Chamaco

Sure. I was supporting your point with specific arguments.

In realtà à molto semplice: Buratti e Lanzarotti in un incontro a squadre contro una squadra israeliana sono stati accusati di barare. Hanno chiamato un 6 quadri (chiamato da tutti), e l'israeliano dice che quando lanzarotti ha meso giu' le carte del morto, ha chinato la testa per guardargli le carte e lui non ha fatto nulla per nasconderle. Dopodichè Lanzarotti ha cominciato a tamburellare con 3 dirta sull'avambracio sinistro, cosa che gli israeliani hanno ritenuto un segnale, pocichè Buratti ha giocato le atout in maniera innaturale: con J9xxx/AKxx ha fatto girare il J invece che battere AK. Questa è una linea sotto chance, ma come giustamente hanno fatto notare altri americani, essendo sotto nel match, era obbligatorio giocare la linea inferiore, per cercare di recuperare il match. Se Buratti avesse giocato esattamente come all'altro tavolo (battendo AK), il board (il penultimo el match) sarebbe stato pari e il team Lavazza avrebbe perso comunque. Sta di fatto che nella mano in questione la giocata del J di quadri è l'unica che realizza lo slam, nonostante sia sotto chance

It's hard to define B-D and B-L as "friends". Some years ago, Buratti Lanzarotti went to play with the national team of Spain because they felt unfairly excluded from the Blue Team and it's easy to imagine this does not do good to their relationship with other top italians. "Rivalry" (hope this is the correct term in english, check out on Babelfish "rivalità", the italian word ;) ) is a better term. BTW I have very high consideration of Lanzarotti, not because he is italian (there are a few other italian players for which I would not say the same thing). Just my 2 cents

cos'è successo esattamente ? ------------------------------------ Ok, ho letto sul forum inglese.

I am no expert, however, these are my comments, I suppose any agreement is better than no agreement at all, so here I go. One can use for this and many other question you pose, the approach used by Mike Lawrence: many example hands are in his "2/1 workbook" and "The uncontested auction", as well as his 2/1 CD, sold, among others, also by Bridgebase. I like the agreement that the 3m raise by responder guarantees decent trumps ( Hxx or xxxx or better) , and a good hand, evaluated as a nonminimum opener, either for shape of hcp. An 11 count or a crappy 12 count would not raise, but a good 11-12 count with good controls can raise. It's a matter of overall hand quality I play that suit bids are natural, whereas 2M rebid is catchall. Matter of agreement. It makes sense, IMO to use a single jump to show a splinter, IMO 2/3 different approaches. 1. The most "natural" is to use 2NT as minimax = 12-14 bal, OR 18-20 bal, and 3NT = 15-17 bal 2. use 2M as a catchall, basically as a sort of relay, with many hands, including strong balanced 3. same as 2. but using first step as a relay 3-level suit bids can be ambiguous = either NT probes or cuebids if a minor suit was agreed. Opener may splinter by jumping to the 3 level after pard's 2C. Responder can splinter after opener's raise to 3C, by jumping to 4D (unless agreed as Kickback) or 4oM. Responder will never splinter with singleton in the major opened by pard.

when you are so strong and they have opened 9-11 NT, pard will seldom have the values for a balancing t/o. To await reopening when u are so strong is like dreaming (yes, I love to dream too , but not at the bridge table ;) )

Should pard pass rather than double holding: AKx-AQx-Jxx-KQxx ?

Hmm. If we need 3 tricks from spades, the best % play is spade Ace then low to the Q. This line has better % of not losing 2 spades, and with 3 sure spades tricks, I would win in the cases you mention (H 33 or club ace in east) . It seems that I might take advantage of the dummy entry for playing clubs instead of spades ? ?

Attitude lead is like 4th best lead but it's always the lowest card, independently of suit length. Can be Hxxx(xxx), no info on suit texture/length exept it promises at least a honor, usually at least one of the top 3, but on occasion might be coming from JTxx(xxx)

Robinson's "Washington standard" is a fairly complete book, and relatively modern. However, it totally lacks the soul of Mike Lawrence's 2/1 workbook (and of the 2/1 CD). Mike Lawrence is telling us a story when he writes a book on bidding, and he is educating our bidding judgment. Much, much better. The same cannot be said of Robinson's book (which is good enough for people who only want a system book). FYI, Lawrence's 2/1 is not 100% GF: suit rebid by responder may show invitational hand with great suit.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saj43hqt6d2cq8543&s=sq95hak72daq53ck6]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South - - - 1♣! Pass 2♣! Pass 2NT Pass 3♠ Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass! Bidding notes: 1C = Precision, 16+ 2C = 5+ clubs, 8-12 hcp other bids = natural Opening lead: 2 of diamonds = attitude lead from unknown length. What is the best play ?

No. This depends a lot fronm the rest of the system. Playing the way described by OSH, (2NT/3NT responder's rebid is invitational/GF with 4 trumps only, pass or correct for opener), I like to raise with any 3 card raise (except 4333), because it does not commit absolutely to a suit contract. In other words, you risk playing in a Moysian fit (4-3) only at the 2 level. INSTEAD, some people play that after 1m:1M:2M, next step is a relay asking for shape, and there is no way to play in 2NT. Using such a scheme, which forces toi play a suit contract, even a 43 firt at the 3-4 level, it is more effective for opener to raise with suit-oriented hands, e.g. hands with shortness OR semibalanced hands with weak doubleton and/or 2 unstopped suits, and/or lack of tenaces and slow tricks. This is the key issue you need to decide. Let's say 1♣:1♠:2♠: ? If now 2NT is "natural", then opener may raise more freely with 3 trumps. If 2NT is relay ask, then opener is better advised to raise with 3 cards only if the hand is suit oriented. To have good play in a Moysian fit, the hand with 3 trumps should either: - be short in the weak suit to avoid losing control - have a long strong side suit, to use as "substitute trumps". Also, texture of the suits, and quality of the controls is important. Hands with many AK's are good for suit contracts, hands with many QJ109's and many tenaces are best for NT.

Mike Lawrence says that , when opps preempt, and noone else bids, you can usually rely on 7+ "normal" hcp from partner. Of couse, sometime he does not have it, some other times he might have even more than that, but "on balance" that's what he will have. The question now is: if pard contributes 7 "nondescript" hcp, do we want to bid game or try and set the contract ? In this specific hand, I am a 4S bidder.

Certo, e so anche che lo sai meglio di me :blink: Ma sempre meglio spiegarlo, in funzione degli altri (purtroppo solo eventuali) lettori del forum Gia' sono relativamente in pochi a sapere cosa è "realmente" standard, e se si propone un accordo diverso dallo standard- per quanto efficace - è importtantissimo evidenziare a caratteri cubitali che si tratta di accordi da discutere, e che in assenza di discussione, il significato è ben diverso. In caso contrario, non sarebbe nè la prima nè l'ultima volta che qualcuno assume "standard" quello che gli è stato raccontato al circolo o sul forum, o dove vuoi tu, solo perchè non era stato spiegato chiaramente che non si tratta di un accordo standard.

I think I remember reading somewhere to use 2NT (over a natural 1NT overcall) as a forcing raise, basically using 2NT as a "cuebid". But maybe I am just dreaming: is there anyone using such approach?

Credo che , come minimo, questo approccio richieda una discussione preliminare, in quanto si discosta dalle sequenze di contre informaztivo "tradizionali", in cui DBL + nuovo colore, ANCHE A LIVELLO, mostra mano semiforzante. La Equal Level Conversion ha una sua validità (anche se personalmente preferisco risolvere il rpoblema principale, ovvero le mani con 4a nobile + minore luingo, con l'intervento convenzionale doi 1SA "Raptor"), ma - come tutte le convenzioni non-standard - non puo' essere usata senza una discussione preliminare.

I think 2 reasonable treatments: a. takeout oriented, some H tolerance b. cooperative/penalty oriented, usually a hand that could not act previously because of club length. Does not necessarily have a diamond stack

Sono situazioni diverse. 1) 2♥-X-p-3♣ A questo punto, usando Lebensohl, la risposta diretta 3♣ è invitante e non puo' venire da mano bianca. In questo caso, il cambio di colore del contrante è "solo" forcing manche, e non mostra necessarianmente una mano bomba, proprio xchè il compagno ha promesso qualcosa. 2) 1♠ dbl pass 2♣ pass 2♦ In questo caso, giocando nello stile classico, l rilicita 2♦ del contrante mostra mano bomba, poichè, (a differenza delle sequenze lebensohl), uil compagno puo' ancora avere mano (semi)bianca anche se dice 2 fiori. Aldo propone l'uso della "Equal level conversion" (ELC) , cjhe implica che un cambio di colore del contrante non mostra extras, se eseguito allo stesso livello della risposta del compagno. Questo è specialmente utile per le mani con 4a nobile + minore lungo. Tuttavia, ATTENZIONE!! Anche chi usa regolarmente la ELC, tende ad usarla *SOLO a livello 2*. In altre parole, DBL seguirto da nuovo colore a livello 3 è SEMPRE mano bomba.

Happy birthday Mike(777) !! :lol: Wow, lots of birthdays these days, how come no cakes around ?!?! :rolleyes:

Opposite unpassed pard, I open this a Namyats. If we do not play namyats, I'll open 1S, unlikely to be passed out. If pard is PASSED HAND, then I open 4S.

La cosa importante è: (2♥)-DBL-(pass)-3♣ Che forza mostra la risposta 3 fiori ? Siamo tutti d'accordo che neghi le picche, ma puo' essere mano bianca o mano costruttiva (8-9 p.o.) ? La convenzione lebensohl serve proprio per poter discriminare la forza in queste sequenze. Usando il 2SA Lebensohl, la risposta DIRETTA a livello 3, mostra 8-9 p.o. (a volte anche 7 belli), mentre dichiarare 2SA è convenzionale, ed obbliga il contrante a dichiarare 3 fiori automatico con tutte le mani che non sono da rovescio. Sul 3 fiori automatico, se il rispondente ha le fiori, passa, se dichiara un altro colore, è debole a passare. La Lebensohl completa ha diverse altre sfumature per distinguere le mani forti, ma non mi sembra il caso di approfondire in questa sede. Questo accordo a cui ti riferisci viene chiamato "Equal level conversion" (ELC), e oraticamente implica che se il contrante dichiara un nuovo colore ALLO STESSO livello della risposta del compagno, NON sta mostrando mano da rovescio, ma sta solo correccgendo la risposta del p. La ELC serve per quelle mani con distribuzione "antipatica2, spesso con 4a nobile e 5a o 6a minore. Puo' essere uno strumento valido, ma se usato da copie normali, che non hanno discusso a fondo e sequenze, richia a mio avviso di creare piu' casino che altro... ;)

Buon compleanno ;)

To complete this discussion, how do you play the direct seat opener's double ? 1N - pass - pass - 2x DBL It seems to me that if phil's sequence is for takeout, this one should be for takeout too :-)

Because with a 55 2-suiter I open 2C if, and only if I have at least 10 absolutely SURE tricks in hand. With only 9 sure tricks and a 2-suiter, I will open 1 of a suit, I hate opening 2C with 2 suiters: second suit is always lost with normal methods, and other more accurate method (a la Chris Ryall) are soldom agreeable quickly with most partners. Basically, with a 2 suiter, I will try and look for any reason to avoid opening 2C. Moreover, in the sequence 1H-(p)-1S-(3/4m), if opener is 5431 or 6421 short in their suit and with some 20 hcp and good textures, slam can depend only on RKCB, even if we opened at the 1 level.

Not sure you are refering too.. I am pretty sure he was referring to the post by "SoTired", which stated: "For me, the subject of this thread is correct: "...the idiot passes" and since they said it, I think I can repeat it without a violation. Only an idiot would pass an artificial, near game-force 2C opener. ......... " And then he goes on with other quite strong claims.