Chamaco

A set of questions here, if you use Ace = Att, K= Count. 1. what do you lead for attitude from KQxx(x) ? 2. if you lead Q for attitude from KQxx(x), what do you lead for attitude from QJ9x(x) ? 3. Does the scheme fit well with the common convention lead "Jack denies, 10/9 promises (or top of nothing)" ? Thanks a lot ! Mauro

Luke's structure may differ, but this is what I play where 1NT is 12-15 and 1♦ is guaranteed unbalanced: 1♦-1M-2♣ is natural, showing 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, diamonds as long as or longer than clubs. 1♦-1M-2♦ is 6+ diamonds, one-suited (might choose this sequence with ♣xxxx on the side). 1♦-1♥-1NT is 4+ diamonds, 5+ clubs, clubs longer than diamonds. 1♦-1♠-1NT is as after 1♦-1♥ but there are two other possibities: 1) Exactly five diamonds and four hearts and too weak to reverse and not able to raise spades. 2) 1=4=4=4 shape. Yep, that's how I play. The 2C and 2D rebids are natural (2C is never canapè, 2D always 6+ bagger and 1NT is a catchall for hands that do not have a sensible rebid: these hand types are either canapè diams/clubs OR hands with 4+ hearts that cannot reverse when responder bids 1S. The (12)13-15 1NT scheme implies passing often 11 counts and sometimes bad 12 counts. This might seem a losing proposition, but in my experience, losses have been balanced by good results, and indeed, the system had a big improvement in making the 1D opening WAY less nebulous. Both in partscore (competitive or not) and game bidding, responder's task bacame much much easier, knowing that opener is unbalanced.

So much brain work in bridge ;) I prefer an embrace to a tenace, an ocho to a nine, squeezing a (wo)man instead of squeezing dummy, to dance the sandwich rather than to bid in.... ... and crossing a step than crossing to dummy, supporting partner with arms and shoulders rather than with three cards (without a honor), inviting to dance than inviting to game, leading a lady than leading a Queen... Always with finesse :D

I think standard is (15)16-18. Indeed, from what I read, most textbooks that deal with balancing with a NT bid at the 2+ level, strongly suggest keeping the same range as in direct seat. Personally, in the balancing seat, I might balance 2NT on a good 14 count, but would not do it with good 12-13 counts.

I do not have the vocation of Don Quijote vs the windmills :) If you understand italian, you'll find this paragraph, which refers to the abovementioned forbidding of psyches in local tourneys (a definition which extends to virtually all tourneys except top-class events): ":unsure: A livello di Tornei Locali – sia Federali che Societari – è fatto divieto di effettuare psichiche volontarie di qualsiasi genere – tanto relativamente alla lunghezza dei colori che alla forza – in fase di apertura, intervento e risposta. Quale che sia stato l’esito della mano, l’Arbitro penalizzerà la coppia colpevole del 10% del top, riservandosi di risarcire la coppia innocente qualora abbia subito un danneggiamento quale diretta conseguenza dell’infrazione." "At the level of Local Tourneys, either Federal or Societary - it is forbidden to make use of voluntary psyches on any kind - both in terms of suit length as well as strength - in the phase of opening, overcall as well as as responder/advancer. Whatever the result of the hand, the Referee shall penalize the offender pair of 10% of the top, reserving the right to adjust the rsult of the offended pair, in case there have been damage as a direct consequence of the breaking of the rule" The document (Integrative notes to the International Laws of Bridge) can be found at: http://www.federbridge.it/Regolamenti/doc/...integrative.pdf The paragraph is on top of page 18

Ty FOO, hre are some additional elements of the system I play a. I play (12)13-15 1NT opening. b. 1C is 16+, excludes 55 with 16-18 hcp and 4441 17-20 hcp c. 2D is Multi = weak 2M or 17-20 hcp 4441 d. 2H = 4414/5404/(43)15, 11-15 hcp e. 2S and 2NT are openings for 4-losers 2-suiters (about 16-18 hcp if 55) f. 2/1 over 1M is absolute GF g. we do not psyche. Indeed, the most recent version of the Italian Bridge Federation explicitly forbids voluntary psyches. :unsure:

Hi all ! I play Kaplan Inversion in a Precision context, coupled with 2/1 absolutely GF Hence, we play: a. 1H:1S = 0-4 spades, strength limited to less than GF (akin to 1NT forcing) Opener rebids 1NT with 4 spades, and without 4 spades he'll rebid as ater a 1NT forcing reponse (rebid major = 6+ bagger, otherwise rebids a 3+ minor; 2NT and higher rebids are for distributional reverses, say 13-15 hcp and 64 or 55) b. 1H:1NT = 5+ spades, unlimited c. GF hands with exactly 4 spades (and without 4 card support in hearts, which wd bid 2NT) shall go via the artifiial 2C GF response (and NOT via 1S forcing, which would deny a GF). ======================================== I have noticed that some players have adopted the KI concept, but slightly modified: a. 1H:1S = 0-3 spades b. 1H:1NT = 4+ spades The question is: I believe original KI approach was to promise 5+ spades for the 1NT response, what are the pros an cons to use it to promise 4+ ? And what are the differences in its use if incorporated in the scheme I am playing now ? Any constructive suggestions will be greatly appreciated, thanks ! Mauro

Tiger, perhaps Tigrotto ! :)

I agree completely. I hate to give up neg X and use X as a transfer. That's why I play that a new suit at the 1-level is NATURAL, whereas transfers are on from 1NT through the suit below opener's suit.

Yes, this is an important point where precise agreements are needed. Here are mine: 1- NFB on for Precision 1D opening, limited and unbalanced (12+/15 balanced shall open 1NT even with 5 diamonds). NFB does not apply for 1M openers, nor after 1-level overcalls. 2- Responder is always constructive/invitational. A NFB is never made just as a shutout bid. 3- SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS ISSUE Opener is virtually forced to raise if he has a 3+ card fit (unless 4333) even with minimum hands. In the worse case scenario we are most often at a LOTT-compliant level (most often the NFB will be a 6+ bagger, so with a 3+ support, we have a 9 card fit, often resulting in the right partscore even if both opener and responder are light) This last point allows one more round of bidding to responder if he has indeed a good hand. Indeed, such scheme seems to hit quite a few marginal game contracts (21-23 hcp)that are on a finesse at most. 4- One last agreement is that opener shall pass virtually any hand with less than 3 card support, with few exceptions (Hx support AND max hcp content, or selfsufficient own suit)

This specific sequence deserves a discussion. After: 1m (1S) 2H playing NFB, when responder holds a GF hand with 5+ hearts, is better handled by cuebidding 2S so to show GF with 5+ hearts before opps can bouce to 3-4S. This is better than doubling, and reduces considerably the vulnerability to overcalls. There is somewhat less vulnerability to opps bouncing when they overcall 2m because a minor is lower ranked than our major.

this isn't the first time someone has accused justin of attacking rain... please show me where this happened or have the decency to retract it Don't accuse me of accusing Justin,show me where I accused him,not this where I stated how I read his post,or have the decency to retract it :rolleyes: sophistry... the phrase "... he attacked rain" is an accusation... Sorry to stick in here... But if Brandal's is an accusation, Justin's post too is an attack to Rain (still making use of sophistry)... Justin was simply plain wrong to post the complaint about Rain and all the moderation procedure. We can forgive him because of his age, but the tone was plain angry and bitter and aggressive... I do do think Justin is a cool guy, passionate for bridge and eager to share his golden suggestions with our community: I will never be able to thank him enough for this. But this time, IMO, he went plain wrong: I can understand forgiving posts, but not supportive posts for that reaction. Just because I like someone, it does not mean I will support him when he does something i feel wrong...

Yes, xfer then new suit at 3 level (of lower ranking) shows 46 or better (6+ in the new suit) but INVITATIONAL only, nonforcing. While this is not widespread at intermediate/advanced level, quite a few experts (e.g. playing in the nationals finals) play this way in Italy, but there are thousands of methods around,so perhaps this is not standard and miht lead to troubles to play without strict agreements. === BTW I think that this tends to work better in conjunction with some relay scheme instead of classic stayman, so it might screw up the rest of the NT structure. === Having tried it, I can only say I like it, but there are better players than myself that can assess how much this works better or not than other schemes.

We defined that this way, but we had a discussion about whether it is invitational, plain GF or slaminterested. Most of the time, you just bid 3NT with a GF hand and hope that they don't lead the M that isn't well stopped, or? In order to discuss this, it is very important to define the structure of transfers over 1NT. a. What does it mean if you xfer to a minor and then bid your major, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ? b. What does it mean if you xfer to a MAJOR and then bid your MINOR, in terms of strength (inv/GF/slammish) and promised length in the suits ? (e.g. some people, including Fantoni-Nunes, and many others in Italy, play that xfer to a major followed by showing a minor is INVITANTIONAL only, and shows 4 cards in the major and 6+ in the minor).

Happy Bday, hope you had a nice Mascarpone or Crema Catalana :(

I think that what happened is a demonstration of Uday's fear: he posted that the "Water cooler" section was becomeing more like a "Water boiler" section. Indeed, I think that the basic idea of opening a space to discuss NON-BRIDGE topics was cool, but IMO one side effect seems to have become that some people , directly or indirectly, have perceived this opening sort of like "opening the gates" for any nonsense... :( (This is just in general, I am not referring to Justin's attitude- just to make it clear) BTW, I think that, generally speaking, the moderators have done a great job so far to keep the BB Forum safe from flame wars and other nonsense we can read in other unmoderated forums. It is true that most often flame wars just fade away on their own, but, still, the quality of the discussion here is by far more appealing.

I agree with the concept of a NFB having a narrow range of strength so that opener can judge whether to move forward or not. It's just that I like to keep that range between "constructive" and "invitational" rather than being closer to a shutout bid. I also agree on the concept that the hcp content is also not critical, and that the hcp requirements decrease as responder has more shape. That's why I prefer to define the requirements in terms of "losers" (using a sort of LTC) rather than hcp.

I play: 1. Limited openings (Precision) 2. Transfer response after a 1-level overcall 3. NFB after a 2-level overcall Requirements for a NFB: a. Good and/or long suit (pard will pass with 1-2 trumps) b. NOT A BAD hand: NFB is constructive, say 8-9 losers, and includes invitational hands. c. NFB occurs only at level 2 (level 3 always GF) d. we play NFB only after 1D opener (not 1M) What does responder do with a GF hand ? a. Nondescript hand (no good suit, no extra shape): it doubles b. Single suiter: bids at 3 level c. 2 suiters: cuebids d. good hands with support: FJS Obligation of opener after a NFB: Opener ALWAYS raises with 3+ card support. With extra shape and/or good controls etc etc, he might choose to raise directly to game. If opener makes a simple raise, responder shall take the final decision. What does responder do with a real bad hand ? (say 10+ losers) If overcall was at level 1, he'll transfer, but if overcall was at level 2 he shall pass. Oh well, I know bridge is a bidder's game, but some times passing is not a tragedy What about the problem of "dumping all good hands in the double" ? This is not strictly true: this will occur only after a 2-level overcall, AND, it will happen for hands WITHOUT specific shape/honors concentration. So yes, we lose the chance to show a featureless 5 card suit, but often this is not a tragedy...

Not only that... in order to allow for a balancing double, West should pass in tempo, otherwise an appeal by NS would be quite reasonable... :)

Good problem, at least for me. I am afraid that, if I were West, I'd pass, because xxx in clubs is bad AND Qx in hearts is also a weakness. Furthermore, I am also afraid that holding East's card I would not reopen: despite having a quasi-perfect shape for a balancing double, the hcp content is not enough. Not every single hand tha has a singleton in opps suit is strong enoigh to reopen, and - at least at the 3 level - below a given hcp threshold, it is safer to pass. Hence, I tend to think that at my table the final contract would be 3C undoubled... sigh...

With this hand, I would not bid either between 3NT and 3C; I'd bid 3D, showing a max reverse, and being the most descriptive bid showing my fragment.

I do not understand which denial you are referring here ;) If you mean that we can indeed complain because of the violent reaction to our violence, fine, we can, but that would be rather paradoxical: the situation would be like a boxer complaining because the other boxer refuses to stand still and be kicked until the KO :-) And in this battle there are no rules, we cannot say that arabs "play dirty", they use the only ways to react they have: self-sacrifice. Don't get me wrong, I do not support the use of violence from neither part: I am just stating that everytime we bomb one country we automatically increase the number of future kamikaze who will attempt terrorist attacks against us. Working for peace without violence is, in my opinion, the way to go.

The point is that most of these kids are not "sent", they are volunteers. Everytime one country bombs another country- and recently mostly arab countries - we kill thousands of mothers, fathers , brothers and sisters. We create entire generations of orphans: if I were one of these kids, that has lost parents and brothers from the western countrry bombing, I would have one only goal in my life-> to kill those who destroyed my family, even at the cost of my life. Yes, if I were one of them I might be a kamikaze against who destroyed my family. That would be human, and I believe most people would become violent if someone else killed his wife or kids or parents, no matter for what reasons. My point is: EVERYTIME WE BOMB ONE COUNTRY, NO MATTER FOR WHAT REASON, WE CREATE A GENERATION OF POTENTIAL KAMIKAZE, WHOSE ONLY GOAL IN LIFE WILL BE TO KILL US, BY EVERY MEAN. HATRED GENERATES HATRED, VIOLENCE GENERATES VIOLENCE. We cannot complain if kamikaze attacks us with the only means they have (kamikaze attacks) if we have no scruples bombing them, especially when we all know most of the issue revolves around oil and not humanitarian reasons.

Here are my thoughts, and I shall appreciate a lot any feedback from the BB Friends: My main philosophy about passing these hand types is "Pass only if you are planning to convert pard's reopening double. If I have to find an awkward bid over pard's DBL, then I'd rather bid 2NT right away". Having said that, I think I'd bid 2NT at unfavourable vulnerability, but I would pass at any other vulnerability, not fearing to convert pard's double: my hand has slow tricks all over the place, which should hopefully guarantee the tricks we need in the side suits... I expect to set the contract by 2+ tricks, which in the worst case scenario means 300 vs 400 or 500 vs 600 (excluding the case of unfav vuln, where inded I'd bid 2NT right away)

This issue is a very old one and indeed a very difficult one. The coexistence of groups with different habits and culture is relatively easy where the spaces are large and the communities can choose to have a parallel life, basically limiting the mutual contact. But in cities where people from different cultures are forced to share the same buildings or blocks or streets, with daily conflicts, then problems can arise. In my opinion it is not a matter of legality nor of economy, but a natural fact of nature: even between animals it works that way, groups that happen to live in the same area often shall end up battling for the ground, feeling or threatening an "invasion". As much as we try not to behave like animals, the istinct is nevertheless there, and frequent tensions ensue in the facts of our society. This is not ireversible however, and in the instances where the people learn to know and respect each other's habit, often the fear and agressivity drops down, and the seed of a real community is sown.