Chamaco

Woolsey discusses very little of card play technique and tactics at MP: it focuses 90% of the book on the bidding (and hand evaluation). Kelsey has 3 sections that runs parallel throughout the book: - Bidding - Declarer play - Defense I found Woolsey's book to be more helpful in bidding, but the section on card play by Kelsey is great.

It's a good book. I like even better "The uncontested auction", which basically is its followup: the reason is that in the Uncontested Auction there is a larger number of examples, which includes typical auction up to the 3rd round of bidding, and that's the best way to learn a system (and learn how ML evaluates the hands!)

It depends what the rest of your structure is. For me, after 1♦:1♠, 1N, I play xyz this way ....- 2♣ = Puppet to 2♦, either signoff in ♦ or any invitational hand if followed by a rebid ....- 2♦ = generic GF ....- 2♥ =5♠, 4+♥, weak ....- 2♠ = natural, weak ....- 2[NT] = slammish 2 suiter, spades + clubs ....- 3♣ = signoff in clubs ....- 3♦ = slammish 2 suiter, spades + diamonds ....- 3♥ =slammish 2 suiter, spades + hearts ....- 3♠ = slammish 1 suiter This way you cannot sign off in clubs at the 2 level, but most of the other distributions weak and strong are protected. Of course, there is always a tradeoff. There are other, more refined version of xyz (e.g. xfer checkback, etc etc), that should be able to handle the same sequences after the catchall 1D/1NT rebid.

The way I play: ...- DBL shows extras, generally without shortness (if shortness, no slamgoing) ...- 3D shows a distributional hand ...- PASS shows a minimum hand, "Nothing to say" ...- CUEBID would slam oriented hand with shortness

It seems to me that the original ZAR method reached a hand evaluation system which outputs results VERY similar to the Losing Trick Count (as Misho did point out once), with some adjustment for reevaluating fitting honors etc etc. Now the MISFIT points seem to handle also negative adjustments. I have tried to use ZAR points in some borderline decisions, and found out that using LTC with some commonsense would lead to more or less the same. I believe that even the drawback of ZAR points is the same of LTC: the offensive power is well represented *if we find a fit*, but: - the defensive power in terms of defensive tricks is not well represented and - there is a high risk of ending in 3NT baased solely on distributional bidding and not hcp.

If you play a Standard-ish 5 card major system with short club opening (e.g. 1C = either clubs unbalanced or weak NT or 18-19/20), then you can handle the 4♦5♣ via the 1♦/1NT rebid sequences. In fact, 1♦ followed by 1NT cannot be semibalanced (weak NT with 5332 in ♦ is opened 1♣), so it is artificial for sme specific hand types. IMO it is better to use it as a catchall for all hands that do not want to rebid naturally 2♣ o 2♦: : Sequence 1 1♦:1♥:1NT In this case, it usually shows canapé in the minors. Sequence 2 1♦:1♠:1NT In this case, the 1NT can still be used as a catchall: this time it would include not only canapé in the minors, *but also a hand with 4 hearts that cannot reverse*. In both sequences the use of XYZ allows to checkback for the shape (e.g. find out hearts in sequence 2). Incidentally, this scheme works also for Precision 1♦ openers, in the versions where it promises 4+diamonds unbalanced (e.g. the weak NT hand is opened 1NT).

Sure, I am not criticizing the original pass with 3 card support and a bust, which in "standard" is the only possibility (although I agree with you it's nice to be able to raise semi-preemptively, but that's outside of the scope of the thread). That's exactly my point. If I have to assume pard made a reasonable double, I expect him to have *not only long trumps* but also to be *short in my opened suit* (most likley a singleton after he plays small at the 1st trick). This is because shortness in opener suit preserves the defensive potential (if he held support for my suit, it is more likely that some of my honors are ruffed, reducing the number of our tricks) , and IMO a defensive shape is the only factor that can barely justify doubling when holding a hand so poor in hcp that had to pass a 1-level opening. This inference is IMO big-time much stronger than the constrasting reasoning "Declarer would not have jumpbid 3S holding Jxx in hearts". So the assumption that the double was reasonable led me to a wrong reconstruction of the shape of the hidden hands, hence to the wrong defensive plan. Of course if I have to assume my pard doubles just with length in trumps, then anything goes.

Sure, but my point is that: if I have to assume that the double by East is close to reasonable, I will place him with at most 1 or 2 cards in hearts, and after he plays small on the lead of the Ace, I tend to place him with a singleton, thereby counting 3 heart tricks.

You are not forced to tell opps that. Your opponent must know exactly the same as your partner. But one does not have to explain in detail why he makes the bid: "no agreement" is another way to say "I expect pard to take it in the most obvious meaning", but one is not obliged to explain in detail the meaning of the bid if the meaning was not agreed. The main point here is simply that, in order to avoid being victim of cheating, one must be sure that there is indeed no hidden agreement, which in this case would be undisclosed to opps: but this is true for virtually every single call opponents can make. No, saying "undiscussed" means basically the natural bid, but since he was psyching, it would have been even worse to say "20-21 hcp bal" when he held instead an unbalanced hand. Opp can be psyching and there is nothing wrong in it: if he psyches, he is not a cheater, he is making a bid that neither his pard nor opps will probably understand. Sure, in this case, you will have a hard time to make an intelligent decision, but the same is true for his partner. If his psyche wins, and you get a bad result because of it, you must accept it, not cal the director, psyches are part of the game: when he decided to psyche, he took his risks, and this time he got a top, the next time it may backfire.

Roland, do you think that East's double was reasonable with QJT9 in trumps and 3 cards in the opened suit ? It seems to me that: - 3 cards in the opened suit strongly reduce the expectation of defensive tricks provided by opener (e.g. if opener has "2 defensive tricks" in hearts, one of them is likely to be ruffed because delarer or dummy are more likely to be short) - the double gives away the trump position: it loses more when it helps declarer to plan early the play against the bad split rather than what it gains when we do set the contract 1 trick.

I can understand this reason. This statement is not entirely true. In some cases you find a decent 44 or 43 fit at the 2 level, and score better than 1m. However, even when we do end up in 2NT, it does not seem such a disaster: think of it, most people do not mind bidding 2NT with less than 18, when opps open a weak 2 and LHO is sitting on the left with an unpassed hand. If one is ready to bid 2NT when they open a weak 2, it is as well possible to reconcile with the Mexican 2D. You can use the same runout mechanism (e.g. Wolff signoff etc etc) if pard is broke, if you have any. Right, I agree, these two are the great advantages.

Thx a lot, that was my fear. I'll keep as forcing to 4NT only the 6+ control unbalanced hand

I assumed 2NT = "natural" 20-21(22) balanced :) EDIT: sorry, I misread, I meant 2NT openers, not the rebids. For possible meanings of 2NT rebids see NickToll's post below.

Hi all, I'd appreciate suggestions from all on the following point. In the strong club (16+) I am playing with my teammates, we use: - control responses to 1C when responder has an unbalanced hand and - hcp range (8-10/11-13/14+) when responder is positive balanced. I won't bother you with the full system (since it's not relevant for this discussion), but the question is: when responder to 1C (16+) has exactly 5 controls and is unbalanced, should the bidding be forcing to 4NT(and 5 of a suit) ? Thanks all !! ;)

1) opening 2D with 18-19 bal. is not a big complication, and makes "more natural" all the 1m openings, indeed simplifying the task; 2) The statement "either all simple natural or all artificial" seems to me more of a slogan than a real-world acknowledgment. In the real world, most of the times, even systems based on KISS do incorporate conventions such as the following, in order to be competitive: Many "simple, natural" players use: - 1M:2NT jacoby raises - fitshowing jumps or Bergen raises or other fancy stuff - forcing 1NT - 2-way checkback stayman or new minor forcing in 1-over-1 auctions - Many of them use Multi 2D - not to mention takeout doubles (yes, even the t/o double used to be banned at the Portland Club that used to allow only natural bids) Why is the Mexican 2D supposed to be "less simple" than any of the above ? I do not have the answer, but only a guess of mine: often we define as more complicated something that is not really more complicated than the rest of our knowledge; instead, the reason is that it's just unusual for us. If this is the case, it's enough to learn it, and believe me, learning Mexican 2D is not any more difficult than learning any of the above conventions which are quite often used by KISS players :-)

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ". Ditto. The main point here is that *it is indeed possible* that this pair cheated, since there were some suspect facts. But I *strongly* advocate that "undiscussed" is a pretty much acceptable explanation if the sequence was not discussed.

If HUMs were not allowed in the top World event, HUMs would not exist at all ! ;)

Auguri Tendenz ;)

That was evidently a psyche: I think there is nothing wrong in psyching 2NT and alerting "No agreement" x, Axx, xx, AJ108xxx. With "No agreement", most people , including you, will assume a 20-22 hand or so. If that was a psyche, as I do think, would you have preferred he alerted it as "20-22 balanced" when he held a completely different hand ? -------------------------------------------------------------- As to the CC to be post: I agree this is the only way to solve this issue, but then again the regulation must be strict: either you absolutely enforce a CC or you just let go and forget about CCs.

I am really surprised: as much as I like the in-quick/out quick principle, is really 2 clubs the "expert bid" holding KJT65 in a suit, when our best suit is the suit bid by opps ? :rolleyes:

There is a cost in every choice, of course. The key to deciding whether or not it is wortwhile is the analysis of the frequency of gains and losses. I do not have the experience or knowledge to guess how often it is right to stop in 1m; I would guess that the frequency of the losses by not stopping in 1m is lower than the frequency of the gains we get by "cleaning up" our 1m opener (more unbalanced hand", as well as by being able to stop in 2M with the Paradox responses. But again, I do not know. In such cases, I rely on the judgment of top playerrs, and it seems to bme that in the top 10-20 pairs there is a decent share of players using it. (Which does no necessarily means it's best, but at least that my liking is not completely off-track :rolleyes: ).

I do not get why the mexican 2D is viewed as complicated. If played as a 1-way bid, it is unambiguous, and it certainly helps to take the 18-19 hand away from our 1m opener when 4th hand interferes after the 1M response. Th mexican 2D actually *simplifies* things rather than complicate them, at the cost of giving up the preemptive 2D tools of our liking.

OH, I thought it was well judged :blink: what is wrong with it? or is it just aggresive not wrong? A guideline on whether doubling or not is: Would you open with the hand or not ? If the answer is Yes AND you have the appropriate shape for the double, then go ahead and double. If you would NOT open the hand, then better avoiding the double. Personally, I do not consider North's hand worth an opening hand, so I would not have doubled (BTW, I might consider doubling with 4441 and a good ten count, if I can contribute 2 defensive tricks, just in case my pard penalty passes) ; in the given hand I might have instead overcalled 1S. Hence, since I think Duble is quite an overbid, you may guess that I consider the 3S raise as a suicidal attempt :-) ================================= Of course, this would be a perfectly legitimate double *if you were a passed hand*.