewhat biased (see Romex for instance). Of course it does give up some preemptive tools, but the reward is porotecting our own methods from opps preemption, and making several other strong club sequences easier. In the Precisioin version I am playing, I use 2S = generic touching 2-suiter, 4-4.5 losers AND 2NT = generic NON-touching 2suiter, 4-4.5 losers. These 2suiters are usually 55 with 16-18 (but might be 65 with 13-15, same playing strength), that are hard to rebid when responder is weak. Furthermore, the 2-suiter handtype is the most vulnerable to preempts when you do open strong Club., so taking the 2suiter out of the big club, protects your strong hands from opps preemptive actions, making it easier to bid (or penalize opps) when they do stick in.

A very common reference scheme is: 1x-p-p-? Non-jumpbid in a suit= 8-14, 5 cards, usually with a great suit we'd jump Jumpbid in a suit = great suit (usually 6+ cards), very good opening (6-5 losers) 1NT = 10/11-14/15 balanced or so, NO STOPPER GUARANTEED. - Some people play variable ranges according to whether the opened suit was a minor or major - some people lower down to even 8-9 hcp for the 1NT in balancing seat 2NT = natural, about 21-22 hcp (nudge this as you like) cuebid = - Many people play that Michaels (to show a major-oriented 55 or better) is off in balancing seat, and the cue has just its original meaning, e.g. any quasiGF hand (you'd have opened it 2C) - othe players argue that it should show the Michaels 2suiter even in balancing seat, because this shape is more common than the quasiGF hand , AND 55M are harder to show in a decent way double= either a natural takeout OR hands too stroing for other bids (e.g. a strong 1NT opener would double first, or a good 15-16 hcp opener would double and bid the suit later)

Chiaradia's book on the Neapolitan club system is a TRUE Classic. Its is not only a good system book, but also a book on hand evaluation. Chiaradia was the "father" of the bidding school of the Blue Team. I believe it was once translated in english, I ignore whether you can find it in your language nowadays.

In this discussion it's fundamental to discriminate 2nd seat intervention (e.g. wjo BEFORE responder bids) vs 4th seat interference (e.g. 1C-pass-ANY POSITIVE - interference). After 2nd hand interference, most of players who use now control responses revert to showing shape, exactly as the shape-first players. So this case should be discounted from the analysis, since the 2 methods converge. This leaves the case of 4th hand interference: 1C-(p)-1/2y*-(2/3z) ? (*=N number of controls) In this case opener ignores responder's shape but knows: a- we are in a GF b- the number of controls of responder Usually the no of controls is enough to tll whether slam can be on, so, if slam is not on, usually it is not difficult to reach a decent (sure, I know, perhaps not optimal) game, or severely penalize opps. As someone else pointed out, the Hamway club has the 1H 8-11 generic response, which is not sooo different from the concept of control-showing responses. as for me, I use a mixed scheme: I have hcp range responses for balanced hands, accounting for Q and Js in notrump - and controlshowing responses for unbalanced hands (so, when pard respond in controls, I am sure he is unbalanced. I have the strong feeling that, if you give a controlshowing scheme in the hand of good players, they can handle intereference no worse than using shape-first responses.

Usually, some guidelines that discriminate hands suit-oriented vs NT-oriented are: - type of values: many Aces and Kings usually are suit oriented; Q, J and good intermediates (T,9,8, etc) suggest good play in NT. The reason is easy: in suit contract, innmany cases the J or 9 or 8 never takes tricks because such round is ruffed; in NT, you can develop slow tricks. - good intermediates (see point above) - tenaces: usually many tenaces aregood for NT - more than one suit unstopped: I know many disagree (but many others also agree :D ), but one of the factors that might oush towards conisdering a hand as suit oriented is if you have 2+ suits unstopped (1 suit unstopped is ok for NT). - rebid problems If you decide to open 1 of a suit you must have in mind a rebid. This does not have a universal solution, as it depends from your system and agreements. --------------------------- As a whole, I think it's wise not to be "slave of the system": e.g. I think it's better to leave room for evaluation and not be forced to always bid 1NT or alway 1M with 5332. Judgment is important ! :)

Mike, of course I agree that shape matters. :-) The point I was trying to say is that: - exactly because we know shape matters, opener has shown an extreme shape; we cannot ignore that; - the "purity" of the hand matters: there are plenty of illustration in literature that show that, when the hands are very "pure", the combined hands take more tricks than usual, *even if they have the same shape*. - our partner cannot know of this "purity" of the hands because he does not know we have the club Q; so if we pass "because" we aleady bid our hand, patner as a matter of fact will have a hard time figuring it out "Fought the law" (FTL) is a good method to estimate tye number of tricks we can indeed make: but it does not tell us which is a profitable sac. I'll explain better: sometimes, FTL will tell you "you can make 10 tricks", so do not bid 5. But sometimes, bidding 5 is a god sacrifice, and you are bidding it as 2-way: either to make, or as a sac. (BTW, this is why I consider it unfair to compare FTL vs the LOTT: the LOTT is not a method to estimate which contract you can make, it tells you how high to bid even if you go down profitably. Instead FTL will try to estimate only the contract you can indeed make, regardless of what alternative contract opps have. So FTL seems very good in constructive, uncontested auctions, when you do not care of sacrificing). The given hand posted by Ron is a good example: FTL is right (we can make 10 tricks), but nonetheless, 5S(doubled, I assume), is the par of the hand. Sometimes, the fact we cannot make the contract does not ncesarily mean we should not bid it.

This seems to confirm my evaluation: even opposite partner's hand, which is not offensive, our hand (despite 6322 shape) is so ofensive that bidding 5S is still a winner. What matters here IMO is not so much the shape distribution, but the HONORS fit: from the bidding we know that opps are in a very pure fit, and there will be many more tricks than usual for both sides. In this case, the 6322 shape has MUCH more potential than usual. If EAST does not bid 5S, he cannot expect west to bid it if west has a "normal" hand, yet, when east does have a normal hand, 5S is the par of the hand (if we are down, opps have game).

1M:2m:3m shows GOOD support for the minor. The length of this support depends on how many cards the 2/1 response guarantees. If 1M:2m guarantees 5+, the raise can be made on 3 cards of decent quality, say HHx, or HTx or, 4 small cards. If 1M:2m guarantees only 4+, the raise should ideally be made on 4 cards or occasionally a GREAT 3 card support. Yes, it usually shows 12-14 OR 18-19. But I agree it's a wasted bid: those hands can easily make a waiting bid by rebidding the major (or whatever is your waiting bid). In my opinion, the 2NT rebid is best used to show distributional features.

The evaluation of the club Queen is not so much in the power in offense (we can ruff side suits so no discard needed), but the fact that its defensive value is null. Basically it raises the ODR value of the hand, not so much for the high offensive power, but for its null defensive value.

Justin, could you comment on the rest of my "thinking aloud" of my previous post ?

I have read with interest the various comments by players far better than me: so I would appreciate feedback on my thought processes, given below. Thanks :-) -------------------------------------------------------------- I realize that my 2S bid has indeed shown my values (and 5S would run the risk to bid "twice" my hand), but there are 2 things pard won't know, and if we pass he will have trouble to figure out: 1) I have Axx in opps suit and I know from the bidding pard is short in the same suit (we are likely not to lose heart) 2) I have Qx in clubs: the Q is a huge offensive card according to the bidding: as opener is likely to be VERY short in clubs and RHO has a semi-yarborough, pard is likely to have all values there. The combination of 1 and 2) has transformed our hand from a "down the middle" 2S to a huge offensive hand IMO. Even in the layout shown by Frances, even 6S is a good sac, red vs white, and that says it all about the offensive power of this hand once opener shows a red 2 suiter and RHO shows a bust (so he has no clubs values). So I think that bidding 5S is not "rebiding my hand", but showing the extra offensive power of Axx in opps suit and Qx of clubs.

In which case you need to go back a stage further. If you wish to use a 2/1 to promise 5+ cards in the suit, you need to play a forcing 1NT response(not semi-forcing as is frequently played or have some other way of showing a balanced FG hand. Some ways to bid balanced GF hands while still keeping semiforcing 1NT are: a. natural 1M:2NT response à la Lawrence/Gitelman b. 1M:2C = 2-way = either balanced GF OR 5+ clubs (2D relay can then ask to clarify) c. Ben's (Inquiry) 1M:2C, "unpassed hand Drury"

In standard it should be a smibalanced with stoppers. I play different: -2NT shows 64 with reverse strength, either in hcp (say, 16+) or distribution(5-5.5 losers, in this case hcp might be 12-15 or so). The 4 bagger is unspecified, 3C asks which suit. The semibalanced hand would just rebid the suit, waiting. Some people promise 6+ cards, but many (including me) follow Mike Lawrence style, where 2M rebid is just waiting, and can still have extras, I play that a jump to 3 from opener (e.g 1S-2C-3D ) is natural, 55 or better, and shows good suits. It can have extras in hcp (16+), or distribution (e.g. 5-5.5 losers, even if hcp are, say 12-15). So, 1S-2C-2D is natural, but denies a good 5 card suit in diamonds (can be any 4 bagger or bad 5 card suit). It can still have extras, but no special features in terms of honor concentration or shape. The first thing to define is whether 2C shows 5+ clubs or only 4. Mike Lawrence and Gitelman strongly advocate the use of 2/1 showing 5+ cards in the suit. The requirements for the raise depend on this issue. (BTW, I play 2C as showing EITHER a balanced GF OR 5+ clubs; 1M:2D would be always 5+ cards). In any case, the raise of pard's minor shows a non-minimum hand, but not necessarily a reverse, and good support (e.g. some honors or extra length) More or less the above holds true also after 1H opener. If you wish to use 1S:2m:2NT as showing a good 64, you MIGHT consider using 1H:2m:2S = good 64 (unspecified 4 bagger, 2NT asks) 1H:2m:2NT = spades

OK, let's compare Zar's strong club (which includes distributional strength) to a traditional strong club (which is based mostly on HCP without much allowance for distribution). My intuition is that Zar's version will be much more vulnerable to interference than the traditional version. Partly this is because partner cannot rely on much defensive strength when 1♣ is opened. But mainly the problem is that when you have a "distributional" 1♣ opener, this is precisely the sort of hand where you would prefer to start by showing a suit, as if you don't show a suit immediately you have no hope of showing your distribution in competition. That's not to say that a strong club should be based solely on high cards. But the weighting Zar gives to distribution seems too much. Ditto. In a strong club context, I think it makes more sense to use 1C for "power" hand (e.g. "real" hcp), and use ZAR to evaluate light 1-level openings and distributional weak 2s (one- two suiters)

No. A hope is not an agreement. What is a "normal" psyche ? there is no "normal" psyche. A psyche is an "abnormal" bid by definition. Come on, let's be serious: whenever a sub come at my table and I see a unalerted 2NT opening bid, I assume 20-21, even with no agreement, and so will my opps. And so will 95% of the players on BBO. It's not an explicit agreement though. An explicit agreement is just what the word says: it was explicitly agreed. yes. So what ? There are people, I mean beginner/intermediats, who have no idea: they had not discussed whether a 3M response to Multi after interference was pass/correct or not: if they say "undiscused", it's quite legitimate, they do not havce to tell you what they have, they only have to tell you the explicit agrements they have with pard. The ame hold true for strong 2C overcalled, and MANY competitive sequences. If no agreements, "undiscussed" is ok You can say "It tends to be..." If it's true you must give this information. I usually do, when it is true that "it tends" to show something. But when it is indeed undiscussed, I am not obliged to say anything: if my pard must guess, opps can be in the same position. Take for instance the bidding in the thread "This cost much" by Ron: 1D-(p)-p-(2S) 4H-(4S)-5H-? Is pass forcing here ? If opps ask, I will say "undiscussed", because it was not discussed with partner. No, what you say is not right. My pard can think about it only if *we have agrements and I do not disclose them*: in this case I would be outright cheating. But *if pard indeed has no agreement*, he is guessing too, ad he can guess right or wring, just like opps: - see the above example of forcing pass; -or, if I open 2NT with, say, 10 hcp and a long minor, and opps buy the contract, my pard could be guessing wrong doubling opps assuming I do have 20 hcp. So, by making a psyche or an undiscussed bid, one player can win or lose: let's just accept it, sometimes one ca win by gambling or psyching, by making a bid that noone else at the table will understand, but this is not necessarily cheating.

Is pass forcing ? I am not sure here. In any case, I bid 5S, pard should have all the clubs of the deck (opener has a red 2 suiter, his pard has hearts support with close to a yarborough, since he passed , I expect to lose 2 diamonds and claim :-) ). I I am off 1, I think/hope it's not a phantom save (in we are off I'd expect opps to have 5H laydown).

I also win the lead in dummy and run the C9. the reason is: - I have more extra tricks to gain from clubs than a potential 3rd trick in hearts. Also, even if they knock hearts, the 2H lad shows that they will score 2 tricks in hearts. Meanwhile, I'll have clubs set up.

Many issues here: 1) Occasional partners and subs You cannot reasonably expect a sub to have detailed agreement, or even nondetailed agrements. If he makes a bid unagreed with pard, you have no right to know any more than his pard will. If it's undiscussed, it's undiscussed, the bidder "hopes" pard will understand it, and you should be in the same situation than his partner: in some case, it will be YOU that need to know what it is and have to guess, in other situations, it will be his pard, that's life, once you win, once you lose. 2) Psyching The guy was of course psyching. The "undiscussed" just means, usually, that the bid will be taken according to the most common meaning, which is in case of 2NT pener, 20-21 balanced. If I were psyching, I would just have alerted it as "20-21 balanced" but then, you must not complain to the director by saying "he self-alerted 20-21 bal but hand a weak long minor hand". I have the right to psyche without telling you "Hey, I am psyching" (provided my pard ignore the fact I am gambling) 3) "Undiscussed" There are plenty of undiscussed sequences, even for people who play, say once or twice a week. This is especially true for 2nd and 3rd round sequences, but also not so infrequent for responses to opening bids: try to ask someone playing Multi how they respond if people interfere; or try to ask many people how they respond in the sequence 2C(strong)- (3/4S overcall). For most people, that will be undiscussed. I have found that, in the "undiscussed" cases, many of my opps that ask me explanation, they are only trying to set up a trap: they want me to explain the hand in such detail that, if the exlanation deviates, they will call the TD because of misalerting. Ever since then ( to protect myself from this kind of players who will scan like a lawyer through our bids and alerts) I have resorted to the frequent use of "undiscussed" eplanation: I am not supposed to explain what I *think* partener has, or *how I believe my partner will interpret my bid*. If I have no specific agreements, "undiscussed" is pretty much correct, even if of course I am expecting some message to get through to my pard: opponents will have to guess just like my pard, "equal opportunities", that's not unethical IMO

yes but once you get through it its the best Are you sure it's the best ? In my opinion Love's book is overrated: I would suspect that its big reputation comes from the fact that, for a long time, it was the only book about squeezes readily available on the market . So, it was a "classic" because it was virtually the only one ! :) But, out there, there are plenty of books , even older than Love's book , that are MUCH better organized. Without having to think too much I can mention right away: - Romanet's french book "Le squeeze au Bridge" - 2 italian books from the 60's, by Giannuzzi, one specifically on squeezes ("La compressione nel bridge"), the other on elimination, endplays, and dealing also with squeezes/throwin (Eliminazioni e colpi") - Hugh Kelsey's set of Bridge Squeezes - Reese /Jourdain and there are more (I am sure some fellow posters might add their likings to the above list). All of these books explained in a much more detailed maner how to diagnose the possibility of the squeezes and how to prepare it: there are WHOLE chapters devoted to that, not just example hands. Yes yes, I know the chapter of Love's on the "BLUE" requirements, but IMO this chapter is more superficial than the explanations given in any of the above books. Ultimately, I think that Love's book earned the "classic" award only because there was no other books on the specific topic yet published (or sufficiently advertised) in english language on the market.

It is good "food for thought". The organization is a bit lacking in my opinion, but there are lots of examples. Expect the same style of explanation that Mike Lawrence uses, it might seem scattered at first, but after some rereads, you start to put the pieces together. I wish there was more material on high-level decisions, because the area that I would like to improve most is when you must make a 5 or 6 level decision. Overall, I think it's worth the price. I found it used through bookfinder.com