Chamaco

Add to this a jump-cuebid = mixed 4 card raise (say, 9 losers) same scheme: - jumps = fitshowing - 2NT = inv+ power raise - direct raises = (weakish) - 3C = similar to jumps = Fit NonJump - hands interested in NT will double (since 2NT is taken) I do not like fitshowing responses to minor suit overcalls. Reason is, many times the right contract is NoTrumps, and the fitshowing scheme is great to shoot for a suit contract, less so for a NT contract. For this sequence i like to play different than for major overcall e.g.: 2D = forcing, may inquire for strength (hands that would have bid a natutal 2NT invitational) or for side 4M 2M = non forcing 2NT = good xfer to 3 clubs; if pard is minimum he bids 3C 3M = preemptive 3D = GF xfer to hearts 3H = GF xfer to S 3S = GF stop ask for NT, no interest in major, will play in NT or %C

Could be, I have not enough experience about that. After seeing some top italian players use 2NT as superaccept with a max and HHx trumps support (3 cards) , I have started to adopt it without disasters so far, in the last 1.5 year, but the sample is way too limited (it came out rarely) to be able to evaluate its effectiveness.

Perhaps a good compromise is to use a superaccept method that allows to convey an *undisclosed* worthless doubleton, which can be queried by responder via a relay. E.g., something like that (I'm sure many people on this Forum can rework the scheme with better nuances, but you get the idea) 1NT-2D -2H = "normal hand" -2S = 4 card support max, undisclosed worthless doubleton, 2N asks -2NT = *3 card support* max - 3C= 4 card support MAX, no worthless doubleton - ...... - 3H = 4 trumps, minimum 1NT-2H - 2S = "normal hand" - 2NT = 4 card support max, undisclosed worthless doubleton, 3C asks - 3C= *3 card support* max - 3D= 4 card support MAX, no worthless doubleton - ...... - 3S = 4 trumps, minimum =============================== I still think it's a big info delivered to opps, even if the doubleton is undisclosed, but it seems to me a better compromise

It seems to me that "shape-showing" superacceptance (e.g. worthless doubleton) MIGHT, 1 time out of 30, help bidding a miracle slam; but, in my view, it i much more likely to help the defenders all the other times (where we stop in games), who will have a blueprint of declarer's hand already at trick 2, and they may use it to defeat the contract which would be otherwise difficult to break. In general, especially in NT sequences, I hate to deliver information unless partner asked specifically for them: everytime they will be no use for him (most of the times), they will be more useful to defenders.

Sory, I was in a hurry and wrote the post quickly. Bourke says that the wide ranging overcall poses problems in constructive auctions, non that it is unplayable. He therefore suggests to overcall soundly(8/9+), even at 1-level and with weaker hands resort to wjo, but these suggestions were not expressed so strongly as it seems from my previous post.

Requirement for 1-level overcalls. This is an interesting issue. Tim Bourke discusses it in its book "Tournament ACOL", where he states that the overcall cannot be as wide ranging as 6/7-16/17. He says that, in this days where a shapely 16/17 will bid a suit, then the minimum to overcall at 1 level should be 8/9+ hcp. The lower minimum (6/7) was justifyable in the old days when a jump overcall was strong, so that the simple overcall was more limited, say 6/7-15 hcp or so. So that means one, holding, say KQJxx-xxx-xxxx-x, would not be able to overcall 1S, but, in this case he should either pass or jump bid a weak 2S.

Isn't this a 1NT overcall? How about AKx Qxx AJxxxx K ? Ok, even better ;)

hehe , sure :-) But I think that, in more practical terms, it avoids putting the partnership under a heavy burden of stress, for simply a one-down contract. In other words, when you do a mistake, it's very heavy, and when you do get it right, the frequency of a heavy gain is less. Absolutely agree on the need to discuss the points you raise. Below are my views: I think it should show a hand with 3.5+ sure defensive tricks. Tricks in our long suit (where we have a fit) should be devalued (except Ace). Pard should leave the dbl in with 1.5 tricks. With less (1 trick), he should exert judgment based on the nature of his hand: if unbalanced, pull, if balanced and/or with lots of quacks (slow tricks), a acse might be done of leaving the dbl in, hoping that it scores better than playing a doubled contract with a low ODR dummy. No problem, I understand the point of your comments :-) AKx-Qx-KQTxxx-Qx In my view this is a good "cardshowing" double. However, I have to admit that I am more inclined to use such doubles in cases where pard can still signoff at the 3-level rather than hang him to bid at the 4 level such as in the case of this post.

- system on only if partner jumps. It's the easiest thing to remember. I would make one (optional) exception: 2NT is a generic strong raise even if nonjump (if you prefer, make it invitational+, but if this conflicts with your orignal system just use it the way you remember it better). With a NT-oriented hand (that would have bid a natural 2NT) responder can double first.

Sure. The last point was on the usefulness of penalty double here by the 2D bidder. Well, let me put it this way: at IMPS scoring, all textbooks say that a penalty double of a partscore should be sure to set the contract by 2+ tricks (with the high likelyhood to set only 1 trick, better reconcile to let them play and set them undoubled). According to this principle, in the specific case, realistically placing 1 defensive trick in the hand of the 3D bidder, if the double was penalty it should GUARANTEE 5+ defensive tricks (in the hand of the 2D bidder alone). How frequent will this occurrence be (for a hand that did not start with a t/o dbl) ? Of course I'll repeat here that IMO at MP scoring there is more justification to adopt more freely business doubles.

I know, but usually, if not 16 hcp, you can nudge the max to 17 hcp; it's not 1 hcp that will change matters here. I doubt anyone would make a simple overcall with 18+ hcp. Moreover, usually a 2m overcall by an expert has a high offense/defense ratio, certainly not the case of the hand of the original post. I knw, in this case especially so since if pard pulls he has to go up to level 4. However, when I mean it should show "cards", I am not saying it's not at all penalty. I simply mean it's cooperative, with tolerance for a penalty pass. Pard is expected to exert judgment. I think such hand type will be WAY more frequent than a pure penalty. At any rate, IMO the double here did not have any of the rquirements needed, either for a "pure penalty" nor for a "maximal" double. Most experts would ? Why not double and correct to NT pard's heart response ?

I agree. A 2D overcall is a limited hand (did not double for t/o before), how can the 2nd round double be PURE penalty ? To penalize at IMPS you must be absolutely sure to set the contract, usually the textbook penalty at IMPS is sure to set by 2 tricks: that means that, even if pard's raise promises 1 trick, you should "see" 5 defensive tricks in your hand. This will ALMOST NEVER happen with a hand worth a simple overcall (rather than a t/o double at first round): therefore the double show CARDS, a maximum for the overcall. Now I ask: do you think this hand is maximum for 2-level overcall ? I do not think so. To me, a maximum for a 2-level overcall is something like a good 15 or 16 hcp. So, in my view , the double was foolish, REGARDLESS of whether it was made to show "cards" or to suggest penalty. It *might* be more acceptable at MP, the cost/benefit ratio would be more justifiable, to protect one's partscore. But at IMPS the risk is just too high.

If you like to know explicitly the suit(s) ove the overcaller you might as well play: X = strong balanced or clubs. 2C is weak relay(nonforcing with C), 2D = strong relay, 2M = invitational 2C = 54+ in majors (Landy) or diamonds; 2D = weak relay (NF with D), 2M = invitational, 2NT = strong relay 2D = xfer to H (2S = weak, 2S inv., 2NT strong relay) 2H = xfer to spades (2S = weak, 2NT = strong relay) 2S = 4S + longer minor (2NT = relay, 3m = pass/correct) 2NT = minors 3m = natural long minor (usually 6 or a good 5) + 4 hearts The xfer scheme gives the opponent a double shot (extra cue avaliable, availability of an easier way to double for penalty), but you avoid the problems of this hand. On the other hand, bidding naturally almost invariably loses the 2nd suit. Nothing is perfect.

If you really want to upgrade ur hand, why not restrain yourself to 2NT rather than 3NT ? - you give pard a chance to xfer into a major, which may well be best; - you avoid any quantitative raise (hard to imagine a passed hnd inviting to 6NT)

Yes Rubensohl is a form of xfer lebensohl. Some pairs use it differently from Rubensohl (e.g. one deviation is whether cuebiding opps suit direcly or in xfer) so they prefer to call it generically Transfer Lebensohl rather than Rubensohl (which has specific sequences attached to its name).

"Where there are 12 tricks you can find 13" Pietro Forquet :-)

I know this section is for beginners, but I'd like to take advantage of this open topic for a more advanced question: in this sequence (responding to pard t/o of a weak 2), can Transfer lebensohl apply ? I know it is quite common to use it in the "classic Lebensohl" sequences when 1NT gets overcalled, but I wonder whether the same pairs who adopt it there will also use it when respnding do a takeout of a weak 2. Thanks all, and sorry if the post is out of place. Mauro

I think there could be a problem if we "fool" pard making him believe spades are trumps. In the full RKB described by Kantar, when spades are trumps, a later 6H bid by the 4NT bidder will be interpreted as an asking bid in hearts (can ask for 2nd or 3rd round control, according to the various sequences). Pard will bid the GRAND slam in SPADES if he has the control we are asking, and would not very happy to play a GRAND in a likely 4-2 fit. So, if pard plays the full RKCB version, the only chance to correct the slam will be in NT.

I hope your bday dinner will benefit of all the dishes chosen by Rain for the BBF posters' rating !! :P Happy Bday from a Durian Cake ! :)

Ditto. While I agre that passing such hands is not a winner in the long term, I certainly think that bidding a 2m overcall with 5332 without a good suit and low ODR is certainly a longterm loser at IMPS scoring. In the given hand, I'd prefer to stretch a slightly offshape t/o ddouble, after all AKQ in herats is almost a 4 card suit, and if pard bids clubs he'll have usually 5.

Sorry, maybe this question is OT, but it's a language/slang problem: what/who is a caddy ?

I think the system has too many bids to show strong raises 12-15 or 16+ hcp, but too few to show the lesser hands. I think it is good to have specific ways of raising with 6/9 hcp (or, better, 9 losers) and 4 trumps, and, where possible, to show IN WHICH SUIT these values are cncentrated. Fitshowing jumps do the job well. My suggestion is largely based on the use of Robson/Segal's raises, even NOT in competition, modified to include the generic splinter. It does have les accuracy for all forcing raises, but should help more in the much more frequent weaker hands. ======================================== 2NT = limit+ raise with 4+ trumps (or 3 trumps and high ODR) 3/4/5/6M = to play, generally preemptive FITSHOWING JUMPS At the 3 level 1H:2S/3m = fitshowing jump = mixed raise (8.5-9 losers) with concentrated values 1S: 3m/3H = fitshowing jump = mixed raise (8.5-9 losers) with concentrated values At the 4 level 1H:3NT/4m = fitshowing jump = 7 losers hand with concentrated values (3NT = spades) 1S: 4m/4H = fitshowing jump = 7 losers hand with concentrated values SPLINTERS 1H:3S and 1S:3NT = concealed splinter= about 12-15 hcp, 6-7 losers

The type of "cardshowing" double I refer to is something like: 1C-(1H)-1S-(p) 2C-(2H)-DBL This double is not pure penalty nor pure takeout. It shows "cards" and no clear direction. Such kind of doubles are frequent in many other sequences. So what I mean is that there is a huge constellation of doubles which are in-betwen business and T/O: then I won't argue about how to name them: "cooperative", "optional", "cardshowing". ;)

Hola Gonzalo !! :-) So what scheme for inverted minors are you using now ?

Almost any non-rubbish hand with 2 aces is worth an invite to me (I count Aces = 5 hcp), so, assuming 2S is invitational or better with 5+ spades, I'll bid it without a thought.