Chamaco

I do not think so, for 2 reasons: a. as others pointed out, many limited openers find game opposite a reasonable 6-8 count, as well as opposite weaker hands with the right shape b. even if we have no game, why should we pass with a weak hand ? To let opps find the right strain to compete for the partscore ? Unless the hand is a total misfit, responding right away with weak hands, even to a limited responder, robs opps from bidding space (they have to start bidding higher, while they do not know yet whether reponder is limited or not. Of course, cautioun is mandatory in misfit hands and/or if we are vuln. It depends what the single raise mean: if it's a constructive raise (8-10 hcp or so), why not? In my expecience this is poor strategy to use the same bid for semibalanced raises and shapely raises, because we lose the forcing pass option. If responder's leap to 4M can be preemptive or semibalanced, when opps stick their 4S over our 4H, and opener has a spade void and 6H, he does not know whether responder is distributional (in which case he might sacrifice to 5H), or responder has hcp with wastage (when it's better to pass, leaving the chice to pard); in that case (opener has great shape but is not allowe to decide on his own), if opener passes, responder won't have the elements to take the decision. I think a better way to play the leap to 4M is that it ALWAYS shows 4+ support in the major, regardless of hcp, so that a distributional opener can feel free to raise to 5 if opps compete.

This can be tricky also for opps. If they use the double of 1H-(p)-1S as showing spades, they do not have it available for power hands, usually balanced. That means that, if you use 1S forcing with very wide-range (from yarborough to GF with 4 spades), you can steal much more often because opps power hands (which cannot double right away showing spades) will have to take action at the 2 level, very risky if responder is indeed not broke. :-) I tend to respond 1S forcing or 1NT forcing VERY light when NV (expect when I smell total misfit), but we play a strong club, so 1M openings are limited and if I respond with a bust, I expect pard to take off only when he has distribution (so it still works as a preempt). In this view, if responder strength can be so wide ranging, it seems more productive for opps to use the double of 1S forcing or 1NT forcing as "power double" (showing immediately values, "in-quick, out-quick"!!) rather than shapeshowing or lead directing double. Entirely different, IMO, is the matter if responder guarantees constructive values, and opps use sound opening bids: n this case, sticking in with good balanced hands can spell misfortune, so I suppose it is beter to reserve the bids for distributional hands (e.g. use double of 1S as showing spades)

Trixi, the method you refer to is similar to "Kaplan Inversion", although in KI opener rebids 1NT NOT with a balanced minimum, but with 4 spades, to cater for a potential 4-4 fit and to avoid having to bid a 2-card minor or rebid a 5.bagger. -------------------------------------- 1. yes 2. 1H:1S denies 5+ spades , may have 4 spades (opener will rebid 1NT if he hols 4 spades). 1H:1NT = 5+ spades. One of the advantages is when opps preempt and opener has a 3 card raise in spades. If bidding, natural, went 1H-(p)-1S-(3D)-?, now opener with 3 card support often faces an awkward choice, unless he is fond of Moysians. Another advantage is that opener avoids a weird rebid over 1NT forcing if he holds 4-5-2-2 (the dreaded flannery hand). Kxxx-AQxxx-Kx-xx If you open 1H and pard responds 1NT forcing, then you have a tough problem: you can't reverse to 2S, you cannot rebid H (it promises - with no exception - a 6 bagger), you should bid a 3+ card minor, but you have none... Many people would rebid 2C here, but I doubt they are happy of this choice... If instead using kaplan Inversion, the same hand is easy: 1H-1S(forcing, less than 5 spades) 1NT(=4 spades). Now the bidding can either proceed on a natural basis, or use further relays (2C) if you are a relay-addict. 3. Indeed, the use of Kaplan Inversion reduces greatly the rebid problems for Flannery-type hands, so that the 2D opener can be used more effectivley for anything else but Flannery. 4. "Classical" Kaplan Inversion uses 1H-1S-1NT to show 4 spades by opener, and 1H-1S-2m can be a 3 card minor (as in std 1NT forcing). If playing Gazzilli, you can further reverse te meaning of opener's rebid (Buratti-Lanzarotti play something like this): 1H-1S-? -1NT ="Gazzilli" relay, either with strng hand OR minimum opener with 3+ clubs -2C = 4 spades - other bids natural as if you were responding to 1NT forcing If using Gazzilli, you can use the 1H-1S-2NT sequence to show 64 by opener with a minimum hand in hcp but good shape (say 5-5.5 losers) 5. Buratti-Lanzarotti use some sort of Kaplan inversion, although they use 1H-1S and 1H-1NT to discriminate not length of spades but hcp range. 6. Some people here on the BBF wrote that KI is not allowed in ACBL events.

Nikos, all I am saying is that - if the cacophony can be turned off with a click, as the poster suggested - anyone bothered could simply be spared from the cacophony, clicking an "IGNORE PUBLIC VIEWGRAPH CHAT" button, while those interested could use the facility. Is there anything wrong ? Personally, the "only" loss is the effort of creating such channel facility by Fred and Uday, and I do believe such an option is 1st priority right now :-) But aside from that, I see nothing wrong in it.

Well, I have lived in the US for about 4 years, and I can tell you that everybody was really friendly and ready to help me as a foreigner coming to California. Actually, I might even dare to say that - at least where I lived - people seemed to be more used to be tolerant and accept other cultures than in many parts of Italy, for the very simple fact that so many people immigrate in California from every part of the world, and therefore it is becoming normal to accept and merge with other cultures. :-) So perhaps, there are also quite a bunch of Italians that could learn tolerance and hospitality from some US folks :-) Having said that, I fully agree with you when you say that many times, especially in bridge, we can act assuming th best from our fellow opponents at the table :-)

I know some Italian persons who: 1. are in their 60s, and the best they can do in speaking english is write "weack" with the "c": they cannot absolutely explain the meaning of a bid in a language different than italian; 2. they know only some complicated Canapè style Roman Club. 3. some of them are regular partners, but they are simply unable to explain the meaning of a bid using more than 2 words, simply because they DO NOT KNOW more than 2-3 words in english. What can you do whan you meet such players ? My opinion is that one can legitimately complain if you meet a player that cannot explain his bids, BUT ONLY IF IT'S A TOURNEY. In the Main Lobby, though, my guess is that one should not be bothered, simply because this behaviour is not necessarily a lack of respect or transparence. Many players SIMPLY HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BCOS THEY DO NOT KNOW WELL ENOUGH ENGLISH. Simply, if one does not like it, the best is just changing table. Things are much different if those people are native english speakers. Just my 2 cents :-)

I think the point is simply that o/e allow more complicated signaling method, encoding suit pref. Sometimes it becomes too complicated or inappropriate (suit pref is not what you want, OR it is harder to decode). Some other times, the extra info you get allow you some plus. My guess is that this evens out in the long run.

When you are used to a specific carding and you switch to another for a single tournament, it usually generates stress, because one is not used to play it regularly. A much more fair test would be: play Roman carding for a full year until both you and your pard get used to it, and then compare it to UDCA or standard :-) My guess is you'll find out that the pros/cons even out.

This sounds a bit exaggerated :-) Many players play Roman carding all the way, of course there are weird situations, but the same hapens with std or udca when uoi have only low or high cards and you miss the right card to signal. In Roman carding, an even card is a mild suit preference, but pard should try to work out the hand to verify whether it makes sense or not. When you hold only odd or only even cards, some players play that high encourages, others play that low encourages, or others play some other subtleties. The idea that odd-even should only be used for discards sounds a bit.... ODD to me ! :P

I think such an added functionality would not bother anyone: Roland and the other commentators could easily turn off the "Viewgraph Public Chat", as well as other spectators who do not care about it. At first, this sounds to me like a "no-lose" options (e.g. if one does not like it, he has the ption of shutting it off).

Many players: a. have trouble with english, so their alerts use the same lexycon as Tarzan "Me Tarzan you Jane" :P b. have similarly clumsy PC skills, so they really have no idea of how to fill the BBO cc card (some do not evcen know of the existence of such an option). I ignore whether these opps were trying to be "smart" or whether they were clumsy, but in most cases I tend to lean towards trusting them. At least I do not get angry, and the doctor told me that if I never get angry I will live longer :)

Same for me, too strong for a Namyats. I like Romex Namyats requirements

It seems to me that EW are making game only because of a magical fit ). And I think the decisions should not be based on lucky layouts: I mean, EW lost an 18-hcp game after all! I know we should not be point counters, but still, I suppose that in most deals, the prudent EW policy may lead to missing perhaps a good 3 spades contract, which is not so bad a loss at IMPS, as long as you can defeat 3D (which is the case her with a spade lead and H return). I wonder how obvious is wests overcall given that: - we are red vs white - pard is a passed hand - opps strength is still unlimited - the overcall may cause the wrong lead which might give away the contract if we defend. If pard was unpassed hand, or one pard was passed hand, I'd be more confident. Is it unreasonable to suggest that occasional such marginal games can be missed for the sake of discipline in overcalls and safety at unfavourable vuln ? :rolleyes:

Agree. I thought that unless specifically discussed this double had great probabilities to be penalty....

Gerben did you use the Babelfish translation tools ? :lol:

I dunno, here is what Kantar says (but he is alive, does it count the same ? :) ): http://www.kantarbridge.com/tips_bid.htm (see Tips #26 and higher, "Takeout double tips")

Just got fixed. At unfav vulnerability, opening 1st seat with less that 2 quick tricks may backfire. Same can be said on overcalling an empty 6 card suit. And, as others said, after the preemptive raise, E-W are fixed, it happens.

Ty very much to Ben and the panelists ! :huh:

East-West do not play Michaels, with 55 they just overcall

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq98xxh6dakxcaxxx&s=sakjtxh987dckjtxx]133|200|Scoring: MP 1S-(2H)-3H-(4H) 4S......... After no further opps bids, NS reach 6S. Opening lead: H Ace.[/hv] You play, at Matchpoints Pairs, this 6 spades contract. West leads heart Ace, then thinks a little and shifts to a spade. Assume intermediate-advanced E-W. What is the best line to approach this contract ? West has 1 trump, east 2 trumps. Thanks all! --------------- ADDED LATER: East-West do not play Michaels, with 55 they just overcall

Ty Arend ! I'll check that, in that case I have learned one more thing thanks to the BBF !! :-)

This seems weird to me. In his book "Is bridge a gambling game" (in Italian), Camillo Pabis Ticci demonstrates that, on a statistics basis, the % needed for a Gradn is about 63%+ or so (if the match situation is normal). This is regardless of whether or not the other table will bid to a small or Grand. It comes to the cost-benefit analysis that: - going down in 7 and losing a WHOLE small slam 37% of the times is about equal to - bidding 6 and making 7 (losing the difference between a Grand ans a small slam) about 63% of the times. This cost-benefit analysis applies regardles of what was bid at the other table. Of course anyone may say as well that table feel is worth much more that odds in bridge, and that would mean the immediate end of the discussion (it's like invoking God, noone knows whether he exists or not... :blink: )

Pard is allowed to hope for a useful card from us. As I was taught that Grand should be bid with 65% or better, I am not sure here we have 65%+ to make the grand, so I'll pass.

Probably the trick to avoid thse occasional unbid games is to be more aggressive as advancer when responding to a t/o double. That's what I learned in a past thread, and Ben's (Inquiry)suggestions, taken from some Kantar's tips were quite enlightening, suggesting more pushy jumpbids by advancer when he has a bunch of working points or distribution. This relieves opener from the obligation to raise with barely a decent pening and a 4 bagger. Of course there is a "shutout" effect in the immediate opener's raise, but I lean towrds the use of such competitive raises only when opps get busy.

I disagree. 1NT or 1H or 1S are all more plausible distortion of the hand than doubling (and of passing, IMO). Indeed, my choice would be 1NT, but if I had to overcall a major, I'd prefer the txture of the heart suit.