Chamaco

Jimmy, I'd like to read more about Roland's minor suit structure. Could you repost it (so I do not have to dig it through the zillion of past BBF posts) or send it to me a private message ? Thanks a lot !!

Liverpool will play in the next Champions League because the CL rules allow the participation of the Champions to the next edition even if they did not qualfy in their national league standings. I guess Frances mentioned this because in a way it resembles the italian Bridge National JR Team sitation (Champions but not qualified). However, the rules of the Champions League of Footbal have *since always* allowed the standing Champions to participate to the next edition. The rules were not changed for Liverpool.

"Never put parmesan cheese over pasta with seafood sauce"

I do not double. I lead 6 of diamonds, passive lead: - we have most of the outstanding hcp - we have opps suits stopped - hearts can still be distributed 4333 (actually this is quite likely), in which case leading away from your Txx suit will waste a trick. On a lucky day, pard will contribute something in diamonds; on a bad day, declarer will just finesse right.

A common misconception. The whole point is that 3♠ here is forcing. Please read my previous post again. The relevant range for a WJS is not 0 - 6 but 4 - 8 or so. The relevant range for a wjs cannot have 7-8 hcp (even 6 hcp is suspicious, if pard has 18/19 hcp we might miss game), according to all textbooks (see for instance, among others, Hardy's books): the reason is that we are in an unlimited opening world, and we risk preempting pard. A weak js, in natural systems DENIES ANY WILLINGNESS OF CONSTRUCTIVE AUCTIONS, unless there is fit. t shows a hand worse than a 3-level preempt. You can indeed use up to 8 hcp, but only in a limited opening world (strong club etc), because you do not risk preempting pard. I know how you play wjs, Gerben, but it is not standard, at least neither in 2/1 nor SAYC, nor (for what it matters) in the italian 4 and 5-card major systems. (in other words, you need special agreements) In these standard, 3S is invitational: then if you use your approach, you need another way to show invitational hands (which I do not fancy), and/or Bourke relays and/or other gadgets, which I personally do not like. The standard requirement for weak js is a hand without Aces and at most 6 hcp (for many, it wd be 0-5 hcp); the invitational hand should be 9/10+; in this scheme it becomes cumbersome to show the constructive hands with 7/9 hcp, too good to preempt and too weak to invite. IMO, adopting the scheme you play into a natural system only gets things overcomplicated just for the sake of keeping a wjs bid that never comes up. I think it makes some sense in a strong club system (when you can use wjs with 0-7/8 hcp without preempting pard), but less so in an unlimited system. ---------------------- Also keep in mind that I am advocating giving up wjs only in UNCONTESTED auctions, and such auctions are more likely to be OUR hand, so the need to preempt is less. In contested auctions, wjs is perfectly ok from my perspective. But, if we restrict this discussion only on uncontested auctions, the frequency of occurrence of wjs (with aceless 0-6 hcp) vs sjs will shrink even further. ---------------------- I know your approach is playable, yet I think that - outside of strong club/limited opening world - giving up wjs is not bad, because they do not come up often (opener being unlimited, with hands too strong for a wjs you would risk preempting him, not opps), so it's not a big loss. In a strong club world, you can use wjs with slightly stronger hands (opener is limited, no risk of preempting him), so they come up more frequently, so it's a different issue, and I would be more keen to use them in that case.

Perhaps, in theory, I don't know... But in practice, are you really sure ? I agree that it makes sense to use wjs *after opps overcall*, but -honestly -how many times was it useful to you *when opps were silent* ? I also like to preempt, but I found out that the frequency was too low, mostly because too many hands were TOO STRONG for a wjs (= using a wjs with those hands would have resulted in preempting a strong pard rather than preempting opps). NOT using SJS, it is not true that usually you set trumps at the 3-level: when you DO have a SJS hand, pard is often short in that suit and refuses to support you below 3NT. The usual mechanics is the following. Define SJS = 5-5.5 losers hand with self sufficient suit, not merely 17+ hcp. Say you hold AKQJxxxx-void -xx-xxx You do not play SJS. If you could, you would like to set trumps, and then verify via cuebids the controls in the minor suits, and finally use EKB 1D-1S (1) 2C-2H (2) 2NT-3S (3) 3NT- ?? 1- I have time to set trump (!?!?!?) 2- I need 4sf cos 2S and 3S are both NF 3-now I have tld pard that I have long spades, but he does not know I have a selfsufficient suit. I would have bid the same even with AJxxxx-xx-Ax-Kxx, and this is wrong, wrong wrong, to bid the ame way these totally different hands 4- Now what do I bid ? Ideally I would have liked to check side controls and use EKB, but now I am stuck ==== Using SJS, you just set trumps, then use serious 3NT, cues, and RKCB/EKB to find the small/grand slam. Quite a few times we were able to bid a grand thanks to the ability to set trumops early in the bidding (something that 4sf auction do not allow) ============================

Well, if you had held the same hands I held in the last 4 years, you would have lost your bet, and I played on average 100 hands a week. I used to play too WJS for nonconstructive hands for about 2 years exactly for the reason you mentioned: the textbooks advertising WJS claimed the same points. But I surrendered to the fact that, in real life, WJS almost never came up. SJS, on the other hands, proved to work great at IMPS, where slams matter much more than at pair ================================= I have to say that *after opps overcalls/doubles*, there there is much more point to use WJS. This TOTALLY different than the case of opps silent, because when your opps are silnt, the chance of slam are higher, so the best tools for slam (SJS) should be preserved.

In estimating the cost/benefit of a bidding treatment, you cannot ignore the frequency of occurrence. The cost-benefit should be more or less (in a somwhat implified manner- I do not mean to be superscientific here) benefit = (frequency of wins) x (average amount of wins- either in MP or IMPS, according to score) cost = (frequency of losses) X (average amount of losses) Therefore, it is vital to assess the frequency of occurrence of the hand type: if you use the WJS for hands that never come up, then it is a wasted bid.

If weak = 0-6 hcp, then I wholeheartedly agree. I agreed to play wjs = 0-6 for about 2 years and it came up only twice, whereas hands suitable for strong jumpshifts came up about 15 times. And it's a myth that "if you have a hand suitable for SJS, you can bid them slowly", because you have a hard time to describe your honor concentration. The power of SJS is to be able to set trumps immediately, below the level of game: if you start slowly, your pard will always "refuse" your offer to play there, and you'll reach game without being able to check for side controls. Since when we adopted SJS, our slam biding has improved dramatically, without losing much on the 0-6 wjs. Things would be more shaded is the jumpshift was slightly stronger (say 4-8/9 hcp), but then it would easy to bid these hands going slowly... :D

I think the term "belong" used by Roland was overemphasized. Of course, if any team does not qualify for an event, that means that other teams performed better and deserved more the qualifications. But I also think that Roland's statement was intended with a meaning such as "The Brazil soccer (er... *football* for us europeans :D ) team did not qualify for the World Chship Finals, it's a shame theye are not where they belong". Here, the term "belong" refers to the tradition, not to the merits, and I also think that it was rather clear from Roland's post, without the need of 10 posts to point out a rather obvious point (a team that does not qualify does not deserve to be qualified).

With this hand, you should raise to 4H, showing a semi-preemptive but not suicidal hand. Dbl with this hand is a very bad bid. Cheers Hongjun Playing fitshowing jumps, 4D is not so bad (a 5 bagger wd be better, I know, but still it shows I am not broke, and help pard deciding whether double or bid on if they stick in a 4S bid).

Ditto, I'd bid like Mike even in a 15-17 framework. 4441 and 5431 (no 54 major) with stiff honor are often better described as balanced.

In my opinion, a "free" 2S should show an invitational hand or better in terms of BOTH offensive power AND defensive potential. Invitational hand in terms of offense is about 8 losers = the hand has 7.5 losers so it's ok. Invitational hand in terms of defense = 1.5 defensive tricks = the hand also complies with this. So in my opinion, bidding 2S is OK. BUT, let us assume that, instead of Axxxxxx xx Kxx x...... (hand 1) the honors are interchanged: Kxxxxxx xx Axx x...... (hand 2) Now, the number of losers (and offensive strength) is the same , BUT we are not so sure anymore that Kxxxxxx will constitute a 1/2 defensive tricks if opps buy the contract (likely to be ruffed).. So, with hand 1, 2S seems ok to me, but with hand 2, I'd start either with double then bid spades or follow Mike777 suggestion to use Lawrence's approach (bid 3S to show a shapely hand not worth a 2/1).

Bridge book: anything by Reese Bols tip: When you have a 2-way tenace position, finesse through the opponent you dislike most, at least you will have the satisfaction of not losing the trick to him/her (by Klinger/Kambites)

I think that, with a 5-4 trump fit, less importance should be givn to hcp, and more to distribution. IMO, the easiest way to do this (maybe not the most accurate, but easy enough to be applicable) is to use the LTC. I'd make a limit raise with 8 losers. So the following are all examples of a lower bound for limit raises to me. I understand some of these hands can be described better with specific gadgets (minisplinters or fitshowing jumps), but this just shows my idea on which hands that are worth an invite: Hand 1: Axxx-x- Axxxx - xxx Hand 2: Axxx-x- KJxx - xxxx Hand 3: Axxxx - xx - xx- QJTx

This can be solved but needs some small complications to the system. The solution I came up with was the following: 1) after 1NT forcing and opener's minimum rebid, ....1a- invitational single suiter bid a direct 3X, natural ....1b- weak singlesuiter bid 2NT lebensohl, puppet to 2C, then pass/correct. This 2NT lebensohl MIGHT be a GF balanced hand ....1c- obviously, since 2NT is forcing 1R, we need to find another way to show balanced hands invitational (see point below) 2) If responder has a 11 balanced hand, invitational in NT, he will go via a 2/1 response (whatever your scheme to show balanced hands). Basically the idea, for balanced responder, is to exchange the way you used to show a GF hand and an invitational hand: - the GF balanced hand goes via 1NT forcing and then 2NT lebensohl - the inv balanced hand is shown the way you used to show the GF balanced hand (whatever sequence you used to adopt)

This hand is not worth reversing IMO.

In my opinion, there are 2 types of reverses. a. "POWER REVERSES": these are strong hand that have REAL high cards, usually 16/17+ hcp (but it's ok to agree 18/19+ if you like) b. DISTRIBUTIONAL REVERSES: these are hands with LESS hcp than power reverses, usually in the 12-15 hcp range, but with extras in distribution. These hands usually have 5-5.5 losesr Example hand: AKxxx-AQTxx-xx-x = about 5 losers = "Distributional" reverses. This type of hand has the same offensive potential than a "normal" hand with 17/18 hcp, so we should be able to show the extra strength, but at the same time inform pard that our defensive strength is not so high as a "power reverse". ============================================ In my opinion, a good bidding system should be able to show both types of reverses in a different way. The "Power reverse" should be shown, because it will help partner to know that the power reverse hand can stand to penalize opponents, since it has a good share of defense in hcp. The "distributional reverse" should be shown because it will help pard to know that the *offensive* potential of the hand has extras, and that slam or game can be reached even opposite a weak hand. ============================================ In this respect, I like systems that can discriminate hands with extra hcp (e.g. strong club systems or similar, or natural systems that use gadgets such as Gazzilli over a major and Multireverse over a minor), because, once you have denied lots of hcp, you are free to jump to show distributional reverses.

I agree on most of these points. However, I think these problems can be solved by using: a. 2D opening = 18-20 bal hand b. 2C opening = 9-12 hcp hands with clubs By this, we remove from 1C opener, both the 18-20 bal hands and the weak(ish) hands with clubs. This makes sure that, usually, 1C is a sound opening: -if balanced, it is without exception specificay 15-17; it is an INVALUABLE advantage, for nebulous openers, that the balanced-type has ONE AND ONE ONLY hcp range; -if unbalanced, it is at least a good 13 (good controls or good suits). With these certainties, I think that the weak NT Unassuming Club does not perform worse than Polish Club after interference. Of course you give up the 2D pener for something else, but everything has a price :-)

*IF* you intend to show a power raise without a weak doubleton (I would not do it with this 4333 shape, if pard transferred with a yarborough, playing at 3 level won't be funny...), then you have to use Rosenkrantz "trick": you fake a "honor cluster" game try with the first step available after the "doubleton-showing step". so: 1NT:2D 2NT(*):3C(**) 3H(***):responder passes or correct 2NT(*)= first step after 2S (which would show a short suit game try in an generic doubleton) = game try with spades cluster OR POWER GAME TRY without features 3C(**) = which game try ? 3H(***) = quantitative game try (3D would have shown a game try in spades)

That is very important. However, IMO, there should be a way to show a max WITHOUT disclosing the weak doubleton, and responder should be able to ask *if and only if* he interested. So something like: 1st step above accept = max and a generic weak doubleton, 2nd step = max, no weak dblton, direct superaccept = min 4 card raise. If one dislikes the 2NT superaccept with 3 trumps, then it is possible as well to use a scheme similar to Rosenkrantz's 3-way game try (long suit= honor cluster similar to what Tysen suggested, short suit = weak dbltn, power try= max without features): For example: 1NT:2D .... 2H = normal .... 2S = max with 4 trumps, generic dbltn, 2NT asks which dbltn .... 2NT = honors cluster in spades (pard bids game with a decent hand and Hx in spades) .... 3m = honors cluster in the minor bid(pard bids game with a decent hand and Hx in the suit) .... 3H = minimum with 4 trumps This leaves out the max hand without doubleton, that would make a "power game try": this hand, similarly to the Rosenkrantz scheme, will "fake" a cluster in the first step, so in this scheme, opener with a max hand a 4 trumps will bid 2NT, and responder, with 3C will ask which kind of game try this is. The scheme for spades is the same, just shifted by one step.

I'd pass, forcing, which should show a good fit but not sure to make 5S.

When you have a superfit with 23 hcp, most times you bash into game anyways :-)

The risk of "telegraphing" the weak doubleton to the defense is NOT to be tapped, but that they can read right away the location of the honors in the closed hand. Quite often this is the key for defenders to decide whether or not making a risky return and defeat the contract. Defenders will know the hcp range, that you have a 4432 shape, and that all the hcp are outside the announced doubleton. That's quite a lot for good defender to get the max from their defense, and the number of times this is offset by the possibility to bid a miracle slam is negligible compared to the number of games that will be set thanks to such info.

The reason why I like to play online bridge is not listed in the options. Main reason is that it is hard to find an enjoyable partner in clubs game , at least for a non-expert. Usually, good partners are taken, and the remaining are: - either unwilling to agree anything more than "15-17 NT, 4 card major, RKCB, etc" - or, they are quite unpleasant persons at the table, always criticizing pard's choices (with hindsight, of course), and many times takeing unilateral decisions ven whenthey do not have the elements to do so. Playing online is great for progressing players because it gives a chance to play with anyone: sometimes you even happen to play with really good pards, and, quite often, they accept to play with you because the formula of online bridge allows them to do it only for few boards. If instead, they were obliged to play a whole MP topurney with a patzer (22-25 bds), that would be too long, they would not get a chance to "disconnect" as it happens on BBO. This should make people think: I have seen many people complaining of the lack of people in bridge club, and try to come out with the solution for this. But the main key is NOT that much teaching to more people, BUT RATHER *making sure that when beginners come to the club, good players are willing to partner them*, basically welcoming them to the club so they can feel at ease and come back. Oterwise, the natural reaction of a normal person will be: "why should I continue a game that is already hard in itself and moreover noone wants to play with me?" --------------------------------------- And, of course, I like the social thing.