Chamaco

2 cuori è forcing 1 giro, e mostra mano invitante o meglio... Ma sei sicuro che con Qxx sprecata a quadri, la mano valga un invito a manche ?

Sono d'accordo. Io all'inizio ho votato per il contre, ma dopo aver letto la discussione sul Forum Inglese, in cui i sostenitori del 3quadri facevano il tuo stesso ragionamento, ci ho penato su seriamente, ed ho cambiato idea: - se il p è debole, giocare 3Q è probabilmente la soluzione + sicura; - se ha una mano buona, avremo modo di dichiarare le picche. Devo dire che sono molto contento perchè, quando discutendo su un Forum, uno cambia idea, vuol dire che lo scambio di idee e le discussioni funzionano.

I think in balancing seat vs strong NT one should use the same defense used in direct seat vs weak NT. Double = penalty oriented one/2 suiters shown the same way you do vs weak NT At MP, doubling with marginal balanced hands should be done only if holding the majors (unless thir CC shows that they play Garbage Stayman): holding minors + a good balanced hand, we do not want them to runout to a good 2M partscore when the rest of the field will be in 1NT. If they DO play Garbage stayman, it's a little safer to assume that weak responder does not have 44 in majors, and pard is likely to have length in the major.

Hmm, I think this a headstart towards troubles: I have GOOD minor support, and I start by bidding my 4 card suit first, and then my 2 card suit B) Even if 3C is a sort of 3rd suit forcing (a la Bourke), it still does not feel right. Most times pard will show 3 card support in H, and then again we will have a hard time evaluating whether the hand plays better in NT or diamonds. Also, if I bid this way with 4M+longer minor and GF, this will make more nebulous the bidding when I DO have a 5 card major and I am using 3rd/4th suit forcing to checkback for support.

Of course, that is the core of the question: I think these problems, pros/cons are relatively well known so I was not trying to say that one is better than the other, I am simply asking: regardless of whether you prefer style "a" or "b", which solution do you try (if any at all) to avoid the problems related with it ? :-)

DBL by a hand which simply overcalled at the previous round cannot be pure penalty. The fact that the overcaller did not double at his first turn limits his hand to, say, 16 hcp , maybe 17. The double by the 2D bidder is cardshowing: it should show a maximum 2D overcall (which I do not think he has: he has a good 14 hcp hand, but overcalling at the 2 level with less would be crazy, so he has already shown his values). Pard is allowed to exert judgment and pull or pass according to his hand-type. So the double is, IMO, much worse than the pulling: when west doubles, west sees only one trick in hand; is he supposed to play the 2D bidder for 4 tricks, to defeat 3S, at IMPS, risking doubling them into game ? No thanks, I think the double, at IMPS, was ridiculous. At IMPS you double a partscore when you expect to defeat it by 2+ tricks, the doubler here could not be sure of this: he might xpect to set the contract maybe by 1 trick, but then again the cost/benefit was against odds.

Ty so far :-) To those who will anticipate the 4 card major even with a GF hand: how do you play to describe your hand (or what convention do you use for that) if pard does NOT bid a 1/1 (in that case, xyz/xyNT would do the job). E.g.: you hold xx-AJTx-KJxxx-Kx and the bidding goes CASE 1 1♦-1♥ 2♦ CASE 2 1♦-1♥ 2♠ Here, bidding 4SF tends to suggest a 5cMajor. Bidding 3D, also tends to promise a 5cM.

Agree with Marlowe here. To rate the bids, the interpretations are needed. 1. I would not bid 2D with this hand; I would expect more distribution and /or a better/longer suit.With AKQ in hearts, I would have doubled, not the best bid in the world, but avoids other problems. 2. 3D is purely competitive, the way I play it. So Double, even intended for penalties, is hanging pard. In this view, 2D and 4D seem reasonable to me, and I do not like at all the 2D and DBL bids (DBL being much worse).

Hi all :-) In my experience I have noticed that among players using inverted minor raises there seem to be 2 schools: a. Inverted minor raise ABSOLUTELY denies a side major b. Inverted minor raise cannot have a side 4cM *if invitational only*, but can indeed have a side 4cM *if the hand is a GF* As far as I understood, the reasons for both views are the following: a. Inverted minor raise ABSOLUTELY denies a side major These players assume that during the following bids, opener or responder might bid a major only as a NOtrump probe, showing stoppers, sometimes even as little as doubleton KJ or AQ. If there was ambiguity (bidding a major could still be looking for a 44 fit), there would be a problem: when responder has the major bid by opener, responder might raise to 3 this suit, but this also leads to problem: if the suit was only a notrump probe, we have lost one full level of bidding which was needed to check for the other stoppers. b. Inverted minor raise can indeed have a side 4cM *if the hand is a GF* These players assume that bidding the major first - even when holding great support in opener's minor - can lead to cumbersome rebids which might indeed distort responder's hand, and opener may have a hard time evaluating the hand. One big risk among others would be losing a good slam in the minor when there is no fit in the major: when a good minor fit is there, choosing between a minor suit game/slam and a NT contract is often a tricky task (especially at MP), and in order to do that well, a good description of the shape is needed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO THE QUESTION IS: WHICH STYLE DO YOU PREFER; AND HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THE RELATED PROBLEMS ? Thanks a lot ! :-) Mauro

Hi all, I am planning to order the following 2 books: 1) Building a Bidding System by Roy Hughes 2) Modern Constructive Bidding by Marshall Miles Did anyone browse through their content ? BTW, I am planning to order a 3rd, "MasterClass-Lessons From the Bridge Table" by Fred Gitelman, but knowing the high standards of Fred comments, I do not need any review to convince me to order it <_<

Pard bid a constructive hand but the 3D raise was weaker than 2S. a. I assume pard cannot have 2Aces + a King: this wd be closer to a GF hand than a 1NT bid, but even if that wa the case, pard would CERTAINLY have made a stronger bid than 3D; b. similarly, am rather skeptical that he holds one ace and 2 kings (holding 1A+2Ks, I would raise with 2S, not 3D). BOTTOMLINE: If pard does not have 2A+1K NOR 1A+2K, slam seems a bad proposition to me, so I am going to signoff directly in 5D. Bridge is a % game. I might miss the magical slam (rare), but (much more often) I will deliver less info to opps t beat contact with the right lead or with the right return early on because bidding pictured my hand for them. I rate that the plus of bashing to game will offset the occasional missed slams more often than the other way around. This applies under "normal" circumstances; of course the conditions of contest and the state of the match/tourney will tip the balance for/against this choice.

Agree.

How do you define a "cardshowing" double independent of shortness in opps suit(usually with a bal hand)? - Takeout - Penalty - Cooperative/optional - other ? PS- Please respond seriously, it's all to easy to make jokes about such a question :D

Double

In undiscussed pships, it is nonforcing. However, there is a point in ignoring the dbl altogether and make it forcingm, but this should be specifically stated before, in the pship's agreement.

3C. If pard bids NT, we do have good chances, because our long suit is solid. If our hearts were missing a top honor, I would be more inclined to aim to 4H (but I'd still bid 3 clubs at this round)

This is how Bridge World Standard plays it. Personally, I don't like it. One big benefit of playing 2/1 is that I can have the auction such as 1S-2D-2S-3D to show a very good diamond suit and a strong hand. If 3D is non-forcing here, then I have to invent something after 1S-2D-2S and I've lost half the benefit of playing 2/1 in the first place. Ditto. the big advantage of playing 2/1 is to set a GF early without having to force with cumbersome bids. Resorting to "quasi/GF" means losing 75% of this advantage

I'm a 2H bidder. This is a full opening hand (wouldn't you open 1st/2nd seat?). Sure, we may end up in one of those hopeless 22 count games, but, oh well, it happens, and in any case we do have a suit to avoid 3NT in misfit and lack of high cards :-) The hand complies both with distributional strength required for an opener AND has 2 defensive tricks, so I cannot see why we should go via 1NT forcing (a terrible way to go when we have unbalanced hands- if we have an alternative, that is...). The 1NT response is a "least of evils" resource, to clean up the 2/1 response from invitational hands, but, "per se", it's quite a troublesome catchall bid. If I bid 1NT and they preempt to 3/4m, I'd much rather prefer I had shown my shape and values with 2H.

Freebids (including 1NT) nonforcing at level 1/2, forcing at level 3. DBL = either 5-7, for takeout (major oriented) OR generic GF, usually NOT single suited (would jump) NOR 2-suiter (would bid "Michaels" cue OR "Unusual 2NT")

Absolute minimum for first seat opener. Not strong enough for 2nd seat opener: 2nd seat bids must be textbook bids because the likelihood it's opps hand have decreased, and any distortion we make 2nd seat is more likely to drive our partner astray rather than disturb opps. This is a borderline hands for my standards: offensive strength is rated as 7.5 losers, almost an opener; defensive strength is rated as 1.5-2 defensive tricks, = almost an opener. I might stretch first seat (at white) but not second seat (no matter which vuln). However, gimme the diamond king instead of the Q and I'll open (at least I'll have 2 full defensive tricks) .

I like strong JS in a major, but for strong natural JS in a minor the frequency/gain does not seem to be a winner.

The are many intresting structures over NT. However, since this poll emphasizes "practicality" (e.g. what I would play with a pickup partner, not what I consider best), I have no doubts: I'd play some form of common structure based on some form of Stayman (and/or Puppet, and/or Garbage) + Transfers. Many more players play that, and even those who dislike it seem to know it well enough to play it dring an occasional game. The same cannot be said for fancy (and good) structures based on some form of 2-way stayman, Keri, and other relay structures.

Fitbid or minisplinter is the most effective in my opinion (then GF hand with 4+ trump support would go via a "Sanian"-like 2NT). I doubt, however, that this could be set and expected as "Standard" Precision structure...

A prima vista sembra che resti che il contre. Tuttavia capisco il problema: per dichiarare contre + nuovo colore (=mano invitante), la mano deve avere caratteristiche di monocolore (colore sesto oppure AKQxx abche quinto), e non di semibilanciata 5332 con colore fatto da QJxxx. L'unica alternativa al contre è il passo. Nella scelta fra contre e passo, entra in ballo il tipo di competizione. Giochiamo a coppie o in duplicato? Se giochiamo in duplicato, la licita + prudente è passo: se passiamo, dificilmente rischieremo di perdere manche (se abbiamo manche, il p riaprirà, o per punteggio o per distribuzione). Tuttavia il passo rischia di perdere un buon parziale a cuori, per cui a mitchell il rischio è alto. Morale, penso che contrerei a Mitchell e passerei in dupli. ============================================= La mano illustra bene 2 punti: - lo svantaggio di usare licite con significato ambiguo (1F = bilanciata o con le fiori): estremamente vulnerabile agli interventi in barrage.ù - il fatto che queste aperture "nebulose" si sposino meglio con le "negative freebids" (overoi risposte in 2/1 costruttive passabili dopo intervento avversario)

I disagree. 1) When responder knows that 1D has diamonds, he not only wins when he can preempt, but also when he can compete for the partscore in normal competitive battles. 2) While knowing that opener has 4+ diamonds is sometimes an advantage but NEVER a disadvantage, opening BAD balanced 12 count can indeed be a disadvantage in some cases: pard can overestimate our hand, we might get trapped by opps if they hold the balance of power, etc. So opening bad 12 can be sometimes good and sometimes bad, but opening 1D with real diamonds is NEVER bad so the frequency of the NET benefits from opening natural diamonds is higher than the one of opening bad 12. 3) when 1D is NEVER balanced, the sequence 1D-1M-1NT does not show a balanced hand, and usually shows a singletonnin pard's suit; usually it shows hands with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. It is very useful to know that 1D-1M-2C is NOT canapè. Bottomline: opening light (in-quick/out quick) is certainly nice, but with bad balanced hands is not necessarily always good: willing to pay the price of occasionally passing bad 12 is not such a huge price, to improve the rest of the system.