Chamaco

As others pointed out, there are many other treatments, and the alternatives change from major or minor suit openings. Over 1m opening it is quite frequent to see 1m-2H/2S as promising Flannery or Reverse Flannery handtypes (54 or 45 in majors) in majors, with various ranges. Over 1M opening, fitshowing jumps or minisplinters are also popular, besides natural invitational JS and other systems of raises.

The singleton ask is, IMO, a good strategy: the main point is whether or not it fits with the overall system we are playing, e.g. a. if we play minisplinters, no need for singleton ask for limit hands with support. b. if we play a limited opening system (e.g. strong club, strong diam or strong pass), then opener is limited and it nmakes little sense to have him control the bidding (the singleton ask is a slam tool, and when opener is limited and responder has a limit hand, we'll almost never have slam prospects)

"General recommended rules " refer certainly to 5+ cards suit by pard (Klinger, "Cuebidding to slams", pages 95-96, first book on slams I have here, but can find more refs from other books by other authors). Most bridge schools in Italy teach to beginners/advanced not to cue shortness in pard's 4+ suit. It is true that "better minor" openings can be 3+, but most US textbooks teach to consider it as 4+ (e.g. pard raises openber's minor assuming he has 4+). If we have to assume 4+ in the opened minor when raising, I think it's fair to assume 4+ cards also when deciding whether to splinter or not. ----------------------------- Perhaps cuebidding singleton/voids in pard's opening suit is expert/worldclass praxis, I cannot tell, as I am not in that range of strength. However, if we do accept the rule of "no shortness cue in p's suit", it's clear that splintering in a pard's suit is just a special case of shortness cue in pard's suit and therefore does not comply with the given rule. On the other hand, if we do not accept this rule, then anything goes. In my opinion, bidding shortness in pard's suit is a poor strategy, on balance, but I won't argue further.

I like this: if anything, if 3NT is going to be the contract, it will be played from the right side. Possible risks: 1. pard will assume we have 6 hearts and 3 spades and might correct to 4 spades for a 5-2 fit, when it's too late for us to correct to the heart 6-2 fit... 2. even if 3NT is right, pard has probably nothing in diamonds and might avoid 3NT for fear of diamonds unstopped

That is true for any suit naturally bid by pard. Nevertheless, it is a generally recommended rule not to cue shortness in pard's suit. I fail to see the difference with splintering in pard's suit. ---- More generally, we can construct quite a few examples where it turns out that a splinter (or shortness cue) can be useful: but I think that on balance, when pard bids a suit, the likelihood he holds values that would be wasted opposite shortness (different from Axx/Axxx/Axxxx) outnumber the other cases. Having to make a choice for the meaning of a bid, I prefer to go with the %.

The case not unlikely is that pard has AQ of spades + another ace, and little else. If that is the case, regardless of which suit is the second ace, a club lead spells trouble on 3NT, since the stopper(s) will be led through. More generally, IMO the likelihood of 3NT being a good contract will depend on the clubs intermediate (JT98 etc) held by dummy, which we cannot know given this bidding... :lol:

Of course you can open 1C with xxx, but bridge is a game of percentages. And on percentage, pard is more likely to have values in the suit opened (hence shortness there can't be labeled as "useful"). I think that, if you agree (as many do) that you do not cuebid shortness in a suit bid naturally by pard, then you should consider in a similar way *splintering* in a suit bid by pard. Of course, all is different if you open short club ( 4+ clubs or weak NT).

I would have rebid 1NT insstead of 2H, because the modest quality of the K97xxx suit makes me treat this hand like a 5332 rather than 6322. It's imps, so we want to bid game, the question is 4H or 3NT ? The problem is the unstopped club suit. If pard has clubs decently stoppped, chances are that 3NT is easier than 4H, if not, instead, then 4H should be a better bet... I willbid 4H, after all , because I might have better chances to discard a club loser on spades if pard turns out with AQ of spades, but I still wish I had rebid 1NT. A case might be done also for opening directly 1NT with 6322 major (considering the 6322 14 hcp like a 15 count 5332)

I'd play 3D as artificial, New Minor Forcing Checkback for 3 card support in H or side 4S. I think it's obvious GIB misclicked or psyched :lol:

Not a splinter: a splinter bid should promise a (potentially) *useful* shortness (for the same reason why we do not cuebid shortness in pard's suit) In this sequence we do not expect shortness in the suit opened by pard to be useful: hence it should be a fitshowing picture bid, showing concentration of honors, and (usually) denying controls in side suits.

I do not agree with Raptor here. The reason is the following: I like that bids that promise a 2 suiter , like Michales, U2NT or Ghestem etc etc, promise a well defined range and not a contiguous range. In other words, I do not like that the same bid can promise either a minimum opening hand (say 10-15) AND a reverse (say 16+). I find it acceptable to use 2-way range such as 7-10 OR 16+ (minimax), but I do not like contiguous ranges, in my opinion they make harder the task of our pard. ==================== Botomline: I like to play Raptor as promising a minimum opener but DENYING a hand worth a reverse. So in my opinion this hand is too strong (despite 15 hcp only): I would have doubled and bid diamonds. Also a 1D overcall is reasonable: pard will know that it guarantees serious strength, because it cannot be a frivolous overcalls since it does not rob opps of any bidding space.

Perhaps I might cisnider treating all 5332 as balanced, and going via the balanced positive responses (which in my case would be 2H/2S/2NT)

Thanks a lot ! I will check Volmac Precision too.

Thanks a lot for the contribution, and for the effoirt you put into it, I'll certainly try to steal ideas from it. At first sight, though, I have a question: the few relay-systems I have examined (superficially) so far, have the following mechanism to stop the relay, and terminate the auction: 1) 3NT is NEVER a relay 2) 4D is end-signal, puppet to 4H then pass/correct In the scheme you posted, I have seen that in some sequences a. 3NT is used as relay b. the 4D step is used to resolve 64 shape, making it impossible to use 4D = end signal. I think I might try to find a way to improve these details, what do you think ?

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what people put on their profiles if I were you. If the double and the raise to 4♠ are expert bidding, I prefer to be a novice. Roland I wouldn't judge for one hand. I agree the double is horrible but I can stand one or two horrible decisions by my pd in a session, maybe that's because I make one or two horrible bids per session as well :-) I think Luis hits the point here. I know the "expert" in question. You can figure him out a bit like "Victor Mollo's Hog", almost systematically overbidding because of his good card skills. Whether these pros/cons qualifies for "Expert" I cannot tell.

Doubling a preempt , all vuln, with 13 semibalanced hcp is way too light IMO. I too agree with Roland on all points.

Hi all ! I'd like advices on the following issues. :) Any advice and suggestion for improvenments (except "give up control responses"! :D ) will be GREATLY appreciated !! ==== I am trying to find out a decently nice and efficient scheme after the 1NT and 2C control responses to strong club (16+) opening: Some details: - 1C:1NT shows exactly 4 controls and denies a balanced hand or 4441, so it guarantees a 5 bagger - 1C:2C shows 5 or more controls and denies a balanced hand or 4441, so it guarantees a 5 bagger. It is forcing to 4NT or 5 of a suit PLEASE LET'S SKIP IN THIS THREAD THE ISSUE "SHAPE-FIRST" VS "CONTROLS- FIRST", thanks :lol: ------------------------------------------ After, say, 1C:2C, I would love to use a 2D relay to find out responder's shape (similar problems arise in the 1C:1NT:2C relay sequence, and if u've got suggestions, please telle them!!! :) ). A preliminary, elementary version we started to play was to use 2D as a 5c major ask, with responses: Version 1 2H = hearts (might have spades) 2S = 5+ spades , no 5 hearts 2NT = no 5cM 3m = 5+ in the minor suit bid and a side 4cM 3M = 55 or better in the minors, with shortness in the suit bid This scheme was relatively simple, but does not deal well with 55 or better 2-suiters. Also, it becomes hard to show minors single suiters, anmd discriminate hands with a strong minor suit from those where the minor suit is long but of modest quality I thought of something different (did not try yet), something like 1C:2C:2D Version 2 - 2H = no 5 card major, no 2 suiter; 2S asks ..... - 2NT = I have a 4cM ..... - 3m = natural suit, no 4cM ..... - 3H = single suiter, selfsufficient in CLUBS ..... - 3S = single suiter, selfsufficient in DIAMONDS ..... - 3NT = ??? (5422 in minors ??) - 2S = undisclosed 5 card major (and longer minor), 2NT asks - 2NT = 2 suiter same Color - 3C = 2 suiter same RANK - 3D = 2 suiter same SHAPE - 3H/S = natural single suiter, selfsufficient - 3NT = ?? ---------------------------------- Version 3 would be the simpler: opener just bid naturally, and when he is balanced (the usual hands that would relay), he just bids 2NT and then it's system-on as on 2NT openings.

This is common also in Italy: well, to say the truth, most (low-midflight) players ignore altogether leads asking for count/unblock, but, among those who do agree it, the vast majority plays K -> unblock/count. Also, quite a bunch of players plays the "Jack denies" agreement on lead. "MUD" from xxx, or even Txx/Jxx is most frequently played

LEADS In Italy the vast majority of players plays either: a. attitude lead from unknown length (it's surprising how often the count lead helps declarer more than pard) b. 3rd/5th vs any contract (basically hi-low to show even cards, low-hi to show odd no. of cards) Top players of course play more sophisticated systems of leads but if you happen to play on BBO with italians, that's the most likely system of leads CARDING Most people in Italy plays that an odd card is encouraging, an even card discouraging, and std count. Quite a few people play std carding (hi enc, low disc), and you'll rarely meet udca carding unless playing vs serious competitive players.

I've met several old ladies that play it 7-11 and label it weak, so guess :) LOL :-)

This hand is a good advertisement for 2 different approaches: a. using DBL to deny a major (bidding a major wd promise only 4+, not 5+) b. using 1NT to show shape+values, regardless of stopper; if 3NT is in the picture, opener is expected to checkback for a serious stop. I like either of the 2 approaches. ================================== Without these agreements I'd stretch to consider Txx a "sort of" stopper, and bid 1NT.

I think that the most common style I could see from strong players is to use a NFB as a constructive bid, up to invitational values, not as a wide-ranging nuisance bid. But it's true that at my local club, many players using NFB seems to intend it more as a nuisance bid (but in my opinion, they lose when their hand is indeed constructive).

The reason why I am usually more prudent is that I like that a 2/1, even in competition, resembles a normal 2/1. That means setting up the Forcing pass agreements at high level, if they bounce. If one decides to play this way, that means that a 2/1 should have a defensive power close to an opener, in terms of quick tricks. So I would not bid a 2/1 in competition with, say, a side ace and QJTxxxx(x) on the side. Now, since there are sequences devoted to show one-suited hands with marginal values, I prefer to use those sequences when my defensive strength is low, and a direct 2/1 when I have defense. In other words, pard , when he doubles a 4-level contract should count on 1.5 tricks at least. Of course all is different playing NFB :-)

Of course :-) I guess it was my fault to introduce football when I referred to Brazil, in an hypothetical sentence to explain my uinderstanding or Roland's words :-)

It occurred to me probably too late that the use of boldface font might resemble too much the use of uppercase fonts in internet jargon (e.g. might sound aggressive and "shouting"). This was not my intention. Usually I employ different fonts in all my posts that are longer than a few paragraphs: the use of different fonts is intended as a way to highlight different sections of the posts , and/or specific paragraphs that I believe are key issues. In this case I wanted to underline the fact that in the US literature the term "Weak Jump Shift" is intended with a purely preemptive meaning, 05/6, no aces at all (unless vuln) and no AKs outside the long suit. Some refs I can quickly list: Max Hardy "Standard bidding for the 21st century" http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/WeakJumpShift.html OKBridge 2/1: http://www.annam.co.uk/2-1.html#pjs (I'll skip here many other minor links that describe the wjs as 0-6 and purely preemptive, they would not add anything to the content of the discussion) Whether we like it or not, for some topics, the US literature is virtually the only one available on the market (not always the best, but that matters little, if it's the only one), so, to avoid miscommunication, it seems logical to adopt the jargon used in the most widely available documentation. Since this documentation refers to wjs as totally preemptive, 0-5/6, my guess is that the 4-7 range should not be labeled as "weak" jump shift (since "weak" js is described as a purely preemptive tool in the most widely accepted meaning). It seeems that the use of 3/4-7 hcp for the JS is more widely used in europe, and, while I would not play this way, I have no objection. But the point is avoiding miscommunication: if we go on adopting the same term for 2 completely different uses (one destructive, the other constructive), we'll end up nowhere. Adapting ourselves to the most widely spoken language (whether we like it or not) is a matter of practicality: to make another example, I'd much prefer to write in italian rather than english (which is *your* native language, not mine) but that would not be practical to communicate. Similarly, I think it would be much more practical if you reconcile to not call "weak" a jumpshift that is actually constructive. I hope you understood my point even without boldface fonts. If not, I might have to resort to Italian.